RUn feat and exp. retreat

[Tar-Edhel]

Just a very simple question: when you have the run feat and someone casts expeditious retreat on me, will I move my (base land speed +30)*5?

Might sound like an obvious question butI've ben arguing for two days with my DM...

 

[kreynolds]

Yes. The Run feat doesn't not increase your maximum speed using an enhancement. It simply increases your speed modifier from 4 to 5.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Exactly my thoughts. But my DM's objection is based on the Run feat text: you move 5 times your normal speed. For him., normal is what you get without feats or magic. And since 'normal' is not a game term (doesn't figure in the glossay), I don't kow what argument to use anymore.

But thanks!

 

[kreynolds]

But my DM's objection is based on the Run feat text: you move 5 times your normal speed. For him., normal is what you get without feats or magic. And since 'normal' is not a game term (doesn't figure in the glossay), I don't kow what argument to use anymore.

But your DM's objection is pretty baseless. The word "normal" in the feat is interchangeable with "base". ER increases your "base" speed, or "normal" speed, by +30 feet. Thus, the "base" or "normal" speed for an unencumbered human is now 60 feet. I really don't see any justification for his objection in the wording of the feat, the mechanics of the feat, and not even in the intent of the feat.

Generally, if logic fails, find a new DM.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

But your DM's objection is pretty baseless. The word "normal" in the feat is interchangeable with "base". ER increases your "base" speed, or "normal" speed, by +30 feet. Thus, the "base" or "normal" speed for an unencumbered human is now 60 feet. I really don't see any justification for his objection in the wording of the feat, the mechanics of the feat, and not even in the intent of the feat.

Honestly, neither do I. But unfortunately, I already tried those arguments... He's thick headed

Generally, if logic fails, find a new DM.

He's a good DM, despite his obsession with balance and his fear that we will exploit the game mercilessly.

In fact, he usually try to rule out some potential abuse because he knows HE won't be able to resist min/maxing

 

[kreynolds]

Honestly, neither do I. But unfortunately, I already tried those arguments... He's thick headed

And beyond help, apparently. I generally won't argue beyond simple logic. If someone doesn't get it by then, I'm pretty much done with 'em. I'm sure someone else here can give you some more advice though.

Sorry I couldn't help more.

He's a good DM, despite his obsession with balance and his fear that we will exploit the game mercilessly.

Hm. Well, I'm not known for being very forgiving.

EDIT: I'm sure he is indeed a good DM. I'm just having a crappy morning at work (missing a shipment of about $900 worth of hardware and software), so just ignore anything negative that I say.