Failing to meet prestige class requirements

[Kahuna Burger]

It's the whole "frontloaded" part that doesn't belong in this thread. So, let's remove it. For the sake of the argument, assume the prestige class in question grants a +1 bonus to Profession (Cheesemonger) checks, and that's it.

Now, tell me how it is cheesy, other than the pun itself.

strangely, I do not grant you the right to determine what does and doesn't belong in this thread, especially in a digression about the cheesyness of your character choices. Thus, I will not be removing it.

Even if it were removed, declaring "at some point in the past I met this PrCs roleplaying requirement, but don't anymore, but want the mechanical benefits of the class anyway" is, yes, cheesy.

I don't expect my opinion of your theoretical character's cheese factor to be very important to you, and I don't quite understand why you are arguing the point. If you don't think its cheesy, and your dm doesn't think its cheesy, I'd think that would be more than enough.

 

[MadBlue]

With the dwarven defender- you still have the feat, you just can't use it. If the prestige class required you to have a Dex of 13, you'd be in trouble. That's my understanding, anyway.

The same way you temporarily lose the use of all the Feats in the Dodge Feat Chain (as per p87 of the PHB). The descriptions of individual PrCs give additional conditions in which you lose Special Abilities or are no longer qualified to gain levels in the PrC.

IMHO, it makes sense for some Dwarven Defender abilities, such as Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense, but Defensive Stance and Damage Reduction seem to be more keyed to Endurance and Toughness than Dodge. I guess it's easier than parsing out which prerequisite corresponds to which Special Ability and discourages people from dipping, but it also leads to some pretty weird results in application. Consider a Dragon Disciple who, for some reason, loses the ability to speak Draconic. Suddenly she loses the use of her wings, claws, fangs and natural armor, blindsense, ability boosts and bonus spells?

Then again, if you don't lose Special Abilities when you no longer meet the prerequisites, the fact that you can meet the prerequisite of a PrC through a magic item is a bit unbalanced, considering how easy it is to get magic items in some campaigns.

My question is, if this rule is part of 3.5, why did they wait until CW to mention this rule in 3.5? And why is it mentioned in CW and CA, but not in CD and CV? Did the designers assume that people were playing with the rule from 3.0?

MadBlue

 

[Caliban]

So, if you take any prestige class with race as one of the prerequisites, and your race changes for any reason, you lose the abilities of that class until your race changes back?

Such as with Alter Self, Polymorph, Reincarnation, or Shapechange?

I'm not sure that is what was intended.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Then again, if you don't lose Special Abilities when you no longer meet the prerequisites, the fact that you can meet the prerequisite of a PrC through a magic item is a bit unbalanced, considering how easy it is to get magic items in some campaigns.

I'd consider that a dm's ruling, not a fact. I know I would never allow a character to qualify for a PrC on the basis of a magic item.

but more to the point, I think focusing on explicitly temporary conditions such as polymorphing or fatigue is muddying the waters. IMHO a character qualifies or does not based on the core of the character. You don't get extra bard spells known by casting eagles splendor the "moment" you level to a "0" slot, and you don't lose all your dwarven defender abilities because giant centipede poison temporarily robbed you of Dodge. I am comfortable placing spells, items and temporary physical conditions in one catagory and swapping sorc or bard spells, permanent feat loss/replacement, allignment changes or even finding a new god in a seperate one. A decision on the second catagory's effect on PrC abilities says nothing about the effects of the first.

 

[Geoff Watson]

My question is, if this rule is part of 3.5, why did they wait until CW to mention this rule in 3.5? And why is it mentioned in CW and CA, but not in CD and CV? Did the designers assume that people were playing with the rule from 3.0?

MadBlue

It was an editing error. Some of the PrC rules were accidentally left out of 3.5, such as not counting for multi-class XP penalties.

Geoff.

 

[LokiDR]

Let me throw another example out there. I have a dwarven defender who for a long time had a 13 Dex. This is the min stat required for Dodge, one of the pre-requisites for the prestige class. After he was done with the defensive stance, he became fatigued which imposed a -2 Dex penalty. By the CW rules, he should lose his dwarven defender abilities for that minute that he's fatigued, right (because he no longer meets the Dodge Dex requirements)?

First off, I think you have a technical issue. In the SRD I read "At the end of the defensive stance, the defender is winded and takes a -2 penalty to Strength for the duration of that encounter." This actually doesn't affect dodge at all, therefore you would keep your abilities. That is a very lawer way of not answering your question.

To answer your intent, I think it makes sense. If you are too tired to be able to dodge properly, you shouldn't be able to do all those things you learned to do based off of dodging. By CW 16, this is explicitly what happens. It would make you play your dwarven defender differently, perhaps not minimizing dex in the first place or maybe getting gloves of dexterity. In other words, balancing your strengths and weakness, not just min-maxing.

 

[Mistwell]

strangely, I do not grant you the right to determine what does and doesn't belong in this thread, especially in a digression about the cheesyness of your character choices. Thus, I will not be removing it.

Even if it were removed, declaring "at some point in the past I met this PrCs roleplaying requirement, but don't anymore, but want the mechanical benefits of the class anyway" is, yes, cheesy.

I don't expect my opinion of your theoretical character's cheese factor to be very important to you, and I don't quite understand why you are arguing the point. If you don't think its cheesy, and your dm doesn't think its cheesy, I'd think that would be more than enough.

Well lets see, if I call you a thief publicly, and you don't believe you are a thief, then you will be satisfied that your opinion simply differs from mine and you won't be bothered by it?

I'm bothered because I wanted input on a question, you injected a totally different issue into the mix (the power of the single level fo the prestige class in question), declared it as my motives, and then declared it cheesy because of those motives you posited. Yes, if you are going to argue a strawman AND my motives in an insulting way, I'm going to respond.

 

[Mistwell]

It was an editing error. Some of the PrC rules were accidentally left out of 3.5, such as not counting for multi-class XP penalties.

Geoff.

That's why they use errata and the FAQ. If they use an expansion to rewrite a rule, the declare it in the new rule that it overrides the old rule in the core book. They did not do that with this new rule.

 

[sydbar]

There is an easy way to settle the question, ask the dm, and abide by his ruling.

 

[LokiDR]

That's why they use errata and the FAQ. If they use an expansion to rewrite a rule, the declare it in the new rule that it overrides the old rule in the core book. They did not do that with this new rule.

They have never done that, even in 3.0. There were numerous 'clarifications' published in later books. Tomb and Blood went so far as to reprint polymorph, again. Wizards has used the extended material to clarify the game several times (and sell more books). I fail to see why this is different.