Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5505092" data-attributes="member: 4937">You fail college.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />More seriously, this doesn't address the OP's original question since my rewrite was obviously intended to achieve a certain result which may or may not have been the intention of the two original feats.&nbsp; Personally, I find both feat had ideas that were clunky to word in such a way that they didn't create ambiguities in how they acted.&nbsp; For example, what if we had another feat (Feat #4) that said, &quot;You may add your dexterity bonus to damage when attack with bows.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Does Feat #1 allow you to use your intelligence modifier when attacking with bows when in combination with Feat #4?&nbsp; To me this is even more ambigious than its interaction with Feat #2, because of the wording, &quot;when making a ranged attack, you use your Int modifer instead of Dex&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Only when reworded in the highly clunky and technical way I reworded it, do you come up with the answer, &quot;No.&quot;... which may or may not be the intention of the writer of Feat #1.&nbsp; (See now why I say your example doesn't answer the question?)I also believe that both Feat #1 and Feat #2 are broken as written and would allow neither in my game.&nbsp; That's because they both encourge the use of 'God Stats'.&nbsp;&nbsp; Any time that a character can be made in which all or most of what he does depends on one attribute rather than many, it's a potential problem.&nbsp;&nbsp; Feat #3, while it allows for slightly more power initially, worries me less in the long run.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm more worried about the character with 20 Int and 8 Dex that takes Feat #1, than I am about the character with 16 Int and 16 Dex (who gets no benefits from Feat #1) that takes Feat #3.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5505092, member: 4937"] You fail college. ;) More seriously, this doesn't address the OP's original question since my rewrite was obviously intended to achieve a certain result which may or may not have been the intention of the two original feats. Personally, I find both feat had ideas that were clunky to word in such a way that they didn't create ambiguities in how they acted. For example, what if we had another feat (Feat #4) that said, "You may add your dexterity bonus to damage when attack with bows." Does Feat #1 allow you to use your intelligence modifier when attacking with bows when in combination with Feat #4? To me this is even more ambigious than its interaction with Feat #2, because of the wording, "when making a ranged attack, you use your Int modifer instead of Dex" Only when reworded in the highly clunky and technical way I reworded it, do you come up with the answer, "No."... which may or may not be the intention of the writer of Feat #1. (See now why I say your example doesn't answer the question?) I also believe that both Feat #1 and Feat #2 are broken as written and would allow neither in my game. That's because they both encourge the use of 'God Stats'. Any time that a character can be made in which all or most of what he does depends on one attribute rather than many, it's a potential problem. Feat #3, while it allows for slightly more power initially, worries me less in the long run. I'm more worried about the character with 20 Int and 8 Dex that takes Feat #1, than I am about the character with 16 Int and 16 Dex (who gets no benefits from Feat #1) that takes Feat #3. [/QUOTE]

Verification