Do familiars grant "real" Alertness?

[Crothian]

I think this question has also come up when talking about skill points and head bands of intellect. The solution I heard for that problem was the moment you take off the head band, the skill points go away and don't come back when you put the headband back on.

I don't allow temp items like this to grant skill points. A also would never allow a temp feat or temp ability to help with qualifying for anything. But those are house rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

I take the opposite viewpoint of most people here.

Nothing in the game is necessarily permanent.

If your Dex is 13 and you gain the Dodge feat, do you suddenly lose that feat if you have temporary Dex loss due to poison?

Do you lose the Dodge feat with a permanent Dex drain due to a magical trap or a creature?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then what happens when your Dex is restored via a Restoration spell? Does the same thing happen as per the Headband of Intellect and skills argument? To me, that is silly for it to work one way in one case and a different way in a different case.


I view characters as a flow of abilities and items. The potion you had yesterday, you may no longer have today.

Ditto for pre-requisites. It doesn't mean that every time you lose a pre-requisite for some ability, feat, or PrC that you lose the rest of those abilities. It means that the talent you need to qualify no longer exists, but you have since learned those abilities, regardless of no longer having the talent to learn them again. IMO.

 

[LokiDR]

I take the opposite viewpoint of most people here.

Nothing in the game is necessarily permanent.

If your Dex is 13 and you gain the Dodge feat, do you suddenly lose that feat if you have temporary Dex loss due to poison?

Do you lose the Dodge feat with a permanent Dex drain due to a magical trap or a creature?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then what happens when your Dex is restored via a Restoration spell? Does the same thing happen as per the Headband of Intellect and skills argument? To me, that is silly for it to work one way in one case and a different way in a different case.


I view characters as a flow of abilities and items. The potion you had yesterday, you may no longer have today.

Ditto for pre-requisites. It doesn't mean that every time you lose a pre-requisite for some ability, feat, or PrC that you lose the rest of those abilities. It means that the talent you need to qualify no longer exists, but you have since learned those abilities, regardless of no longer having the talent to learn them again. IMO.

Nothing is permanent. Doge is something that you learned though, even if you may not be able to use it because you are too stiff. The familar is not something you learned, it just represents an extra pair of eyes linked to your mind. If it does not violate the rules per se[/] I think it still violates the spirit of those rules. Since the rules are unclear (does it really fall under virtual feat?) I have to go with the spirit.

I would have an entirely different opinion if I wanted a higher power game. Then it would be "get around any rules you can, so we get more jiggy." I think the decision says something about the type of game you are playing.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would have an entirely different opinion if I wanted a higher power game. Then it would be "get around any rules you can, so we get more jiggy." I think the decision says something about the type of game you are playing.

I think the decision says something about how anal people are with respect to "how and why" as opposed to just plain "having fun".

If I gain an ability, I really do not care how I gain it as long as I have it when I need it as a pre-requisite.

To me, this is just like anything else.

If I have 40 hit points when I get blasted for 38, I survive. If I have 20 hit points when I get blasted for 38, I do not survive. I do not worry about how I got those 40 hits points, whether it was an Endurance spell or temporary hit points or levels or whatever. What matters is whether I have them or not.

If I go out of my way to acquire a Headband of Intellect, then it only makes sense that I will gain all benefits of having that. It does not make sense to have a bunch of special rules as to which abilities I gain and which I do not. That's something that WotC should learn: K.I.S.S.

 

[LokiDR]

I think the decision says something about how anal people are with respect to "how and why" as opposed to just plain "having fun".

If I gain an ability, I really do not care how I gain it as long as I have it when I need it as a pre-requisite.

To me, this is just like anything else.

If I have 40 hit points when I get blasted for 38, I survive. If I have 20 hit points when I get blasted for 38, I do not survive. I do not worry about how I got those 40 hits points, whether it was an Endurance spell or temporary hit points or levels or whatever. What matters is whether I have them or not.

If I go out of my way to acquire a Headband of Intellect, then it only makes sense that I will gain all benefits of having that. It does not make sense to have a bunch of special rules as to which abilities I gain and which I do not. That's something that WotC should learn: K.I.S.S.

Simple might be fun for you. Maybe it isn't for the next guy. There are a great many people who try to get everything they can out of the rules. Are all these people anal? How and why are fun things to ask for a lot of gamers. Don't toss them out of the equasion as anal.

There are also game balance issues to think about. If you rule simplest in all cases, a power gamer might get out of control. So, are you just going to steal the items or the "simple" drop a piano on his head? If you rule against the situation in the first place, you don't have to fix it later.

Pick your game. Since this is the rules forum, I am trying to stick to what the official rules/errata say. If this was general RPG discussion, I might have a different opinion.

 

[KarinsDad]

Pick your game. Since this is the rules forum, I am trying to stick to what the official rules/errata say. If this was general RPG discussion, I might have a different opinion.

Quote the rule.

If your POV follows the rules, please quote them. If not, please do not try to imply that other positions do not follow the rules.

 

[Henrix]

Quote the rule.

If your POV follows the rules, please quote them. If not, please do not try to imply that other positions do not follow the rules.

In the PHB you have to have the feat in question to fulfill the prerequisites for another feat, no exceptions, unless listed as special under the feat description.
The same is, presumably, true of the prerequisites for PrCs.

In S&F the 'virtual feat' idea was introduced, which talks about when a character "has a feat as a class feature or special ability" and that those can be used as prerequisites.

Nowhere else, ASFAIK, does it talk about being able to fulfill prerequisites through items, familiars, spells, etc.

Granted, I think that if something has given a character an inherent bonus it should count towards fulfilling prerequisites. But that is a relaxation of the rules as they stand.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the PHB you have to have the feat in question to fulfill the prerequisites for another feat, no exceptions, unless listed as special under the feat description.
The same is, presumably, true of the prerequisites for PrCs.

The debate here is the definition of "have".

If a familiar gives you a feat, don't you "have" it?

Now granted, the rules also state:

"A character can’t use a feat if the character has lost a prerequisite."

And although I do not think much of this rule, it is the rule. The reason I do not like it is that Fighters can be feat crippled with a little bit of poison.

This rule would also not stop me from allowing a character who has the prerequisite from an item or a familiar or somewhere else from gaining a PrC class, nor once that feat is lost would it prevent the character (IMG) from gaining levels in that PrC (although a strict reading of the rules might imply that, it does not state that).

In fact, the virtual feat idea from S&F implies that you should allow prerequisites from items (unless it explicitly states otherwise, I haven't read that in a long time).

 

[drnuncheon]

I take the opposite viewpoint of most people here.

Nothing in the game is necessarily permanent.

If your Dex is 13 and you gain the Dodge feat, do you suddenly lose that feat if you have temporary Dex loss due to poison?

No, but you can't use the feat (or any feats that depend on it) because you are no longer dextrous enough to dodge effectively.

Do you lose the Dodge feat with a permanent Dex drain due to a magical trap or a creature?

No, but you can't use the feat (or any feats that depend on it) because you are no longer dextrous enough to dodge effectively.

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then what happens when your Dex is restored via a Restoration spell?

Since the answer is not yes, this is simple - as soon as your dex comes back above 13, you can again use the feat(s) in question.

Does the same thing happen as per the Headband of Intellect and skills argument?

The headband is ugly. Where do you draw the line? What if you drink a potion that raises your int, or cast an extended spell every morning? Do you really want to keep track of which skill ranks were gained with "bonus" Int points, at all the different levels?

Ditto for pre-requisites. It doesn't mean that every time you lose a pre-requisite for some ability, feat, or PrC that you lose the rest of those abilities. It means that the talent you need to qualify no longer exists, but you have since learned those abilities, regardless of no longer having the talent to learn them again. IMO.

Sure, you have the knowledge of how to do them. But having the knowledge does not necessarily mean having the ability to perform them.

You could have Ambidexterity and all the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but they won't help you if you have lost a hand. The feat prerequisites are similar, if not as drastic: You need to have a certain level of physical strength to be able to drop someone and continue the blow to hit someone else - even if you know the trick, if you're not strong enough to pull it off, the knowledge does you no good. You might know lots of parrying techniques (Expertise) but if you can't think fast enough to use them (Int under 13) then they'll do you no good in a fight.

J

 

[drnuncheon]

In fact, the virtual feat idea from S&F implies that you should allow prerequisites from items (unless it explicitly states otherwise, I haven't read that in a long time).

It implies nothing of the sort. The actual rule says "If you effectively have a feat as a class feature or special ability, then you can use that virtual feat as a prerequisite for other feats." (emphasis mine)

Having an item that grants a feat does not count as having a feat "as a class feature or special ability" under even the most liberal interpretations.

J