Meeting minimum feat prerequisites

[Scion]

If you can prove that it explicitly states that you retain all other feats that would be dependent on the feat you cannot use, then I will be happy to look at your evidence.

Again, other than the one that already does this?

If you dont like it that is fine, but that doesnt make it any less true.

You cannot use power attack with a less than 13 str, all well and good.

if you had another hypothetical feat who's prereqs are only 'power attack' then you can still use that feat. You still 'have' the prereqs, you just cant use them.

Again, this is like far shot and point blank shot. You have to have point blank shot in order to get far shot, but most of the time you cannot use point blank shot while using far shot, it is out of range.

 

[moritheil]

::sighs:: you mean the quote that says, specifically, that you merely cannot use it and not that it somehow magically 'goes away'?

Just because you no longer have str 13 does not mean that you lose all of that training, you simply cant use it in that particular way, but you still have the knowledge.

The training is still there.

I'd have to say that the rules 'and' logic are against you here.

You have no rules on your side that you have presented, you have nothing but your desire for it to work in some way. You are making up logic chains that have no beginning and points that do not connect.

Patryn of Elvenshae has a decent thought process that, while I disagree with it, at least has some continuity.

If you had at least that much it would be a start. Definately not enough, but a start.

Your posts are getting more and more hostile as time goes on. I am attempting to remain civil here. Do try to do the same.

You opened with insults a while back, so I marvel that you can claim to be attempting to remain civil. Nevertheless, to the issue: Your side of the argument argues that feats are "training."

Is Toughness "training?" Do you train yourself to have more hit points?

Is Bloodline of Fire "training?" Do you train yourself to be born to a line of effreeti descent?

Training is training; a feat is a feat. Your assertion depends on the fact that feats are "training," which I have just shown to be an invalid assumption.

Furthermore, your assertion depends on the assumption that with strength less than 13, you can successfully use all subsequent feats. Why are you willing to assume that? Isn't it your own desire to have your own POV vindicated? I could easily say that you can't hit hard enough to cleave something once you lose your strength. Does it make sense? Maybe. Is it RAW-related? No.

Aren't you the one who's insisting on RAW quotations and saying that opinions are near-worthless? Why are you giving me opinions as support then?

 

[Scion]

how about this:

I have a car, because I have a car I can get car insurance.

now, my car breaks down/runs out of gas. I can no longer use my car.

Does this mean I can no longer have/use my car insurance?

 

[moritheil]

Again, other than the one that already does this?

If you dont like it that is fine, but that doesnt make it any less true.

You cannot use power attack with a less than 13 str, all well and good.

No, I like it a lot, but your interpretation makes no sense.

See, it says that you can't use a feat.

It doesn't say "but you can still use it to qualify."

It doesn't say "this statement about not being able to use it only applies to the actual action associated with the feat."

You cannot use power attack with a strength less than 13.

Perhaps if I phrased the question "what are you using to qualify for Cleave?" the problem would be clearer.

 

[moritheil]

how about this:

I have a car, because I have a car I can get car insurance.

now, my car breaks down/runs out of gas. I can no longer use my car.

Does this mean I can no longer have/use my car insurance?

This is not a fair example, but in the interests of trying to work with you, I'll play along:

You can no longer make use of your car insurance as long as you don't have a car, in the sense that you can't use it to insure you against collisions that you cause due to driving in your car.

Now, the reason it's not a fair example is that car insurance often applies to you when you're driving other cars. When you're driving your friend Bob's car, for example, depending on the stipulations of your car insurance company, your car insurance might still be relevant. Furthermore, the car insurance company does not fundamentally care whether or not you have a car - they care about your record, etc. If you don't have a car, you're paying them money for a service you aren't using. To them, that's great!

If, however, the only time that your car insurance ever applies is when you drive, and the only vehicle you can ever drive is your own car, then I would say that the fact that your car doesn't run means that you aren't deriving any benefit from your car insurance. This is due to the setup of things.

Similarly, you aren't deriving any benefit from Power Attack when your strength is gone - including the benefit of qualifying for Cleave. This is due to the setup of things. (Power Attack is the prereq for Cleave, etc.)



A fairer example would be "Can you defeat Nixon in a presidential race?"

For you to race, you must be alive. For him to race, he must be alive.

Nixon is not alive.

Thus, Nixon cannot run for the presidency.

Thus, you cannot defeat Nixon in a presidential race, because he can't run.

 

[Scion]

You opened with insults a while back

I am sorry if you read it that way, but I just reread my posts and I see nothing like this. I do see you getting more beligerant, but I was attempting to ignore it figureing it was just a communication problem.

Is Toughness "training?" Do you train yourself to have more hit points?

yes, you train yourself to be tougher. Hence, increasing your toughness. Or toughness. One way in the game to work with this is through the abstraction of hp.

I actually had a character class I made in 3.0 that was designed around this sort of concept. He got a lot of extra hp over time, because he liked to be hit. He had ac issues and had to take at least a certain amount of damage every day.

Interesting character, sortof like the forsaker but much more balanced and playable.

Is Bloodline of Fire "training?" Do you train yourself to be born to a line of effreeti descent?

You train yourself to trigger certain responses in your body. Just like any other talent. It may come more easily for some than for others, perhaps you were born able to do it, but at some point your body had to learn how to do it. Consciously or not.

Training is training; a feat is a feat. Your assertion depends on the fact that feats are "training," which I have just shown to be an invalid assumption.

I am afraid that you have shown no such thing.

I am not sure how you do feats in your game, but I have always seen them as being something that a character works towards somehow. Even feats taken at first level must be in the background somehow.

This seems to be very in line with what feats are, and what they do.

Take for example improved natural attack. A creature who gains a few levels of Class X and has a natural weapon somehow decides to take this. It isnt necissarily that his body suddenly became more deadly (although one could say it that way if they liked I suppose, but I would expect there to be a 'reason' for it), maybe he just 'learned' how to use his natural weapons better.

Or how about a number of other feats that you didnt mention?

Run? The character likes to run long distances, and does it often, he has trained his body to do so.
Tracking? He has learned how to study the slightest of clues, things that normal people miss.

Or even things that arent feats but are feat like, such as the rogues ability to find traps and remove them.

Feats are something a character picks up through experience, or through natural ability which is learned by other means.

So yes, feats definately strike me as something that is 'learned'. You didnt know how to do it before, now you do.

Furthermore, your assertion depends on the assumption that with strength less than 13, you can successfully use all subsequent feats.

I have made no such assertion.

I have merely said that if you 'have' the prereqs then you can use the feat.

Just because you dont have the prereqs for a feat that is a prereq does not mean that you cannot use the feat further down the chain, you still 'have' the other feat, you simply cannot use it.

If cleave did not require 13 str (say that it was mentioned more as a finesse type of attack, but still required you to know how to strike hard as power attack does) and your str dropped below 13 you still have power attack, you simply may not use it. In this case there is no reason you could not still use cleave, you still know how to cleave, you still have all of the prereqs, you simply cannot 'use' the prereqs right now. Which really isnt any different than point blank shot and far shot.

Aren't you the one who's insisting on RAW quotations and saying that opinions are near-worthless?

You still havent given any raw to counter what I have given you. Until then, the rules I have posted is the way it is. Your opinion about how it 'should' be done not withstanding.

 

[Scion]

It doesn't say "but you can still use it to qualify."

That is because it doesnt have to!

You still 'have' the feat, therefore you still 'have' the feat. Just because you cannot 'use' it is of no importance at all unless you can find something to support your claims.

 

[moritheil]

I am afraid that you have shown no such thing.

I am not sure how you do feats in your game, but I have always seen them as being something that a character works towards somehow. Even feats taken at first level must be in the background somehow.

This seems to be very in line with what feats are, and what they do.

You saw that I quoted Bloodline of Fire, and you still insist upon the assertion that feats are training? Fine. Please tell me how I can work hard towards being born to someone whose ancestor was an effreeti. I have a feeling that when you can explain this, I will understand your position better.

You still havent given any raw to counter what I have given you. Until then, the rules I have posted is the way it is. Your opinion about how it 'should' be done not withstanding.

And if you're listening, the RAW doesn't support your opinion over mine at all. A few archery feats happening to involve actions that cannot be taken at the same time is not the same as not being able to apply those feats towards other feats.

 

[moritheil]

You still 'have' the feat, therefore you still 'have' the feat. Just because you cannot 'use' it is of no importance at all unless you can find something to support your claims.

What are you using to qualify for Cleave? I note that you still can't answer that.

 

[Crothian]

What are you using to qualify for Cleave? I note that you still can't answer that.

if you have the feat (in this case power attack) and can't use the feat, then cleave is fine. If you lose the feat then you canb't use cleave.