Getting a bonus feat you already have

[AuraSeer]

Retroactively house ruled to what? Every PrC I know of that grants darkvision already does make it stack. For instance there's the Horizon Walker in the DMG, and the Dark Hunter in (I think) CW.

 

[Shin Okada]

In Complete Warrior, Dark Hunter gives "Enhanced Darkvision", which give darkvision to someone who don't have it, and increase the range for someone already have. But in the very same book, Darkwood Stalker class give darkvision, which DOES NOT increase the range if the character already has darkvision.

So there seem to be no generic rule.

 

[Krelios]

Complete Arcane and Complete Adventurer both have PrCs that say "if the character already has this feat, select a different one instead." IMO, it would not be a significant houserule to say that applies across the board.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I disagree. If the prestige class says "If you already have this feat, you may choose another you qualify for," well, that's fine. But if it doesn't, you shouldn't read that in.

Otherwise it could become a way of banking feats: first you choose a low level feat, then when you get it as a bonus feat from a prestige class you get a feat you didn't qualify for when you got the original.

The reason for a bonus feat might be to provide a "catch up" to characters who didn't already have it. It is not necessarily to provide a benefit to every character.

It would seem very strange for prestige class writers to have to state that "if you already have this feat, you may NOT choose another," rather than be able to just presuppose that if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

 

[Krelios]

I disagree. If the prestige class says "If you already have this feat, you may choose another you qualify for," well, that's fine. But if it doesn't, you shouldn't read that in.

Otherwise it could become a way of banking feats: first you choose a low level feat, then when you get it as a bonus feat from a prestige class you get a feat you didn't qualify for when you got the original.

The reason for a bonus feat might be to provide a "catch up" to characters who didn't already have it. It is not necessarily to provide a benefit to every character.

It would seem very strange for prestige class writers to have to state that "if you already have this feat, you may NOT choose another," rather than be able to just presuppose that if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

I said it wouldn't be a significant houserule, not that it was the RAW. Of course, YMMV.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What about Rangers and Monks? Would people house rule those as well?

 

[Geoff Watson]

Especially when they are feats that a character specialized in that way would likely take anyway.

Like the Reaping Mauler (a grappling PrC) who grants Improved Grapple as a bonus feat. What character who is interesting in grappling wouldn't already have it?

Geoff.

 

[Li Shenron]

What about Rangers and Monks? Would people house rule those as well?

If it comes up, yes I would.

Notice that the Ranger is partially well designed regarding to this because he gets some of the archery or 2WF bonus feats at the first level when he would otherwise need to be to qualify (6th and 11th, he could never have BAB +6 and +11 earlier). It is not true however with the first of these feats (and with Endurance), and in fact it is quite silly that an archery Ranger "must" wait until 2nd level to take Rapid Shot, while any other character could take it at 1st level. Sure, you could accept to waste a feat, but how does a player feel by doing that?

The Monk has more choices for bonus feats, therefore if one already had BOTH of the possible bonus feats, I'd allow him to take one of the others in the list before anything else.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Pretty much what I was thinking.

The ranger issue only becomes problematic when multiclassing comes into play delaying the feats' aquisition. Thus far the situaions have never arisen in my games, but it might in one I'm playing in with a warmage character who wants to take medium/heavy armor proficiency early.

 

[Shin Okada]

If it comes up, yes I would.

Notice that the Ranger is partially well designed regarding to this because he gets some of the archery or 2WF bonus feats at the first level when he would otherwise need to be to qualify (6th and 11th, he could never have BAB +6 and +11 earlier). It is not true however with the first of these feats (and with Endurance), and in fact it is quite silly that an archery Ranger "must" wait until 2nd level to take Rapid Shot, while any other character could take it at 1st level. Sure, you could accept to waste a feat, but how does a player feel by doing that?

The Monk has more choices for bonus feats, therefore if one already had BOTH of the possible bonus feats, I'd allow him to take one of the others in the list before anything else.

Regarding combat style, rangers do not gain actual feats. They cannot use those benefits when they are wearing medium or heavy armor. So, if you use that house rule, someone formally capable of doing TWF or Rapid Shot in heavy armor suddenly become able to do it only in light armor. It seems really strange to me.