Failing to meet prestige class requirements

[CyberSpyder]

Okay, but does that make it RAW? Since we seem to have contradictory rulings, which source is 'primary'? I would have to assume the DMG would be.....

As of right now, the rules as written state that it does indeed function something like a feat - if you ever lose any of the prerequisites, you lose all special features. This is due to the explicit text put in Complete Warrior, which overrides the general implication from the DMG.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Okay, but does that make it RAW? Since we seem to have contradictory rulings, which source is 'primary'? I would have to assume the DMG would be.....

The DMG is clearly primary, but it's not explicit what happens in the case of lost prerequisites for PrCs. If you have (and use) CW, then it's as Patryn pointed out. Whether CW is RAW or not is a totally different subject of course.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whether CW is RAW or not is a totally different subject of course.

For the record, CW is completely RAW.

It's just not Core.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

It is admittedly hard to lose prestige class requirements most of the time, but it remains true that for many or even most of them, losing all features as a result simply makes no sense.

Quoted for truth.

 

[hazmat]

Does anyone agree with the CW rules text?

PrCs abilities aren't always tied to the prereqs of the class. Personally, I think the ruling is a half-assed attempt to fill a hole in the design of prestige classes.

Classes like the monk and paladin have built into their class definitions what it means to lose a prereq. PrCs should have been built the in the same way.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Does anyone agree with the CW rules text?

I do, generally.

Although in some cases it doesn't make sense, in others it does. It also prevents cheesing out by switching prereqs around later on in life.

[EDIT: To add, I tend to agree more stridently for PrCs which are more metaphysical in nature. For instance, the arcane archer is able to do what he does, in part, because of the inherent magic of his elven blood. If he loses his elven blood, he can't do it anymore.

For others, though, I agree less stridently. For instance, just because an Assassin reforms, I don't see him forgetting how to apply poison to a blade. Oh well. You take the good with the bad, I guess. ]

 

[CyberSpyder]

I do, generally.

Although in some cases it doesn't make sense, in others it does. It also prevents cheesing out by switching prereqs around later on in life.

Should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes make sense?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes make sense?

Should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes don't?

Similarly, you want to argue that you can continue to advance in a PrC for which you no longer meet the prereqs and / or retain all the benefits of that PrC. Sometimes, this will not make sense (i.e., a PrC that grants you bonuses when riding, but requires a certain number of ranks in the Ride skill; you lose those ranks, and no longer know how to ride at all; why do you still know how to perform particularly impressive cavalry charges?). So, should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes make sense?

 

[CyberSpyder]

Should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes don't?

Obviously not, but not making the rules if they would not make sense a substantial proportion of the time seems reasonable. The change in Complete Warrior represents a new rule - its absence doesn't.

Similarly, you want to argue that you can continue to advance in a PrC for which you no longer meet the prereqs and / or retain all the benefits of that PrC. Sometimes, this will not make sense (i.e., a PrC that grants you bonuses when riding, but requires a certain number of ranks in the Ride skill; you lose those ranks, and no longer know how to ride at all; why do you still know how to perform particularly impressive cavalry charges?). So, should rules really be made on the basis that they sometimes make sense?

Well, I don't know. If I were making the rules, I'd probably go with the more middling solution that you cannot advance in the class if you no longer meet the prerequisites, but that you do not lose what you already have gained. If the class is specifically about horse riding, for instance, it might well make sense that you would retain what you have learned from it even if what you learned before it is forgotten.

This is leaving aside that the issue that losing skill ranks is an exceptionally rare occurance - offhand, I cannot actually think of any way it could happen, short of level loss, which is irrelevant here due to the fact that you would necessarily lose all PrC levels before you lost any of the levels which helped you qualify for the PrC.

Losing alignment requirements is by far the most common occurance, and so it should be the dominant consideration on this topic.

 

[Krelios]

For what it's worth, I use a houserule that all Supernatural (Su) and Spell-like (Sp) abilities granted by a PrC are lost if the prerequisites are lost, but any Extraordinary (Ex) or "mundane" abilities (including BAB, HP, Skills, Saves, Spellcasting [if it's +1 to existing], and even bonus feats, etc.) are kept. In no case can a character take a level of a PrC (first or otherwise) if he does not meet the prerequisites when it's time to level up.

This is admittedly not explicitly spelled-out in the RAW, but it's an extrapolation of the rules for Barbarians, Monks, Bard, and Paladins in the PHB, and it makes sense to me and my group.