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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 2152234" data-attributes="member: 2525">Naw, I am on the high ground on this one.  There are 3 people who are supporting the strictest intepretation, and I strongly suspect 2 of them are doing it just to support the underdog and be the devils advocate.  They have not really weighed in like you have...just basically made a comment or two here and there to further the discussion.You, on the other hand, have declared your opinion to be the only possible correct opinion...and that is where I think the whole high and mighty thing becomes a meaningful critique.It's in a place where the actual benefits of the feat come from, and specifcally mentioned by page and title in the feat itself.  All rules are optional.  The author gives an example of something that IS allowed by the feat.  There is no indication at all that the author is giving you an example of something he thinks is NOT allowed by the feat as written.  Are you arguing differently?Again, all rules are optional.  There is nothing more or less optional about what the author writes there.  The author clearly thinks BOTH are within the spirit and letter of the feat, and leaves it to the DM to choose which they prefer.  At the point where YOU claim that something the author wrote is somehow a house rule when used to interpret other parts of the very feat in question is where I say you have intpreted things too extremely.  There is a difference between a situation where two DMs are interpreting a rule in two different and reasonable ways based on some vagueness in the rule, and a situation where one DM intprets the rule as written and another uses a house rule.  In the first situation, you can in fact interpret a rule two different ways without one of them having to be a house rule.  Until the author makes their intent known by publushing errata or something in the FAQ, both should be considered the rule itself, and not a house rule.  My problem was that you've made it pretty clear in this thread that you think anyone who interprets the rule in any way that varies from your personal interpretation must by definition be making a house rule.</blockquote>

Verification