Stat requirements

[Storm Raven]

I disagree. Epic feats should be Epic. They should not be purchased if you throw enough money and XP at them like lower level abilities.

But even under your version, you can get to epic feats by throwing a bunch of money at the attempt, or do you think the +5 inherent bonus resulting from using a a bunch of wish spells or one of the stat enhancing manuals or tomes was free?

You aren't eliminating the "throw money at it" issue. You are just canceling out some of the pathways available for spending cash.

 

[IanB]

This deserves to be repeated in bold italic underlines I think:

Unless otherwise stated, a temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permanent one.

That would appear to be the bit of text we were looking for, one way or another. Good find, Storm Raven.

 

[Twowolves]

How about the FAQ:



A temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permanent one, unless otherwise stated. There is no exception with respect to qualifying for feats.

Turning undead is a glorified Charisma check, and a temporary boost to Charisma such as from an Eagle's Splendor would indeed add +2 to such checks, just as they'd add to any Diplomacy checks the character might use.

I see you completely ignored the polymorphing example.

Feats (and PrCs) are not temporary, even though the benefits thereof can be temporarily suppressed (Ray of Enfeeblement making your Power Attack unusable temporarily). I postulate therefore that only a Permenant stat increase can let you qualify for a Permenant benefit such as a feat or PrC. You obviously don't agree, and you are free to do as you wish in your own game. I opened this thread with this question, and I have, in my opinion, found my answer. Namely that the RAW does not explicitly cover this, and the best interpretation for my game is to not allow items to qualify a character for a feat. YMMV.

 

[Storm Raven]

Turning undead is a glorified Charisma check, and a temporary boost to Charisma such as from an Eagle's Splendor would indeed add +2 to such checks, just as they'd add to any Diplomacy checks the character might use.

You missed the point.

Unless otherwise stated, a temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permanent one.

I see you completely ignored the polymorphing example.

Because it is not applicable.

Feats (and PrCs) are not temporary, even though the benefits thereof can be temporarily suppressed (Ray of Enfeeblement making your Power Attack unusable temporarily). I postulate therefore that only a Permenant stat increase can let you qualify for a Permenant benefit such as a feat or PrC. You obviously don't agree, and you are free to do as you wish in your own game. I opened this thread with this question, and I have, in my opinion, found my answer. Namely that the RAW does not explicitly cover this, and the best interpretation for my game is to not allow items to qualify a character for a feat. YMMV.

The rule is simple: temporary enhancements to ability scores are the same as permanent enhancements unless otherwise specified. The spells and items that enhance ability scores do not specify otherwise with respect to qualifying for feats. Therefore, they allow you to qualify for feats. You can decide to make a house rule otherwise, but that is what it is - a house rule. It is not that I don't agree with you, WotC doesn't agree with you.

 

[Twowolves]

You missed the point.

Unless otherwise stated, a temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permanent one.

[/i]

Because it is not applicable.

[/i]

The rule is simple: temporary enhancements to ability scores are the same as permanent enhancements unless otherwise specified. The spells and items that enhance ability scores do not specify otherwise with respect to qualifying for feats. Therefore, they allow you to qualify for feats. You can decide to make a house rule otherwise, but that is what it is - a house rule. It is not that I don't agree with you, WotC doesn't agree with you.

The Persistant Polymorph example is 100% applicable. If a character can maintain a gnome form by casting/recasting/extending an Alter Self/Polymorph/Polymorph Any Object, or with a similar magic item, then should he qualify for a Feat or PrC with "Race: Gnome" as a prerequisite? I don't think so.

You have put up your case, and I have not agreed. I don't find your quote to be all encompasing, and the FAQ is NOT errata, and has been shown to be in error before. Every example you pose is an example of an enhanced stat modifying rolls of some sort, and not a single one is an example of meeting a prerequisite for a feat nor a PrC. You seem to think this absence is evidence, whereas I think it's just an absence, a grey area in the rules.

 

[IanB]

The Persistant Polymorph example is 100% applicable. If a character can maintain a gnome form by casting/recasting/extending an Alter Self/Polymorph/Polymorph Any Object, or with a similar magic item, then should he qualify for a Feat or PrC with "Race: Gnome" as a prerequisite? I don't think so.

You have put up your case, and I have not agreed. I don't find your quote to be all encompasing, and the FAQ is NOT errata, and has been shown to be in error before. Every example you pose is an example of an enhanced stat modifying rolls of some sort, and not a single one is an example of meeting a prerequisite for a feat nor a PrC. You seem to think this absence is evidence, whereas I think it's just an absence, a grey area in the rules.

Mmm, maybe. Persistent polymorph isn't really a continuous single effect though, it is a new casting of the spell every X hours. An item just constantly gives you the bonus. I think that is probably enough justification to allow one and not the other.

 

[KarinsDad]

That would appear to be the bit of text we were looking for, one way or another. Good find, Storm Raven.

Yet again, a FAQ answer is not a rules answer.

 

[IanB]

Yet again, a FAQ answer is not a rules answer.

The FAQ clarifies and corrects the RAW. It seems clear that as this is the only document that WotC updates, it is the method they use to deliver rulings to us. This matches their policy for all their other games I'm familiar with.

If your contention is that we should ignore the FAQ, we don't have anything further to discuss, as I find that position to be incomprehensible.

 

[KarinsDad]

If your contention is that we should ignore the FAQ, we don't have anything further to discuss, as I find that position to be incomprehensible.

My contention is that you should take the FAQ with a grain of salt.

It is the opinion of one person, not the be all end all of rules.

There are portions of the FAQ in error.

There were portions of the 3E FAQ that were overturned for 3.5.

The FAQ is a great place to look for clarification, but it is not a place to look for rules.

 

[IanB]

My contention is that you should take the FAQ with a grain of salt.

It is the opinion of one person, not the be all end all of rules.

There are portions of the FAQ in error.

There were portions of the 3E FAQ that were overturned for 3.5.

The FAQ is a great place to look for clarification, but it is not a place to look for rules.

The FAQ containing errors and being the work of a single author do not to me create grounds for ignoring it whenever convenient or when it disagrees with a poster's agenda, which is what usually seems to happen on this board when someone brings up the FAQ. (I am not accusing you of this, mind you.) The rules contain errors too, and some rulebooks are the work of single authors.

There were portions of the 3E rules that were overturned for 3.5 too. It is natural that the FAQ would change as they change versions and re-examine things. Rulings are allowed to change, much like the distance between home plate and the pitcher's mound has not been the same for the entire history of baseball.

The FAQ makes rulings. What is a ruling if not a rule?

"Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs."

The FAQ provides official (their wording) answers to rules questions. That sounds like rulings to me.