Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BlindKobold" data-source="post: 48733" data-attributes="member: 1375">You are looking at only half of the equation is the problem.  And actually referring to FEINT, as opposed to Quicker than the Eye since obviously Quicker than the Eye is in S&S, not PHB.The confusion, I'm guessing, is coming from the fact that expert tactician states that ANYTIME an opponent is denied their DEX bonus, you can make an extra attack.  It further states that this attack can happen BEFORE or after your normal action.  Therefore, which really comes first?For example....ME - I use Quicker than the Eye and succeed.Action - I go to attack... whoops... he's denied his DEX, therefore Expert Tactician IMMEDIATELY kicks in.  I can now make an attack BEFORE the attack I just started to make, then finish by making the attack I started.  True?There is no point to this statement that I can see.  As Expert Tactician states, ANYTIME an opponent is denied their DEX, you can make an attack.... the attack may be BEFORE or AFTER your normal action.Again...ME - Quicker than the EyePartial - Start to do a partial action --- EXPERT TACTICIAN steps in and grants me an attack BEFORE or AFTER this current action.  I agree (as I stated in my previous post) that until something official does come out, the sage HAS set a precedent that two partials can be combined into a full.As far as the Sage not releasing errata... the DnD FAQ is considered errata I believe, or at least the "official" interpretation of the rules.  If you compare the errata with the sage advice column, you will find many word for word sections.  Therefore, it can be concluded that either A) The sage does release errata, or B) The sage releases official interpretations of rules.  He is not the ONLY person who does, but it's obvious that he has a huge part in the FAQ at least.I agree with this.True... it's also a special case rule that is outside and beyond normal attacks.And as you state, the description SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT IS NOT AN EXTRA PARTIAL ACITON.  The description for Expert Tactician does not explicitly state it is not an extra partial action.  However, as I stated earlier, I would tend to agree, having re-read the S&F errata that it does not, in fact, grant a partial action.Well, since I wasn't COMPLETELY wrong... just PARTIALLY wrong...you DID misuse it.  It's ok for you to be wrong.... really...Anyway... I am done bantering semantics with you.  I have to get back to work.</blockquote>

Verification