Meeting minimum feat prerequisites

[Particle_Man]

In that case, let us go back to the Combat Expertise and Improved Feint example. You need to have the Combat Expertise in order to feint as a move action (a la Improved Feint) but you don't need to use it (you don't need to subtract at least 1 point from your attack roll and add it to your AC).

In fact, Combat Expertise for a character with BAB of 0 is a great example of a feat that you have, but can't use. And I would assume that Whirlwind Attack in Heavy Armor would be a second example, since you need to have Spring Attack, but could not use it.

 

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, the FAQ talks about Warlocks taking feats like Master STaff and Master Wand (and characters in general that have no 2nd level spell slots taking Empower Spell). The idea seems to be that just because one meets the prerequisites of a feat does not mean that one can use the feat.

This would lend some support to the idea that there is a difference between meeting the prerequisites for a feat and being able to use that feat. I don't think it is that far to travel to then say that one might in turn use a feat as a prerequisite even though one cannot use the feat.

another example of this would be the pain and suffering a pure Warlock has to go through to meet the prerequisites for sudden quicken -- at least one of those feat, Quicken Spell, would be unused.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In that case, let us go back to the Combat Expertise and Improved Feint example. You need to have the Combat Expertise in order to feint as a move action (a la Improved Feint) but you don't need to use it (you don't need to subtract at least 1 point from your attack roll and add it to your AC).

The argument is that you're not using Combat Expertise for the purpose of improving AC, but you are using Combat Expertise for the purpose of qualifying for Improved Feint.

If I pry the lid off a paint tin with a fork, I'm using my fork... even though there's no food in sight.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

If I pry the lid off a paint tin with a fork, I'm using my fork... even though there's no food in sight.

You have obviously never tasted the sweet, sweet joy of lead based paint

mmm..

 

[Coredump]

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

But, you made that up. That is not in the rules, and is not supported by them. The rules very specifically state that you cannot *use* a feat if you no longer have the prereqs. It does *not* say you do not have the feat. Now, you may decide, that to you, not being able to use something is the same as not having it, but again, you would be making things up.

Does Cleave require Power Attack? Yes? You do not currently have Power Attack. {/quote] According to the rules...? Yes, I still have power attack. The rules said I could pikc one at level 3, and I picked PA. Since then my Str has dropped to 12, so the rules say I can't use PA, nowhere does it say I do not have it.

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

Can you cite anywhere that says you retain feats when walking outside? How about in the forest? Page number please...

There is not cite, because keeping a feat, and being able to use a feat is the normal situation. So the rules state when the normal situation no longer applies. The rules state that the normal situation no longer applies when you no longer meet the prereqs. The 'new' situation is that you can't *use* the feat. It mentions nothing about changing the fact that you still have it.

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.

Yes you can. And that would be a houserule going against the RAW.

 

[Coredump]

I can just as easily assert that you can't "use" the feat for the purposes of qualifying for Cleave. There's no RAW that anyone's quoted that unambiguously proves this one way or another.

I can just as easily assert that you can't "use" cleave outside.. There's no RAW that anyone's quoted that unambiguously proves this one way or another.

I can just as easily assert that you can't "use" spells 4 rounds in a row. There's no RAW that anyone's quoted that unambiguously proves this one way or another.

I can just as easily assert that you can't walk in a straight line. There's no RAW that anyone's quoted that unambiguously proves this one way or another.


The point is, RAW deals with the 'norm', or steady state situation, and then deals with very specific situations that change the 'norm'.


I have PA, and I have cleave. I go outside, rules don't state anything, so I still have both feats. I then attack someone, rules don't mention that this changes anything, so I still have both feats. I then put on heavy armor, again, no rules about this change, so things stay as 'normal' and I keep the two feats.

Then I get hit by a shadow, and lose 3 points for str (from 14 to 11). The rules *still* do not say anything about this, not until I try and use my feats.

So I try and PA that pesky shadow. Now the rules do say something about this, they say I cannot *use* PA if I since I do not have the prereqs. The rules do not say I lose the feat, just that I cannot use the feat. Kinda like a wand in an anti-magic field.

So I hit normally, and kill one anyway, and want to cleave a second shadow. Lets check the rules again. The rules say I can't cleave if I don't have the prereqs. Now note, the rules *don't* say I must be able to use the prereqs, just still meet them. The prereqs for cleave say I must *have* PA, it does not say I must be able to use PA. So since the rules don't say I lose the feat, and the rules don't say I can't use the feat, the situation stays 'normal' with regard to cleave, and I get to hit the second shadow.
Did the rules specifically state that I could use cleave? Of course not, but it didn't specifically say I could use it outside in heavy armor either....

,

 

[Particle_Man]

I can just as easily assert that you can't walk in a straight line. There's no RAW that anyone's quoted that unambiguously proves this one way or another.

You use hexagonal maps, right?

 

[Particle_Man]

I have PA, and I have cleave. I go outside, rules don't state anything, so I still have both feats. I then attack someone, rules don't mention that this changes anything, so I still have both feats. I then put on heavy armor, again, no rules about this change, so things stay as 'normal' and I keep the two feats.

Then I get hit by a shadow, and lose 3 points for str (from 14 to 11). The rules *still* do not say anything about this, not until I try and use my feats.

So I try and PA that pesky shadow. Now the rules do say something about this, they say I cannot *use* PA if I since I do not have the prereqs. The rules do not say I lose the feat, just that I cannot use the feat. Kinda like a wand in an anti-magic field.

So I hit normally, and kill one anyway, and want to cleave a second shadow. Lets check the rules again. The rules say I can't cleave if I don't have the prereqs. Now note, the rules *don't* say I must be able to use the prereqs, just still meet them. The prereqs for cleave say I must *have* PA, it does not say I must be able to use PA. So since the rules don't say I lose the feat, and the rules don't say I can't use the feat, the situation stays 'normal' with regard to cleave, and I get to hit the second shadow.
Did the rules specifically state that I could use cleave? Of course not, but it didn't specifically say I could use it outside in heavy armor either....

Um, this is just to make a point, right? Since technically, Cleave has str 13 as a prerequisite just as much as Power Attack has str 13 as a prerequisite.

 

[Coredump]

Um, this is just to make a point, right? Since technically, Cleave has str 13 as a prerequisite just as much as Power Attack has str 13 as a prerequisite.

Yes.

 

[moritheil]

But, you made that up. That is not in the rules, and is not supported by them. The rules very specifically state that you cannot *use* a feat if you no longer have the prereqs. It does *not* say you do not have the feat. Now, you may decide, that to you, not being able to use something is the same as not having it, but again, you would be making things up.

According to the rules...? Yes, I still have power attack. The rules said I could pikc one at level 3, and I picked PA. Since then my Str has dropped to 12, so the rules say I can't use PA, nowhere does it say I do not have it.

Can you cite anywhere that says you retain feats when walking outside? How about in the forest? Page number please...

There is not cite, because keeping a feat, and being able to use a feat is the normal situation. So the rules state when the normal situation no longer applies. The rules state that the normal situation no longer applies when you no longer meet the prereqs. The 'new' situation is that you can't *use* the feat. It mentions nothing about changing the fact that you still have it.

Yes you can. And that would be a houserule going against the RAW.

You're being literal here, but it's my own fault for not stating back when I made that post that I mean "effectively have, as in being able to benefit from it." What I meant to say was that if you can't benefit from something, effectively it's equivalent to not having it. I do not mean to say that it gets deleted from your char sheet, as I later clarified. I was using the term "have" to underscore that point, but I admit that it was a bit sloppy.

If that doesn't make sense, consider what I mean when I ask, "Hey, I need to check my email. Do you have a computer?"

Obviously if you have a nonfunctioning computer, you possess a physical entity called a computer, but it differs from the ideal computer in my mind (which is a working one) that I speak of when I ask if you have a computer.