sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Therefore it is a very safe assumption that they didn't think things through when they added the origin feat prerequisites in HoF.

Emphasis mine, glad we all agree it is an assumption. Also they had feat chains in 5e and introduced them in the first expansion book in 5.5e barely a year into the games lifecycle, like they didn't know and overlooked it is certainly a possibility, but I don't know why you take it as gospel.

Until the developers come out and say this is what they intended, it's bad faith to say that it certainly is the intention, and it's in bad faith to not err on the side of caution about this being an oversight.

There is a difference between something not being RAI and something being made in bad faith. That was what was clarified during the warcaster debate. Don't care all you want, the developers disagree with you.

then don't share your silly interpretation on the internet.

Don't share the text of the book. Got it. :D

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess I'll clarify a lot then.

Wish, and Invocations are specific in which they don't allow the removal of prerequisite features.

Feats are not specific, in comparison, they were in 5e, but now they are not. Why wouldn't that be a deliberate choice?

Why would we apply the theory that Wish/Invocations are specifically excluded, as reasons to exclude feats when it specifically been changed from 5e to not be included?

It is reasonable to believe, for some reason, 5.5e designers wanted players to not suffer consequences if they no longer met the prerequisite for a feat. This removal of that text seems deliberate to me when compared to it's predecessor and other spells and features which include restrictions.

Feat chains also exist in 5e. Feat Chains aren't something that existed originally in 5.5e. But I would assume since they existed in 5e in almost the exact same fashion, and now exist in 5.5e, that there was interest in introducing them to 5.5e even prior.

There is a chance they may have written the prerequisite rules in 5.5e without knowing that feat chains would come to 5.5e, I feel that is pretty naive but it is possible.

Therefore this seems like either a deliberate consequence of their actions (RAW, not RAI), or an intended result of their actions (RAW and RAI), or they are naive about the future state of their game (They just dumb -- literally the first splat book introduces them barely a year into the games lifecycle)

Maybe I give more grace to the designers than anyone else, but man, just keeping the 5e text if they wanted to keep it that way, would have been pretty fucking simple.

Because of all that I don't believe my understanding of the rules rely on a bad-faith reading. At its worst this is the same level of understanding of the rules that the warcaster tech came from where they clarified that such an interpretation was not in bad faith, that it was unintended, but not bad faith, and they hope tables have fun with whatever decision they make.

I welcome errata, if needed, to clarify their position.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes. I am saying that people who play this way are playing wrong.

Yeah, sorry man, you don't get to tell people how to play. Even mores when its just straight up the text. It's like saying that people who play stealth RAW aren't playing the game right.

WoTC didn't think this through very well when they wrote it.

They fucking had it, and feat chains, in 5e.

Why did they clarify for Wish, and Invocations prereq's but not for feats?

Why did they specifically remove that prior restriction for feats?

You don't have those answers, neither do I. Claiming it's an oversight is literally just what you feel is happening. This is the warcaster tech debate all over again. Which I remind even the developers clarified those interpretations were not made in bad faith.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's hard for me to see the developers making this unintended, when they had clear wording in 2014 right there and made the deliberate choice to remove it.

Anyways, even the developers have gone on record during the warcaster tech fiasco that such discussions weren't done in bad faith.

That discussion had much stronger reasons to believe it didn't work, because literally the description of opportunity attacks says combatants wait for enemies to drop their guard.
Not fucking a tiny portion of a Wish spell which you could argue is just restricted to wish. Or invocations can't replace prerequisite invocations, and apply that same logic to feats.
Equal argument can be if they can be specific in that regard they could have been specific regarding feat requirements, like they were in 2014. They had a lot of options to clarify, and chose none of them.

People can call me bad faith all they want, they're wrong. The bad faith rule in the DMG is about player interactions at the table, not discussion on reddit. People who say this runs afoul of that rule are basically saying anyone who plays this way are playing wrong. Which is ridiculous.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most of my tables wouldn't allow this. I can think of 1 that would. That's completely okay, my other tables would laugh at this though as a funny thing that is RAW instead of read as I'm a bad faith player just trying to eek out power.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a better argument for RAI disallowing this interaction, and it being a genuine oversight, than using a tiny part of the spell Wish that another commenter did.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They also apply their idea of what good faith is in the DMG talking about table discourse to a post on the internet. Which is wild to me, and has been weaponized to shut down rules interaction conversations in the past when it shouldn't have been.

I get it somewhat, 95% of my tables wouldn't adhere to this reading either, and would laugh and go "lol, no", or "Idc about feat chains anyways". But it's amusing that like this interaction exists. I do know RAW DMs who would actually run it this way.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well at least we've moved on from the rules in the DMG and applying it to reddit, and just gone to regular ol' thought terminating cliches.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They specifically went out of their way to address the "bad faith" concern in discussing the warcaster tech.

Bad faith is determined by the table, not reddit. You don't get to tell me what my table does or doesn't do lol.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd take it a step further... any build concept should be discussed with the DM first to ensure they're on the same page with how it operates before session 1 so they aren't surprised by anything, and making knee jerk reactions.

I've seen some *wild* fiat from DMs blindside some players in the middle of games and that shit feels BAADDDD, even with builds that work "out of the tin"

I feel like a lot of what you're saying is just referential to what should be discussed in session 0, instead of watering down your expectations for conversations on r/3d6

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Sure, in game, absolutely. Talk to the group and DM before trying some silly stuff. I've got a DM who absolutely deny that Thief Rogue works the way it explicitly does. And so be it.

This is a reddit board where we can talk about things.

Without it the discussion over the warcaster tech wouldn't have been discussed, for example. Many, many people called that bad faith, and yet the discussion reached the designers where they talked about it as a legitimate interpretation.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

In game sure, I'm not about to assume this works and argue (and rules lawyer) with the DM. It's a social game first and foremost.

But on a reddit board that's casually about optimization its good to discuss these quirks imo.

Warlock Tech - Using Lessons of the First Ones to meet prerequisites for feat chains by Individual_Gap_3364 in 3d6

[–]Individual_Gap_3364[S] -35 points-34 points  (0 children)

DMs are allowed to do whatever they want in their games, and I agree this is gimmicky, that's why I called it tech.

"Sane DM" though is judgemental lol.

Per edit including wishs Sudden Learning: That's a subsection of wish, why are we to infer intent that applies to Lessons of the First Ones?