Practiced Spellcaster

[saucercrab]

I don't believe it is listed as one of the prerequisites, but if the benefit states that it raises a spellcasting class that you have, then a fighter could qualify for it, but he would have to take Practiced Spellcaster (nothing) and not Practiced Spellcaster (Cleric).

Didn't think of it that way. In that case, the feat either needs an additional prerequisite, or it's flavor text rewritten.

And, after reading up on Nonabilities, it seems the formian queen is getting screwed on Initiative. At least she has a +20 to hit with scorching ray.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Didn't think of it that way. In that case, the feat either needs an additional prerequisite, or it's flavor text rewritten.

Why?

As noted, the fighter can take the feat; it just provides no benefit.

Since we can determine what happens, no change is necessary. He'd just be foolish to take the feat... like the infamous Weapon Specialization: Net feat, which adds +2 to all damage rolls with a weapon that never grants a damage roll...

-Hyp.

 

[saucercrab]

Why?

As noted, the fighter can take the feat; it just provides no benefit.

Since we can determine what happens, no change is necessary. He'd just be foolish to take the feat... like the infamous Weapon Specialization: Net feat, which adds +2 to all damage rolls with a weapon that never grants a damage roll...

-Hyp.

That's not a fair comparison.

Practiced Spellcaster is apparently useless no matter how a single-class fighter chooses it. Weapon Specialization can be chosen so that it is useful.

A fairer (more fair?) comparison would be: a fighter/wizard taking Practiced Spellcaster (cleric) vs. taking Weapon Specialization (net).

 

[Hypersmurf]

A fairer (more fair?) comparison would be: a fighter/wizard taking Practiced Spellcaster (cleric) vs. taking Weapon Specialization (net).

He can't. Cleric is not a spellcasting class that he has.

-Hyp.

 

[saucercrab]

I get that. I really do.

Your comparison made no sense to me, so I was trying to show another one. I failed. I can't think of another one that would make sense, off the top of my head.

Hyp, do you really think it makes sense that a character can select a feat because the prerequisites don't bar him from taking it, but that can never, ever benefit him?

I can't think of any other feats that operate like this. Even ones such as Skill Focus & certain metamagic feats can be taken & will function retroactively.

 

[Illvillainy]

How can one be 'practised' in the use of magic without having the ability to use said magic in the first place?

The prerequisites should not need to state simple common sense.

 

[saucercrab]

How can one be 'practised' in the use of magic without having the ability to use said magic in the first place?

The prerequisites should not need to state simple common sense.

You don't read a lot of D&D message boards do you?

There have been lots of discussions centering on holes in logic that are still supported by RAW. Flavor text vs. stats have been at odds quite often.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, do you really think it makes sense that a character can select a feat because the prerequisites don't bar him from taking it, but that can never, ever benefit him?

I think it's not something that can be exploited, and it's not something that causes the game to Crash to Desktop.

It's a little bit like the EWM class ability in Complete Warrior that lets you apply Power Attack to a one-handed exotic weapon wielded in two hands as if it were a two-handed weapon. It just happens that that's exactly how Power Attack works without the class ability.

It gives no benefit... but it doesn't cause a problem, so it doesn't need to be changed.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hyp, do you really think it makes sense that a character can select a feat because the prerequisites don't bar him from taking it, but that can never, ever benefit him?

Skill focus(speak language)
Simple weapon proficiency for any character who is not a wizard, druid or monk - they're not barred, but the feat specifically says it will do them no good. Same goes for the armour and shield feats, and martial weapon proficiency.
Ability focus for an attack that has no save DC
Diehard for a construct
Endurance for a construct
Empower spell like ability - when the monster has no suitable powers
Quicken spell like ability
Run for a creature that cannot run
Hover for a creature with perfect maneuverability
Improved counterspelling for a non-caster

The list goes on. The system is perfectly willing to let you choose a useless feat. A lot of the time it will warn you beforehand, but not every time.

 

[Illvillainy]

You don't read a lot of D&D message boards do you?

There have been lots of discussions centering on holes in logic that are still supported by RAW. Flavor text vs. stats have been at odds quite often.

I do, but I shake my head a lot.