1
\$\begingroup\$

My question/suggestion is pretty straightforward. The tag seems to be very narrow and rarely used, and it has no tag info so it's not clear how it's different from the existing and more commonly used tag.

Should the tag be merged with ?

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

No, the tags should remain separate.

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, at least, ACFs are their own thing, with their own rules that differ from the rules for normal class features. People collect lists of them, they have their own header in rules docs, they generally appear in a different chapter in source books from regular class features, etc.

In short, ACFs are their own topic, and it's useful to have a category about them. It's easy to imagine questions that are specifically about the rules for ACFs, like:

  • Can you trade away the same class feature twice for two different ACFs?
  • If you gain a class feature as an ACF, can you then trade it away again for a different ACF?

(I'm honestly surprised neither of these questions is already on the site.)

It's reasonable to have a tag in place for questions like this.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Someone familiar with them should add some tag info making it clear what ACFs are, then :P \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mod Jul 18 '18 at 19:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast Made a go at it. I've never edited a tag wiki before, so would appreciate some eyes on it and any fixes it needs. \$\endgroup\$ – A_S00 Jul 18 '18 at 19:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @A_Soo: Looks good! I imagine the tag might also be useful for whatever form the revised ranger ends up taking, since Crawford and co. have said that if/when it gets published, it'll be a list of alternate class features to the PHB ranger (not a whole separate class). \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mod Jul 18 '18 at 19:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .