Do familiars grant "real" Alertness?

[elockanllor]

There are no core rules for feats from familiars allowing either other feats or PrCs.

Yeah, there really is. You "gain Alertness", just like you "gain a feat at 1st level". Alertness therefore meets the standard definition of a feat. That definition includes counting as prereqs for things requiring itself

You're making a common interpretation mistake, that of the "if it doesn't *not* say something then it must be true". Thats a faulty argument. Nowhere in the PHB does it specifically state that halfling newborns can cast Wish at will, this lack of statement does not make it so. What *is* written in the book is that familiar owners gain alertness just like they gain bonus feats at 5-level increments. Are those "virtual" feats as well?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, there really is. You "gain Alertness", just like you "gain a feat at 1st level". Alertness therefore meets the standard definition of a feat. That definition includes counting as prereqs for things requiring itself

The actual quote is (at least from the SRD):

"While the familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains Alertness."

It is obviously a virtual and "conditional" feat and not a normal "permanent" feat. Since they explicitly had to allow virtual feats in S&F for PrC prerequisites, it's also obvious that the core rules do not sufficiently cover this issue. Any discussion on it is interpretive in nature. There are no set rules for it within the core rules.

You're making a common interpretation mistake, that of the "if it doesn't *not* say something then it must be true". Thats a faulty argument. Nowhere in the PHB does it specifically state that halfling newborns can cast Wish at will, this lack of statement does not make it so. What *is* written in the book is that familiar owners gain alertness just like they gain bonus feats at 5-level increments. Are those "virtual" feats as well?

Quite frankly, I think you are the one making a common interpretation mistake:

That of taking a partial phrase out of context. If the text said that the master gains Alertness from then on, then your interpretation would have real validity. As is, your interpretation is just that: an interpretation.


You are also making a common debating mistake:

Using a totally non-sequitor example in an attempt to illustrate your point by first attempting to invalidate the debating techniques of another person. This results in obfuscation of the discussion as opposed to really discussing the issue. Btw, most people do this all of the time, myself included.

 

[Metalsmith]

You could have Ambidexterity and all the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but they won't help you if you have lost a hand.

Actually you CAN.

Armor spikes as your, heh , "Off-Hand" Attack.

Metalsmith

 

[Voadam]

If you have the feat, but can not use it, you still have the feat. This means that you still have the pre-reqs for the class. If the familar leaves 5ft from you, you lose all abilites because the feat has gone away. See the difference? The same argument goes for items that grant feats. Poison doesn't take the knowlege from of the trick, only the ability to pull it off.

Do you want to deal with variable class levels on a round by round basis? A good fireball, a bad save, and your familar is toast. Now what? Also, I do believe the familar must be looking around, not under full concealment in some protected area.

The language on the familar ability is poor, thus allowing you to make this purely semantic arguement. In any case, I think it is more trouble then it is worth in the long run. Players will complain about a loss that large.

Loki,

That is a good point that under the rules as written, you retain a feat, you just lose access to it if you do not meet the prereqs.

However, your point about the alertness from a familiar is not a rules argument but a convenience argument. As written the familiar gives the wizard alertness when he is within arms reach. Not the bonuses of alertness as a ranger gains the abilities of ambidexterity and two weapon fighting but alertness period. Under the rules the wizard gains the feat.

Under page 27 of the DMG if you lose access to a prereq then you lose the special abilities of a prc but not saves, hit points and BAB.

So under the rules you can use your familiar to get into a class that requires alertness but you can then only use your prc abilities under certain conditions.

Now for convenience angle we can talk about whether you want alertness to not count as a feat when granted by a familiar or about not losing prc abilities so that we avoid the problem of the prereqs.

 

[Voadam]

The actual quote is (at least from the SRD):

"While the familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains Alertness."

It is obviously a virtual and "conditional" feat and not a normal "permanent" feat. Since they explicitly had to allow virtual feats in S&F for PrC prerequisites, it's also obvious that the core rules do not sufficiently cover this issue. Any discussion on it is interpretive in nature. There are no set rules for it within the core rules.

Quite frankly, I think you are the one making a common interpretation mistake:

That of taking a partial phrase out of context. If the text said that the master gains Alertness from then on, then your interpretation would have real validity. As is, your interpretation is just that: an interpretation.

KD

I disagree. I think it is obviously an actual and not a virtual feat. The way I read that is you actually gain the feat but only under certain conditions. Therefore you sometimes have the feat, sometimes not, but that it grants you the feat, not a virtual feat.

from the srd:

Alertness: The presence of the familiar sharpens its master's senses. While the familiar is within arm's reach, the master gains Alertness.

Ranger abilities, however, specifically state that you only gain the abilities as if you had the feat under certain conditions. It does not say you gain the feats under certain conditions.

from the srd:

When wearing light armor or no armor, a ranger can fight with two weapons as if he or she had the feats Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting. The ranger loses this special bonus when fighting in medium or heavy armor, or when using a double-headed weapon (such as a double sword).

Since it is specifically not a feat but gives you the abilities of the feat it is termed a virtual feat.

From DotF

Virtual Feats
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. What does this mean? If you have, for example, some class feature or ability that says, "This is the same as Power Attack," then you are considered to have the Power Attack feat for the purposes of acquiring the Improved Shield Bash feat. If you ever lose the virtual prerequisite,you also lose access to any feats you acquired through its existence. Having access to a feat as a class feature or special ability does not give you access to that feat's prerequisites.

Regardless under this S&F/DotF rule, alertness gained from a familiar counts for prereqs whether you gain it as a feat or a virtual feat.

The only way around it is to say since you don't have it all the time/under all conditions you don't "have" it either as an actual or virtual feat.

 

[elockanllor]

It is obviously a virtual and "conditional" feat and not a normal "permanent" feat.

It has a prereq of "familiar within 5 feet". Other feats have prereqs like "dex 13+" and the like. What is the difference? All this talk of conditional feats is entirely external from the PHB.

Its been shown that interpretation obviously errs on the side of familiar-granted Alertness being a "normal" feat, and its been shown that there isn't even a need to houserule it as your alternative interp. There's just no rational arguing against the word "gains", its right there no matter how you try to sidestep it

Unless there is something new to add, I'm dropping this thread and going back to the Wizards boards now

 

[KarinsDad]

It has a prereq of "familiar within 5 feet". Other feats have prereqs like "dex 13+" and the like. What is the difference? All this talk of conditional feats is entirely external from the PHB.

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

"Within 5 feet" is not a prerequisite.

It is a condition.

The definition of a prerequisite is that you have to satisfy the prerequisite in order to acquire a feat.

In the case of Alertness and Familiars though, you do not acquire a feat. You take a character class which gives you the option of the familiar which in turn gives you the conditional option of gaining the feat.

And, you do not choose Alertness from a list of feats, you get it by default due to taking a given class.

This is no different than any other virtual feat IMO. It is a feat or feat-like ability acquired not by acquiring a feat out of a choice of feats, but by taking a class which gives you this one set ability or feat.


Btw, I agree with your POV with regard to whether you should allow the Alertness feat to be a prerequisite. I've said that several times in this thread.

But, I disagree that Alertness gained this way is a normal feat. If I was a DM who did not allow virtual feats to be used (which powers up the game as LokiDR has mentioned), then I would not allow Alertness from a familiar to be used this way.


And, the real crux of the issue here for me is not which feats are virtual and which are not, the real issue for me is the "losing a prerequisite loses the ability" issue.

Not only will poison drop the Dex of a Fighter, it will make him lose the use of all of the feats anywhere above a Dex based chain (PHB pg. 77). Plus, he will lose all PrC special abilities if the PrC had a prerequisite of any of those feats (DMG pg. 27).

This to me is a very short sighted set of rules. IMO. You basically get double whammied in that not only are your missile weapons, your Reflex saves, and your AC at a minus (typically, even if you are wearing full plate), but you also lose a bunch of feats and special abilities.

For example, alignment. The loss of an alignment prerequisite for a PrC should mean that you are not inclined to use those PrC abilities, but you still have the ability to do it if you need to (which might send you back to that alignment if you do). It should not be that now that I am Neutral and no longer Evil, I no longer can assassinate anyone. I should just be disinclined to assassinate anyone.

 

[Zhure]

There are no core rules for Ranger Two Weapon and Ambidexterity feats allowing either other feats or PrCs.

"Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: A ranger with a base attack bonus of at least +9 can choose to gain the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat even if he does not have the other prerequisites for the feat. The ranger must be wearing light armor or no armor in order to use this benefit. "

and

"Improved Two-Weapon Fighting [General]

Prerequisites: Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, base attack bonus +9 or higher. "

... strongly implies otherwise.
Greg

 

[KarinsDad]

"Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: A ranger with a base attack bonus of at least +9 can choose to gain the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat even if he does not have the other prerequisites for the feat. The ranger must be wearing light armor or no armor in order to use this benefit. "

Nice try Greg.

An ability given to a class to use his special abilities to acquire one specific feat does not imply that his special abilities can be used as prerequisites for any other feat.

In fact, this is why they added virtual feats into S&F in the first place.

 

[0-hr]

When you lose a prerequisite for a PrC, then you lose the special abilities of that PrC; but when you lose the prerequisites for a feat, you only lose the ability to use that feat (you still have the feat, but it cannot be employed).

So if the familar flys away, you lose Alertness (temporarily), but if you are poised, you are not going to lose whirlwind attack. You may lose the ability to do whirlwind attacks, but you'll still technicaly have the feat (and thus access to any PrC's that require the feat).

This is the way I'm going to play it in my campaign. My question is whether this is:

a) the rules as written
b) one reasonable interpretation of the rules (which are unclear)
or
c) a house rule

I'm guessin "b". It doesn't matter a whole lot really, but if it's clearly a house rule, then I need to add it to my list so the players know.