Meeting minimum feat prerequisites

[Scion]

You are the one who has to prove that you retain the feats.

I already have. You just dont like it.

Again, prove your position.

Take a look at PrCs. If you lose access to them, you lose access to all the benefits of the PrC, including meeting requirements for feats.

From what I recall this is not true in the core, even if it should be.

But then, when it does do it that way it 'specifically mentions it' and you still dont lose everything, you keep hd and other such things, you merely lose class features.

So yes, even in that extreme case you still keep something. You have bits and pieces, and you even still have levels in the class, so if someone had an item that said, 'deals X extra damage to members of this class' you would still take extra damage.

No, actually, I was saying that I didn't understand it as a polite way to say that you were wrong. I was giving you an out, in case you wanted to realize that feats do not necessarily represent training. You refused to take it, but that's your choice.

You still have no proof and you are saying that other people must prove your position or convince you that your opinion, which again still has no basis, is false.

I dont care what your opinion is, the raw is against you.

 

[Scion]

Do you see why I called it a bad example?

Apparently because it destroys your case so you have to make up periphials which are not in evidence and then hope no one notices.

I did notice and I called your bluff. Also, your counter example fails at its first line, which is even more damaging to your case.

(To make this clear: You cannot still use "part of" Power Attack in the way that you could use part of your insurance coverage. Instead the RAW states that you cannot use Power Attack, period. You cannot use Power Attack at all.)

You arent useing it, but you still have it.

You dont have to power attack for at least one point in order to cleave. You merely have to have the feat in order to cleave.

(this is of course ignoring that cleave requires str 13, as usual)

Until you can show that having something but not being able to use it means that you dont have it then I am afraid you have no support.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If someone buys a hotel by putting the purchase price on his Dilithium Express card, he is fairly obviously using his card.

But let's say he's walked into a restaurant, and the Maitre d' tells him there are no tables available. If he lets the Maitre d' 'accidentally' catch a glimpse of the Dilithium Express card in his wallet, and suddenly there's a table available for such an important guest...

... is he gaining this advantage simply by having, despite not using, the card? Or is it just another use of the card other than financial transactions?

Did he use the card to get his table, or not?

(Interested in responses from Scion and moritheil in particular )

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

I should get one of those

He is definately gaining an advantage that he would not otherwise have gotten (assuming there were no other factors), and he didnt have to 'use' it for its actual use. Although one could say that it was the key factor in him getting his table.

Which means of course I think the 'or' is misplaced. He didnt 'use' it, but got an advantage nonetheless.

Overly complicated way of saying something fairly simple, but that is what I do

 

[FireLance]

Take a look at PrCs. If you lose access to them, you lose access to all the benefits of the PrC, including meeting requirements for feats.

An interesting thought. Page 16 of Complete Warrior (I'm using it because I happen to have it with me) states:

Meeting Class Requirements:It's possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of a class. 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.
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.

Unlike feats, prestige classes often have feat prerequissites, but no direct minimum ability score requirements, except insofar as some feats have minimum ability scores as prerequisites. However, if we take the interpretation that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a feat, you cannot use that feat as a prerequisite for other abilities, you have the following situations (again, PrC examples are taken from Complete Warrior because I have the book with me):

1. A bear warrior (prerequisite: Power Attack) whose Strength is reduced to less than 12 or less (due to, say, a -12 Strength penalty from an empowered ray of enfeeblement) can no longer maintain his bear form and loses his scent ability (if he has it).

2. A bladesinger (prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Dodge) whose Intelligence or Dexterity is reuced to 12 or less loses access to one or more arcane spellcasting levels.

3. A darkwood stalker (prerequiste: Dodge) whose Dexterity is reduced to 12 or less loses access to what are effectively favored enemy bonuses against orcs.

4. A drunken master (prerequiste: Dodge) whose Dexterity is reduced to 12 or less loses his ability to drink like a demon and use improvised weapons.

5. One of the best ways to bring down a frenzied berserker (prerequisite: Power Attack) is to attack her Strength, because she loses her frenzy and deathless frenzy abilities when her Strenth drops to 12 or less.

6. A kensai (prerequiste: Combat Expertise) whose Intelligence is reduced to 12 or below loses all the abilities of his signature weapon.

7. From the core rules, a blackguard (prerequisite: Power Attack) whose Strength is reduced to 12 or below loses his spells, his ability to sneak attack, his ability to smite good, the services of his fiendish servant, his bonus to saves from dark blessing, his ability to command undead, and his aura of despair.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with playing the game with the above interpretation, if you like the results. I happen to find that it produces results I do not like, so I will interpret it differently in the games I run. And, if I'm playing in a game with the above interpretation, I will pack a maximized, empowered ray of enfeeblement just in case I meet a blackguard.

 

[Scion]

Dont forget dragon disciple.. 10th level you become a half dragon.. which means dragon type, which means you are no longer a 'non dragon', which means you no longer gain the class abilities

which means you are no longer a half dragon

which means you get the class abilities back

which means you lose the class abilities..

..

...
....

.....

 

[Hypersmurf]

He didnt 'use' it, but got an advantage nonetheless.

So he gets the table by having the card, not by using the card?

-Hyp.

 

[Particle_Man]

One example of a "feat you can't use" is the 1st level Rogue (assume this is also a 1st level character, non-gestalt, etc.) with Combat Expertise and Improved Feint (the latter being useful for sneak attack situations). Now the prereq says Int 13. But Combat Expertise says one subtracts a number from one's to hit roll that can be no higher than one's BAB. But a 1st level Rogue's BAB is 0. So the Combat Expertise feat cannot be "used". Yet it does count as a prerequisite for Improved Feint, so the Rogue can do the "bluff + sneak attack" trick.

This gives some support to the idea that one can have feats that "count" only for the purpose of being prerequisites for other feats. Thus there is grounds for feats that cannot be used themselves, but do exist for the purposes of being prerequisites for other feats.

Thus I would allow pc's to Whirlwind Attack in heavy armor, even though they could not Spring Attack in that armor and the 2nd feat is one of the prereq's for the 1st.

Thus I would allow pc's that have str go below 13 to have power attack count as a prerequisite for prestige class abilities and other feats, but be unable to reduce his to hit chance to increase damage until his strength is increased to above 12.

 

[Scion]

So he gets the table by having the card, not by using the card?

As I tried to say above, there are uses and 'uses'.

The card is nominally used to charge things, but simply having it does provide other benefits as you have shown.

But I am unable to say that he didnt 'use' it, I can only say he didnt use it for its normally intended purpose but he still got a 'use' out of it

So, while it couldnt be used to charge anything it was still useful to get him the table. In effect, he got use out of it, just not the normal use.

So yes, he used it all right. It is currently powering his 'status' feat even though the 'credit card feat' is currently unavailable for use.

Or I suppose you could make an arguement for the Maitre d' being used 'by' it. lol

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I tried to say above, there are uses and 'uses'.

And that's the fundamental disconnect between you and moritheil.

You say "You can't use the feat" means "You can't use the feat, but you can 'use' the feat".

Moritheil says "You can't use the feat" means "You can't use the feat, or 'use' the feat".

But I am unable to say that he didnt 'use' it, I can only say he didnt use it for its normally intended purpose but he still got a 'use' out of it

Right. You consider that to be allowable even in a state where the credit card cannot be used; moritheil does not.

-Hyp.