5
\$\begingroup\$

The Dungeon Master's Guide II feat Favored in Guild (227-8) describes guilds as types (e.g. arcane guild, criminal guild). Belonging to one of these guild types grants a fringe benefit.1

Champions of Valor republished the feat Favored in Guild (75), tacitly changing the feat to apply to specific guilds (e.g. The Druids of Tall Trees (CV 78), The Fangshields (CV 80)). According to that text, belonging to one of these guilds grants a fringe benefit.

However, Champions of Valor maintains the DMG2's guild typing system.

For example, The Druids of Tall Trees is listed as a naturalist guild, yet Champions of Valor mentions nothing of The Druids of Tall Trees providing the fringe benefit of a naturalist guild as described in the DMG2. Instead, the Druids of Tall Trees provides a (not incompatible) fringe benefit a creature gains upon taking the feat Favored in Guild (The Druids of Tall Trees).

Does a creature with the feat Favored in Guild get both the fringe benefit of the creature's guild's type and the fringe benefit of the creature's named guild?

That is, is the fringe benefit listed in the Dungeon Master's Guide II in addition to the fringe benefit a specific guild provides, or does a specific guild provide only its specific fringe benefit?

(Yes, the inclusion of guild type with specific guilds is throwing me off.)


  1. Sometimes an execrable fringe benefit. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Favored in Guild (scholastic).
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

NO unless you abuse what is very probably the RAI.

From Champions of Valor:

New Feat: Favored in Guild
You are an active and valued member of your organization

...

An organization member with this feat also gains one additional fringe benefit, the exact details of which depend on his organization. These benefits are described in each organization entry.

You only get one fringe benefit from this feat, in addition to any you would otherwise be entitled. Normally you don't get any fringe benefits, as specified in the feat description. If an organization offered multiple fringe benefits for some reason you would pick one, unless the organization's description said otherwise.

Also, while this feat shares a name with the feat in the DMG II, it is a different feat. You could conceivably take both, though you can't take the Faerun one twice, as the feat does not alter or replace the DMG version according to the RAW. Indeed, it specifies it's a new feat.

However: (from every organization printed in the book)

Favored in Guild Benefit: If you have the Favored in Guild feat, you gain a special benefit for belonging to this group.

This benefit section does not specify which 'Favored in Guild' feat it requires. While the Faerun version of the feat doesn't give you the benefits from the DMG II, the DMG II version should technically give you the Faerun benefits for each and every organization with that section you belong to. Obviously the designers meant to only reference the feat included not more than a handful of pages earlier, rather than a feat in a completely different rulebook (hence why I say this is a violation of the RAI), but that's what happens when you go naming completely different feats the same thing. If you interpret the two feats as being the same feat (which seems odd, since there is no mention of the DMG II version in the Faerun version and the Faerun version specifies it's a new feat), then there is a FAQ post which says the later feat takes precedence, which would mean you would pick one benefit and one associated skill from the two fringe benefits every organization offers (almost all specific benefits are better than the type-based ones, though) and the myriad available skills.


Really, the best way to deal with this is to rule that the Faerun feat replaces the DMG II feat and decide what you want that to mean. Giving both benefits really isn't that bad of an idea, and (at high OP levels) giving both benefits for every guild you are a part of isn't a bad idea either, since you can't be a member of more than, like, two without having issues.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I thought that a feat of the same name printed later superseded the one printed earlier. Isn't that a rule somewhere? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jan 2 '15 at 7:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan 1) this feat definitely can't replace that one in general, since it's clearly Faerun specific, but such a rule would make this a Faerun replacement, which would be good 2) Never heard of that rule, but there's a lot of meta-D&D stuff I'm not up on. If you find a source, that'd make this issue way clearer. I recommend, if that is in fact the rule, that you post your own answer, though, so you can get rep for it. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jan 2 '15 at 9:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Main FAQ says, "Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks (other than the PH, DMG, and MM), the most current sourcebook is considered correct and all previous sources are superseded" (41). And, while my disdain for the FAQ runs pretty deep, without this guideline (yeesh, I originally typed guildline) there'd be fist fights over a couple of vastly different feats. But I was really more interested in how the CV feat interacts with the DMG2's than an examination of the primary source rule. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jan 2 '15 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your opening line makes a bold claim that you make no attempt to back up. Do not abuse the term RAI; it is only appropriate if you can back it up with author quotes, developer commentary, or similar. Otherwise you're just asserting that your particular interpretation is what was intended, which you cannot justify. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jan 3 '15 at 16:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think it's invalid to say "the RAI" on that basis. You certainly can make an argument that a given interpretation is what was intended, as you have done, but I object to it being labeled the RAI -- you don't have enough information to be so sure, even if you have good reason to suspect. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jan 3 '15 at 22:06
1
\$\begingroup\$

Houserule would be required.

City of Splendors, Champions of Valor, and Champions of Ruin are Forgotten Realms specific which has, essentially, a different rules set than Core (i.e. Dungeon Master's Guide II). Forgotten Realms has its own Region rules, Race rules, and Organization rules. Core doesn't even have the same deities that Forgotten Realms has; another example of how things are different in Faerun.

As a DM, and allowing Forgotten Realms material in a non-Forgotten Realms campaign, I would say yes you would. As you are already spending a feat, and it isn't as broken as some would like to think - allowing two fringe benefits isn't as broken as say... Divine/Domain feats.

But saying yes I would, would be my houserule. Consult with your DM.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Core rules are supposed to be used by all campaigns, including those in specific settings. In theory, setting-specific material isn't supposed to contradict core material without explicitly identifying it as an exception. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jan 3 '15 at 16:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Could the fact that Forgotten Realms is mostly 3.0 have anything to do with it? How could I improve this answer? \$\endgroup\$ – Ruut Jan 4 '15 at 0:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ The books listed in your answer are 3.5, though, so I'm not sure what the relevance there is. But it doesn't really matter; regardless of why, they did this feat differently. I agree with the rest of this answer. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jan 4 '15 at 3:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.