Prestige class prerequisites?

[Bacris]

Except this class is not the only one that by its own class features makes you no longer qualify for the class...

So where do you draw the line? If you go by the CW rules, then you're making multiple Prestige Classes no longer legal.

You can't use a hard & fast rule because of situations such as this, that's the problem.

I think it's pretty obvious what the spirit of the rule is: don't use an item or some other way to qualify for a PrC and then ditch it once you got what you needed, as it completely eliminates the opportunity cost of the requirements - but you can't simply slap on a bandaid rule that then causes more mechanical problems.

That's a big part of the problem - the rules WotC will put out, such as the one in CW, don't even take into account their core rulebook options.

Is there a way to rule this so it makes sense? Absolutely. Is it in a WotC rulebook? No.

 

[Shazman]

Except for Rage, of course...



But it doesn't bother you that someone who isn't evil can't learn to make a Death Attack in the first place?

-Hyp.

Actually, it does bother me. After all, there are two PrC's in Comlpete Warrior (darkwood stalker and darkhunter) that both have death attack and don't require an evil alignment.

 

[glass]

If it instead said, "cannot be a half-dragon," then the 10th level acquisition of the half-dragon template would indeed cause a problem. As written, it's fine.

Not quite. It only uses the 'already' qualifier in the 'cannot already be a half-dragon'. Dragon Apotheosis gives you the dragon type, which also violates 'any nondragon' (which has no 'already').


glass.

 

[Cerowyn]

Not quite. It only uses the 'already' qualifier in the 'cannot already be a half-dragon'. Dragon Apotheosis gives you the dragon type, which also violates 'any nondragon' (which has no 'already').

So, you don't think it's blindingly obvious that the use of the word 'already' was intended to prevent Dragon Apotheosis from disqualifying a character from the PrC? I'm intrigued how conventional English grammar could be tortured to make this assertion true.

 

[Mistwell]

I find it interesting that some people that disregard the FAQ will still follow the new rule in Complete Warrior. As if an expansion book that has errors is somehow more authoritative than an official FAQ that has errors.

 

[Dross]

Except this class is not the only one that by its own class features makes you no longer qualify for the class...

So where do you draw the line? If you go by the CW rules, then you're making multiple Prestige Classes no longer legal.

You can't use a hard & fast rule because of situations such as this, that's the problem.

........

Is there a way to rule this so it makes sense? Absolutely. Is it in a WotC rulebook? No.

Yes there is (I however canot give you a page/source quote). Specific trumps general rules. So in the case of PrC, if:
1- You meet the pre-reqs to enter the PrC
2- You no longer meeting them because of something that the PrC does (change the race etc),
3- You are considered to still be meeting the PrC pre-reqs. The (some might call it implied) specific rule is that it does not make you loose out on the PrC.

Otherwise why spend a feat on improved sunder if you are still going to receive AoOs everytime you try to sunder anything?