Meeting minimum feat prerequisites

[moritheil]

Actually, I would consider the argument in this thread close to the ranger virtual feat tree. If a ranger is wearing heavy armor, they lose access to their virtual feats, and all feats that depend on them. While it could be argued that this progressive loss is specific to rangers, I think Patryn's explanation above (which mirrors the progressive feat loss due to inability) is a decent one.

 

[Scion]

Actually, I would consider the argument in this thread close to the ranger virtual feat tree. If a ranger is wearing heavy armor, they lose access to their virtual feats, and all feats that depend on them. While it could be argued that this progressive loss is specific to rangers, I think Patryn's explanation above (which mirrors the progressive feat loss due to inability) is a decent one.

The rangers abilities say that he loses access to the effect that gives him the virtual feats.

So, he doesnt 'lose access', they literally arent there anymore.

So you actually dont have the prereq anymore, it isnt that you have it but cannot use it.

Combat Style (Ex): At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. This choice affects the character’s class features but does not restrict his selection of feats or special abilities in any way.
If the ranger selects archery, he is treated as having the Rapid Shot feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat.
If the ranger selects two-weapon combat, he is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat.
The benefits of the ranger’s chosen style apply only when he wears light or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style when wearing medium or heavy armor.

Perhaps the actual phb say something differently, but the last line of this says that you lose the benefits of the style, not lose the benefits of the feat, while wearing the heavier armors.

Very different situation

If you go below 13 str you still have power attack, you merely cannot use it. If you wear heavier armors the ranger no longer 'has' the feats.

 

[moritheil]

Very different situation

If you go below 13 str you still have power attack, you merely cannot use it. If you wear heavier armors the ranger no longer 'has' the feats.

While it could be argued that this progressive loss is specific to rangers . . .

I am aware of your position. My statement is (and has been) that a similar line of thinking for feats in general, while not in the rules, is not unreasonable.

After all, it could easily be said that you must have 13 str to qualify for PA, and when you don't have 13 str, you don't qualify for PA and thus don't have the feat.

 

[Scion]

I am aware of your position. My statement is (and has been) that a similar line of thinking for feats in general, while not in the rules, is not unreasonable.

I didnt know that line applied to what I had to say. It doesnt directly go with or against what I had to say since the rangers ability and actual feats are completely different. In one you lose the 'ability' which, while you have it, allows you to qualify for things 'as though you had it' and use its ability 'as though you had it' but without actually qualifying for it.

Are you saying that if the ranger has this ability that he cannot select the feat if he wanted to? After all, these feats cant be taken more than once.

He doesnt actually have it, so it is a very different situation. Hence why I was confused by your wording.

After all, it could easily be said that you must have 13 str to qualify for PA, and when you don't have 13 str, you don't qualify for PA and thus don't have the feat.

Well then I'll pick a different feat to go in its slot. after all, I am supposed to have a certain number of feats at hd X, if I am missing one then I should be able to fill in the slot

 

[moritheil]

Well then I'll pick a different feat to go in its slot. after all, I am supposed to have a certain number of feats at hd X, if I am missing one then I should be able to fill in the slot

Sure, try that line on your DM and see if you get an alternate feat as a result of being hit by strength damage poison. Let me know how it goes.

 

[Scion]

Sure, try that line on your DM and see if you get an alternate feat as a result of being hit by strength damage poison.

I am not the one saying that the feat goes away

But if the dm told me that the feat went away when my str dropped below a certain point then I would have to wonder what feat to get in its place, since there should be a feat there. There wouldnt seem to be any reason why the same feat would 'suddenly reappear' later on.

But again, this is all avoided if he still has the feat, but simply cannot use it for the moment

 

[moritheil]

I am not the one saying that the feat goes away

But if the dm told me that the feat went away when my str dropped below a certain point then I would have to wonder what feat to get in its place, since there should be a feat there. There wouldnt seem to be any reason why the same feat would 'suddenly reappear' later on.

But again, this is all avoided if he still has the feat, but simply cannot use it for the moment

But I could easily reply that he temporarily "does not have" the feat rather than "he cannot use" it. It's semantics, but it gets into the rules as well.

There is a reason: When he regains str 13, he has the feat again.

Besides, not all feats that you no longer qualify for can be replaced.

I mean, you can say "I need to be on X level of power; I should have N feats." But you can also say that about gp levels, and if you lose an item due to carelessness, you've lost it, right?

 

[Staffan]

Is there some passage in the SRD or one of the core books that specfically mentions this? It comes up from time to time and I'd like to be able to cite a source when next it does.

PHB, page 87.
[bq]A character can't use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. For example, if your character's Strength drops below 13 because a ray of enfeeblement spell, he or she can't use the Power Attack feat until the prerequisite is once again met.[/bq]

 

[Scion]

You are argueing too many different crisscrossing, and a few unrelated, arguements for me moritheil. I am not interested in attempting to explain the differences however, so I will just say that I disagree with some points in your opinion.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Can I use Whirlwind Attack if I'm Raging?

I hadn't considered this question, since I haven't had much experience with Whirlwind Attack as a DM. On the one hand, my system would clearly lead me to rule "no" since Raging "shuts off" the Combat Expertise prereq to Whirlwind Attack.

And yet, thematically that doesn't sit well with me. Upon further consideration I think my problem lies with the fact that, unlike the other feat chains I mention, it's harder for me to justify/visualize how Whirlwind Attack is based off of Combat Expertise. It would seem far more likely to be learned after Great Cleave. This lack of connection between the feat and its prereq makes it seem strange to me to deny the former because of a lack of access to the latter. Hrm.

Can I use Spring Attak if I'm blind?

I'd say yes. You'd still have a 50% chance of missing, and could very well be Spring Attacking a square with nothing in it. I'll admit I'm not sure how this relates to the question at hand, though.

The Whirlwind Attack question does make me think. I'm not sure it's enough to change my general stance here, rather than simply make an exception for Whirlwind Attack, but I'm considering it.