Errata for Ascetic Rogue (C. Adv)? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Errata for Ascetic Rogue (C. Adv)? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
evangelion1010
10-26-07, 09:22 AM Hey,

I just checked the official errata and noticed that none existed for this feat...

If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says that it allows your monk levels to combine with your rogue levels for determining SA damage, and that you can do a trick with SA and unarmed strike. The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick.

This might not be too convincing, but if we take a look at complete scoundrel, we find daring outlaw, which advances grace and SA for both of those classes, and has a similar description.

Has this been brought up before? Is there any official ruling on it?
deathbane
10-26-07, 10:49 AM Hey,

I just checked the official errata and noticed that none existed for this feat...

If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says that it allows your monk levels to combine with your rogue levels for determining SA damage, and that you can do a trick with SA and unarmed strike. The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick.

This might not be too convincing, but if we take a look at complete scoundrel, we find daring outlaw, which advances grace and SA for both of those classes, and has a similar description.

Has this been brought up before? Is there any official ruling on it?

There is no errata needed. If you read the paragraph under the feat it gives you a set increase to to a certain monk ability. You don't get anymore increases to that ability through the feat other than what is in the paragraph.
LSMFT
10-26-07, 11:18 AM The rule is "Text over tables."

The text of the feat and the table conflict in this case, but by the RAW, the text is right. No SA advancement.
deathbane
10-26-07, 12:04 PM The rule is "Text over tables."

The text of the feat and the table conflict in this case, but by the RAW, the text is right. No SA advancement.

I completely misunderstood the OP. I thought he was talking about something else.

To the OP: The feats in complete scoundrel give you the benefits of one class, not both. There probably should be errata, but as it stand the text wins as LSMFT said.
risner
10-26-07, 04:15 PM If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says ... The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick.

If you are looking for an official answer, then ignore the quick blurb in the table (since that could say "gain 100d6 sneak attack" and it wouldn't help.)

In other words, the only official way to adjudicate it is to look at the description of the feat itself in the benefits section.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
evangelion1010 10-26-07, 09:22 AM	Hey, I just checked the official errata and noticed that none existed for this feat... If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says that it allows your monk levels to combine with your rogue levels for determining SA damage, and that you can do a trick with SA and unarmed strike. The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick. This might not be too convincing, but if we take a look at complete scoundrel, we find daring outlaw, which advances grace and SA for both of those classes, and has a similar description. Has this been brought up before? Is there any official ruling on it?
deathbane 10-26-07, 10:49 AM	Hey, I just checked the official errata and noticed that none existed for this feat... If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says that it allows your monk levels to combine with your rogue levels for determining SA damage, and that you can do a trick with SA and unarmed strike. The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick. This might not be too convincing, but if we take a look at complete scoundrel, we find daring outlaw, which advances grace and SA for both of those classes, and has a similar description. Has this been brought up before? Is there any official ruling on it? There is no errata needed. If you read the paragraph under the feat it gives you a set increase to to a certain monk ability. You don't get anymore increases to that ability through the feat other than what is in the paragraph.
LSMFT 10-26-07, 11:18 AM	The rule is "Text over tables." The text of the feat and the table conflict in this case, but by the RAW, the text is right. No SA advancement.
deathbane 10-26-07, 12:04 PM	The rule is "Text over tables." The text of the feat and the table conflict in this case, but by the RAW, the text is right. No SA advancement. I completely misunderstood the OP. I thought he was talking about something else. To the OP: The feats in complete scoundrel give you the benefits of one class, not both. There probably should be errata, but as it stand the text wins as LSMFT said.
risner 10-26-07, 04:15 PM	If you have the source, the quick blurb in the 'feat table of contents' says ... The feat description only mentions advancing monk abilities and the trick. If you are looking for an official answer, then ignore the quick blurb in the table (since that could say "gain 100d6 sneak attack" and it wouldn't help.) In other words, the only official way to adjudicate it is to look at the description of the feat itself in the benefits section.