Meeting minimum feat prerequisites

[Hypersmurf]

Hrm.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.

If I'm blind I lose my Dex to AC. If I lose Dex bonus to AC, I lose all Dodge bonuses. If I have no Dodge bonuses, I can't use my Dodge feat. Dodge is a prerequisite feat for Spring Attack.

(Actually, on that note - if I'm blind, and have the Elusive Target tactical feat, can I nominate one of my attackers to be my Dodge target, even though I benefit from no Dodge bonuses, and gain the effects of things like Diverting Defense against that attacker?)

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If I'm blind I lose my Dex to AC. If I lose Dex bonus to AC, I lose all Dodge bonuses. If I have no Dodge bonuses, I can't use my Dodge feat. Dodge is a prerequisite feat for Spring Attack.

Ah. Actually, I'd argue that you still have the feat and it is still active. You just aren't getting any benefit from it because of circumstances. Blindness isn't negating the Dodge feat, it's negating the effects of the Dodge feat. You haven't lost access to the feat at all, it just can't provide you any benefit because you're blind. This may be semantics, though.

(Actually, on that note - if I'm blind, and have the Elusive Target tactical feat, can I nominate one of my attackers to be my Dodge target, even though I benefit from no Dodge bonuses, and gain the effects of things like Diverting Defense against that attacker?

If you had some other way to pinpoint your foe, such as Scent, then I'd say yes. Otherwise I'd rule that you need to see a foe to make him your Dodge opponent. I'm not familiar with Elusive Target, but if you need to choose a foe as your Dodge opponent in order to benefit from the feat, then you'd be out of luck.

 

[moritheil]

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.

That is because there is a plethora of reasons why losing the feat should entail losing things dependent upon the feat. I am curious as to what you find unrelated.

Is it the possible arguments that I anticipated and touched upon so as to save everyone time?

 

[Scion]

I am curious as to what you find unrelated.

In that post there were so many unrelated or somewhat related but misleading things I dont even know where to start

First of all I suppose, where do you find, anywhere, that if you are missing a prereq the feat dissapears from your character sheet? then, where do you find rules that the same one 'comes back' from whatever place it disappeared to.

Also, the gp guideline is a completely seperate issue and is something that fluxuates. It is completely different than the situation here. Creatuers with X hd and class(es) Y(...) and race Z with templates of whatever have an exact number of feats. The money guidelines are just that, guidelines, and they fluctuate constantly. Feats do not. This is so unrelated I dont even know how to express it other than to just shake my head and walk away.


The ranger ability grants something that works like a feat, when you lose the benefits of the ability you lose the something that works like a feat.

when you lose prereqs for a feat you still have the feat, you just cant use it.

These arent 'semantic' issues, it is literally something being there or not. If I have a gun but no bullets I still have the gun, I just cant use it for much. If I have a gun and no bullets and someone takes the gun away from me then even if I get bullets later I cannot shoot them with a guy, I no longer have the gun.

There is a major difference between 'having' and 'not having' for the game.

If you can find a place in the rules that says feats you no longer qualify for, for some reason, dissapear from your character sheet and then magically reappear later feel free to post it.

Until then I am going to by what I posted earlier.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

Cannot use and does not have are very different things.

 

[moritheil]

In that post there were so many unrelated or somewhat related but misleading things I dont even know where to start

First of all I suppose, where do you find, anywhere, that if you are missing a prereq the feat dissapears from your character sheet? then, where do you find rules that the same one 'comes back' from whatever place it disappeared to.

Also, the gp guideline is a completely seperate issue and is something that fluxuates. It is completely different than the situation here. Creatuers with X hd and class(es) Y(...) and race Z with templates of whatever have an exact number of feats. The money guidelines are just that, guidelines, and they fluctuate constantly. Feats do not. This is so unrelated I dont even know how to express it other than to just shake my head and walk away.


The ranger ability grants something that works like a feat, when you lose the benefits of the ability you lose the something that works like a feat.

when you lose prereqs for a feat you still have the feat, you just cant use it.

These arent 'semantic' issues, it is literally something being there or not. If I have a gun but no bullets I still have the gun, I just cant use it for much. If I have a gun and no bullets and someone takes the gun away from me then even if I get bullets later I cannot shoot them with a guy, I no longer have the gun.

There is a major difference between 'having' and 'not having' for the game.

If you can find a place in the rules that says feats you no longer qualify for, for some reason, dissapear from your character sheet and then magically reappear later feel free to post it.

Until then I am going to by what I posted earlier.


Cannot use and does not have are very different things.

Semantics. I never said it disappeared off your sheet entirely. I just said that you temporarily don't have it for the purposes of using it or qualifying for other feats.

Re: Ranger, Virtual Feats are for all intents and purposes Feats in terms of qualifying for other Feats. You continue in your observations that what happens to the ranger feats isn't explicitly applicable to normal feats - and I mentioned that the VERY FIRST TIME I mentioned Ranger, before you even took it up. Did you think that I wasn't aware of it at any point, or are you hoping that I'll forget that I mentioned that line of argument before you even used it?

Aha, I knew it. You don't like the fact that I pre-empted arguments. I only mentioned many of those things to forestall possible arguments based on balance ("I need to maintain my power level, thus I should have X feats, or I'm being shortchanged") and the like.

Let me ask you something: What is the requirement for Power Attack?

It is strength 13. Am I correct? So, put another way, you must have strength 13 to have Power Attack. I trust that, semantics or not, you will agree.

Do you meet the requirements by having a strength below 13? No? Then you do not currently have the feat.

Does Cleave require Power Attack? Yes? You do not currently have Power Attack. Does that logically suggest something to you?

Can you cite somewhere where it says that you retain other feats that depend on the feat you no longer qualify for?

PS: If you want to word it "cannot use," that's fine. I can state that he "cannot use" the feat to qualify for another feat.

 

[Scion]

I just said that you temporarily don't have it for the purposes of using it or qualifying for other feats.

so you have it you just dont have it?

Again, where is your support?

Re: Ranger, Virtual Feats

you are trying to use something that uses one set of wording to make up some other ruling for something else with completely different wording.

Hence, I said it didnt make sense and explained why.

If you dont like my explaining it then dont respond to it. I was merely showing why it could not be used as a comparison point at all.

You cling to your 'but I said it isnt explicitly applicable' and are apparently trying to use this against my arguements, but my arguements agree with that, it isnt applicable. They just go one step further, it isnt applicable at all. It is basically applicable as my quoting rules about aoos in an attempt to explain why ice cream melts, not applicable.

It is strength 13. Am I correct? So, put another way, you must have strength 13 to have Power Attack. I trust that, semantics or not, you will agree.

No, I dont, because it isnt true.

You need 13 strength to select it in most cases. You do not need 13 str to 'have' it.

Can you cite somewhere where it says that you retain other feats that depend on the feat you no longer qualify for?

For a third time? sure.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

Which means that you still have the feat, you simply cannot use it.

I can state that he "cannot use" the feat to qualify for another feat.

and I am still waiting for your rules quotes.

 

[moritheil]

Ranger:

1. You aren't saying anything I haven't thought of.
2. I've told you this in a (futile) attempt to get you to not waste your time by mulling over ranger. Who are you debating here?
3. As a throwaway, I noted how it can support the position. I didn't say that the position rests entirely or even partly on the ranger virtual feats. So, by all means, spend more effort disproving the link - it's not even logically necessary.

and I am still waiting for your rules quotes.

I don't need any more quotes - you quoted the SRD passage that defeats your position yourself.

You can't use the feat. You assume that it only means that you can't use the action associated with the feat. I am telling you that you can't use it to qualify for other feats either.

 

[Scion]

I don't need any more quotes - you quoted the SRD passage that defeats your position yourself.

You have zero backing except for your own opinion, and your opinion is based on something that is false based on the only rules that have been put forward.

Saying your are on shakey ground is an overstatement.

If you have any real proof provide it. Until then nothing you have said is useful.

Again, this is part of the reason why earlier I simply said that I disagree. You dont have enough of a position to say much more against it than that, there simply isnt anything there besides, 'I feel it should work this way'. That is insufficient for this forum except as a sidenote at best.

 

[moritheil]

You have zero backing except for your own opinion, and your opinion is based on something that is false based on the only rules that have been put forward.

Saying your are on shakey ground is an overstatement.

If you have any real proof provide it. Until then nothing you have said is useful.

Again, this is part of the reason why earlier I simply said that I disagree. You dont have enough of a position to say much more against it than that, there simply isnt anything there besides, 'I feel it should work this way'. That is insufficient for this forum except as a sidenote at best.

Um, except for the fact that you have nothing you can quote to support your opinion either. I have logic on my side. I have laid out the logical process whereby you lose access to all those feats (because you progressively cannot use them to qualify for subsequent feats.)

Oh wait, you have epithets, ad hominem attacks, and slightly veiled insults. That's got to count for something, right?

From where I'm standing, you're the one on shaky ground, because you claim something that goes against logic and isn't supported by the RAW.

I hardly have "zero backing." What are you using Power Attack for? To qualify for Cleave, amongst other things. That's one of the uses of the feat. Nevertheless, I will accept that you don't see this interpretation of the wording "cannot use," even though it seems obvious to me.

If you can prove that it explicitly states that you retain all other feats that would be dependent on the feat you cannot use, then I will be happy to look at your evidence.

 

[Scion]

except for the fact that you have nothing you can quote to support your opinion either.

::sighs:: you mean the quote that says, specifically, that you merely cannot use it and not that it somehow magically 'goes away'?

Just because you no longer have str 13 does not mean that you lose all of that training, you simply cant use it in that particular way, but you still have the knowledge.

The training is still there.

I'd have to say that the rules 'and' logic are against you here.

You have no rules on your side that you have presented, you have nothing but your desire for it to work in some way. You are making up logic chains that have no beginning and points that do not connect.


Patryn of Elvenshae has a decent thought process that, while I disagree with it, at least has some continuity.

If you had at least that much it would be a start. Definately not enough, but a start.

Oh wait, you have epithets, ad hominem attacks, and slightly veiled insults. That's got to count for something, right?

Your posts are getting more and more hostile as time goes on. I am attempting to remain civil here. Do try to do the same.