Ascetic Rogue [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ascetic Rogue [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
twistdmage
06-13-07, 11:10 PM In the Feat List description of Ascetic Rogue (Complete Adventurer), it states you may stack levels of Monk and Rogue for Sneak Attack and Unarmed Strike damage. But in the full Benefits description, it only mentions Unarmed Strike damage. Is this a type-o by Wizards?
Dheran
06-14-07, 03:56 AM The one-line summary of the feat on page 104 is misleading. In the online feat list (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) that summary has been replaced with the following: You have gone beyond the bounds of your monastic training to incorporate new modes of stealthy combat.
Egres
06-14-07, 08:14 AM When you find a disagreement between two D&DŽ rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry.

Hope it helps.
twistdmage
06-14-07, 10:18 AM Unfortunately, that still leads me back to square one. There is no errata, the Feats Index page is even more vague than the original Short Description, and Hillary Clinton still sucks. I just want to know if the Ascetic Rogue feat allows Rogue and Monk levels to stack to determine Sneak Attack damage, as the Short Description in Complete Adventurer implies, even though the full description doesn't mention ANY bonus to rogue, unlike all the other Ascetic Feats, and despite the short descrip.
tarkin
06-14-07, 10:55 AM When a list and a description differ, you ALWAYS go with the full description.

The list is wrong.

What almost certainly happened was:

They wrote up an original test version of the feat, put it in the book, added it to the list, then playtested.

After playtesting, they re-wrote the feat, changing the actual description.

But they forgot to fix the list.

This occured several times, for several feats.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
twistdmage 06-13-07, 11:10 PM	In the Feat List description of Ascetic Rogue (Complete Adventurer), it states you may stack levels of Monk and Rogue for Sneak Attack and Unarmed Strike damage. But in the full Benefits description, it only mentions Unarmed Strike damage. Is this a type-o by Wizards?
Dheran 06-14-07, 03:56 AM	The one-line summary of the feat on page 104 is misleading. In the online feat list (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats) that summary has been replaced with the following: You have gone beyond the bounds of your monastic training to incorporate new modes of stealthy combat.
Egres 06-14-07, 08:14 AM	When you find a disagreement between two D&DŽ rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. Hope it helps.
twistdmage 06-14-07, 10:18 AM	Unfortunately, that still leads me back to square one. There is no errata, the Feats Index page is even more vague than the original Short Description, and Hillary Clinton still sucks. I just want to know if the Ascetic Rogue feat allows Rogue and Monk levels to stack to determine Sneak Attack damage, as the Short Description in Complete Adventurer implies, even though the full description doesn't mention ANY bonus to rogue, unlike all the other Ascetic Feats, and despite the short descrip.
tarkin 06-14-07, 10:55 AM	When a list and a description differ, you ALWAYS go with the full description. The list is wrong. What almost certainly happened was: They wrote up an original test version of the feat, put it in the book, added it to the list, then playtested. After playtesting, they re-wrote the feat, changing the actual description. But they forgot to fix the list. This occured several times, for several feats.