Failing to meet prestige class requirements

[Mistwell]

Because it's a class feature that isn't hit dice, BAB, or saves?

Why can a lawful barbarian not rage?

-Hyp.

Right, back to the Complete Warrior rule which conflicts with the DMG rule. I agree that is the argument, and worth discussing, I just disagree that it's clear that the Complete Warrior should automatically overrule the DMG "qualify at first level" language.

 

[IcyCool]

Right, back to the Complete Warrior rule which conflicts with the DMG rule. I agree that is the argument, and worth discussing, I just disagree that it's clear that the Complete Warrior should automatically overrule the DMG "qualify at first level" language.

The Lawful Barbarian not being able to rage is straight from the PHB.

And as others have said, the rule in CW doesn't conflict with the DMG. The DMG states that you must fulfill the pre-reqs to take your first level in the Prestige Class. The CW says you must continue to fulfill the pre-reqs to keep your access to the Prestige Class abilities.

 

[LokiDR]

I'm struggling with this issue right now actually. I am making a gnome wizard character. I want his background to be that he is of good alignment, but experimented with shadow magic for a time which led him down a darker path for a brief period. After a while, he redeemed himself and is back to being good again.

To reflect his dark days, he has a level of Shadow Adept (Player's Guide to Faerun), which requires a non-good alignment.

The first level of Shadow Adept grants three colorful feats.

However, I don't want him to have to loose those three feats when his alignment changes back to good. I don't think it is appropriate story-wise, and I don't think it makes sense that he unlearns those feats, and I think there is a fairness issue there. And yet, that's how the Complete Warrior rule says it should work.

Good roleplaying is something a DM should reward. If you have come up with an interesting idea, a DM is free to allow it. A dwarf raised by elves would lose some racial abilities and gain others. This isn't allowed by the rules, but its interesting and fun.

Unfortunately, Miswell, you are just trying to circumvent the rules for power. You want those 'three colorful feats' but still play a good aligned character. That isn't interesting, that is cheesy. A better way to deal with this situation (and stay in the rules) is set your alignment to neutral and roleplay the dilema of power verses ideals. You said yourself, this is "a darker path". If you completely turn from that path, i.e. turn good, you must turn your back on that darkness. You lose those feats until you follow the darker path again. If your alignment turns back to non-good, you get the feats.

Your choice, your virtue or power.

 

[Anubis]

Any which way, whatever the rule is, my house rule would be that losing a prerequisite would only cost you Su and Sp abilities, not Ex abilities, and that losing feat prerequisites only cause you to be unable to use the feat (although you'd still have the feat). Basically, only the alignment violations can be catastrophic.

 

[Mistwell]

The Lawful Barbarian not being able to rage is straight from the PHB.

Yes, straight from the class description in fact. No such description for the prestige classes we are all talking about.

And as others have said, the rule in CW doesn't conflict with the DMG. The DMG states that you must fulfill the pre-reqs to take your first level in the Prestige Class. The CW says you must continue to fulfill the pre-reqs to keep your access to the Prestige Class abilities.

DMG says you have to get past one hurdle. CW adds a different one that is different from the DMG one, not core, and not referenced by other Complete books, and not in the FAQ for the Core, and not in the Errata for the Core, and not specifically stating a change to a rule mentioned in the Core. We have an issue here. You can deny it's an issue, but it remains a questionmark nonetheless. I agree with you that the likely rule is the CW, but I'm not going to pretend there is no issue there to be resolved.

 

[Mistwell]

Good roleplaying is something a DM should reward. If you have come up with an interesting idea, a DM is free to allow it. A dwarf raised by elves would lose some racial abilities and gain others. This isn't allowed by the rules, but its interesting and fun.

Unfortunately, Miswell, you are just trying to circumvent the rules for power. You want those 'three colorful feats' but still play a good aligned character. That isn't interesting, that is cheesy. A better way to deal with this situation (and stay in the rules) is set your alignment to neutral and roleplay the dilema of power verses ideals. You said yourself, this is "a darker path". If you completely turn from that path, i.e. turn good, you must turn your back on that darkness. You lose those feats until you follow the darker path again. If your alignment turns back to non-good, you get the feats.

Your choice, your virtue or power.

You have no clue at all why I want this class. NONE. You attribute false intent to me. It's not cheese, it's not a power grab. Indeed, the actual intent is to not use the feats unless the role playing situation calls for it, which I am fully aware might result in an alignment change. It IS interesting, to me, and it's a situation that cannot occur in the way you seem to view the game. In your world, a character could not actually use the darker powers to slip back to the eviler alignment (since they no longer have access to them) - they would have to change their alignment first to get to the darker powers again. That makes a lot less sense to me. Sometimes it would be corruption that leads to use of power, and sometimes the use of power is itself the corrupting factor, and not the intent prior to the use. In your world, apparently there is only one option, not both. I would find that more boring and one dimensional I suspect.

Fortunately, I spoke with my DM tonight and he seems to agree.

Why you would attribute cheese and power grabbing motives to me without actually knowing the situation I don't know. I suppose everyone has a bad night, so I will just chalk your assumption leaping up to that. But in the future, be kind enough to not jump to conclusions about my motives without actually asking me about them first, okay?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm sorry Mistwell, while I don't necessarily believe you're trying to powergame here, I do believe you're absolutely wrong. The DMG doesn't state anything contrary to CW 16, a rule which in-fact was a part of 3.0, and therefore not without precedent.

I personally would rule, in most cases, strictly by the RAW in this instance. I think it makes perfect sense that if you've lost the foundation of a PrC, then you lose all the abilities that built on that foundation. Just like Spring Attack builds on the techniques involved in Mobility, so too do PrC's build on their prereqs, with sometimes fantastical results. I suppose there may be a PrC out there that I might not feel this way about (prereqs not tying into the PrC's abilities), but in that case I'd still rule a complete loss (other than hp, BAB, saves), rather than rule harshly for one PrC and generously for another.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Before considering prestige classes, let's review the core base classes for a moment. Druids and Paladins lose all their abilities if they no longer meet their alignment prerequisites. Monks, bards do not lose their abilities, but can no longer advance in that class. Barbarians lose the ability to rage, but are otherwise like monks and bards. Clerics lose their powers until they get a new patron, but they would otherwise be more like druids or paladins; they can't function if their alignment is incompatible with their patron.

Many prestige classes have alignment requirements, but some of those don't say what happens if the character's alignment changes. This is a genuine lacuna in the rules. It really should say in the DMG what happens, but it doesn't. And I have trouble accepting the notion that nothing special happens. It strains my rules sense that a class that requires a LG alignment and grants powers complementary to that of a paladin will function without change even if the paladin character becomes CE.

In the absence of a rule like CW 16, a DM would have to rule on a case by case basis what happens when a character no longer meets the alignment prerequisite of a prestige class. The DM would have to think if the class should be treated harshly, like a paladin, or gently, like a bard. With CW 16 the default rule is that they are treated harshly.

This is, I think, a wise rule. It is easier for a DM to give the player's a break than to be harsher than the RAW. If a DM thinks that failure to meet a prerequisite should simply result in not being able to advance any further, then he can so rule. If he wants to remove a few abilities (analogously with the barbarian) then he can do that too. But the rules back him up if he thinks it is inappropriate for any special ability of the class to be retained. In extreme cases it can rule out abuses by the player. Not that this is happening here, but it could be a factor in other cases.

I think the CW 16 rule practically has to be overruled in various circumstances. The 10th level dragon disciple is the most obvious case. It would be better if each prestige class said what happened to ex-members of the class, but, barring such information, a harsh rule like CW 16 is the best alternative.

This is the rules forum, and the correct rule (CW 16) has been pointed out. I am just pointing out that it is appropriate (and sometimes necessary) for CW 16 to be overruled by a DM. From what you are describing, this may be such a time. However, unlike the case of the 10th level dragon disciple, I don't think that the DM is required to give you a break. It's up to him to decide what the metaphysics of the class are, and if somehow the personal attention of Shar is required, then a change from evil can block access to the granted powers. Shar might not even be required; there might be some sort of "evil insight" that is needed by the character to make things work. Or some sort of "evil will" that taps into some dark wellspring of power. I don't know- those kind of flavor requirements are specific to a campaign.

 

[IcyCool]

DMG says you have to get past one hurdle. CW adds a different one that is different from the DMG one, not core, and not referenced by other Complete books, and not in the FAQ for the Core, and not in the Errata for the Core, and not specifically stating a change to a rule mentioned in the Core. We have an issue here. You can deny it's an issue, but it remains a questionmark nonetheless. I agree with you that the likely rule is the CW, but I'm not going to pretend there is no issue there to be resolved.

So what is the conflict between the DMG and CW, in your opinion?

 

[Mistwell]

So what is the conflict between the DMG and CW, in your opinion?

I think what you quoted is most of the issue. I'll add more if that will help.

Here are the Core Rules:

PHB:

The general rule:

"The Class abilities from a character's different classes combine to determine a multiclass character's overall abilities...As a general rule, the abilities of a multiclass character are a sum of the abilities of each of the character classes."

The exception to the general rule:

"Ex-Members: If, for some reason, a character is forced to give up this class, these are the rules for what happens. Unless otherwise noted in the class description, an ex-member of a class retains any weapon and armor proficiencies he or she gained."

So, the Core PHB rule is clear - In general you have all the abilities of all of your classes. if there is an exception to this general rule, it will be mentioned in the class itself under the "Ex-Members" section. There is a general rule mentioned for all such exceptions as well (the weapon and armor proficiencies are retained).

You also have various rules for advancement in a class. None of those rules mention losing all class abilities and features (I mention this because of the DMG rule below).

DMG:

"Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. "

So, the Prestige Class rules are clear in the Core books. Requirements are important for the first level of that prestige class. All class abilities of all classes apply, unless otherwise noted in the class itself under the "Ex-Members" section.

A group playing with just core does not have this rule "lose class abilities" general rule for prestige classes. And yet, general qualifications for prestige classes is a core issue. It's raised in the Core rulkes, it's explained in the Core rules, there is no FAQ or errata adding to or changing or explaining any of those issues, and any group playing just core has no issue there.

Complete Warrior changes the Core rule for this issue. It does does not state it is specifically adding to or changing what was said in the Core Rules for all Prestige Classes. It's under The Martial Prestige Classes (and that fact that this is for Martial Prestige Classes is emphasized in the section...in fact emphasized right before the "Meeting Class Requirements" section starts). The gist of the changed rule says you retain the things that just so happen to be of most value to a martial-oriented character: hit dice and base attack bonus and armor and weapon proficiencies.

Next, it says:

"An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance further in a prestige class." (empahsis added).

That rule is new, but it is fairly consistent with the rule for many of the Core classes, as pointed out earlier by another poster. Stopping advancement while retaining abilities makes sense. You check requirements as you enter the class, you follow the general advancement rules, and it makes sense that you check them each time you enter the class again.

The NEXT paragraph is the one that says:

"If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided."

This second paragraph is not repeated in the other Complete books (that I can recall at least), is not included ever in the FAQ as explaining the Core general rules (which differs from this one), is not included in the errata for the Core Rules.

That rule is less consistent with the Core rules as well. As explained, in the Core, it will tell you IN THE CLASS ITSELF if you lose specific abilities for failure to meet requirements. It's unprecedented that you lose all abilities for failure to qualify AS A GENERAL RULE as opposed to a specific one reserved for specific classes or types of classes. Indeed, it's directly contrary to the Core Rules which say you will be told in the class itself under a section titled "Ex-Members".

It would make more sense, however, if it was a new rule being applied to a specific sub-set of classes. Martial-oriented Classes. Who retain their hit dice and base attack bonuses and saves and armor and weapon proficiencies. All things emphasized by Martial-oriented classes more than the non-martial ones (except perhaps the saves).

Is this the correct intepretation? I have my doubts. But I lack certainty on this one. I feel like this is the sort of important rules change that you tend to find in errata or the FAQ, not as a side note in a mis-labelled section title in a single expansion book. When WOTC changed the rules to create swift and immediate actions, they made sure to stuff it into every single new book they published, and specified that it changed the Core rules, so it was clear we had a general rules change happening. No such thing happened with this rule. There is a vagueness that I am not fully confident is dealt with sufficiently to judge what the actual general rule is for Prestige Classes. Combined with it not making a lot of logical sense to me as a general rule for all Prestige Classes instead of just a subset, and I think it's an issue worth debating.