Stat requirements

[Dimwhit]

IanB, you'll never convince them that the FAQ is even worth looking at. I've tried many times and given up.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Note the phrase "questions about the D&D game rules".

As long as we are discussing clarifications, the FAQ is fine.

It is when it adds brand new rules that are not in the book at all that some people have problems with it. Those are NOT "D&D game rules" because they are not in the rule books.


A clarification is something where the rule exists, but it is open to interpretation or is difficult to find.

A new rule is something that does not exist at all within the rules. An example of this is the "bonus spells" rule for ability enhancement items that Storm Raven brought up. This is a new rule. Nowhere in the game rules does it state anything about getting bonus spells for an enhancement item. Not once. In fact, the spell that the item is derived from even states that you cannot get bonus spells from it. So, this is a new rule that is not part of the rule books.

If they want to add new rules, they should do it in the errata.

 

[IanB]

It is when it adds brand new rules that are not in the book at all that some people have problems with it. Those are NOT "D&D game rules" because they are not in the rule books.

A new rule is something that does not exist at all within the rules. An example of this is the "bonus spells" rule for ability enhancement items that Storm Raven brought up. This is a new rule. Nowhere in the game rules does it state anything about getting bonus spells for an enhancement item. Not once. In fact, the spell that the item is derived from even states that you cannot get bonus spells from it. So, this is a new rule that is not part of the rule books.

If they want to add new rules, they should do it in the errata.

What they should do is immaterial in the face of what they are doing, I think.

 

[Parlan]

Note the phrase "questions about the D&D game rules".

As long as we are discussing clarifications, the FAQ is fine.

It is when it adds brand new rules that are not in the book at all that some people have problems with it. Those are NOT "D&D game rules" because they are not in the rule books.

A clarification is something where the rule exists, but it is open to interpretation or is difficult to find.

And from the FAQ:

Do ability enhancing items (such as the headband of intellect, cloak of charisma, and periapt of wisdom) grant bonus spells to the appropriate spellcasters? The spells these items are based on would seem to prohibit it, but the only things specifically addressed in the item descriptions are skill points.
Yes, you can get extra bonus spells if you have an item that increases the ability score that governs your spellcasting. To get the extra bonus spells, you must wear the item while resting to regain spells and all through your initial daily preparations for spellcasting. (Even characters who don’t prepare spells need to meditate a little while at the beginning of the day; see Daily Readying of spells under the Sorcerers and bards section of Chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.) If you lose the item, you immediately lose the bonus spell slots the item gave you, starting with any uncast spells you have of the appropriate levels.

isn't that all this is doing, clarifying an otherwise unclear rule?

 

[KarinsDad]

isn't that all this is doing, clarifying an otherwise unclear rule?

No.

Show me where in the books that rule resides.

 

[glass]

Precisely.

The only rules we have are discussed in the Headband of Intellect item and the various spells used to create ability score enhancement items (such as Owl's Wisdom).

So, we have a few examples where temporary spells and items do not qualify for permanent abilities (such as skill points or bonus spells), but we have zero examples in the opposite direction.

Not examples, specific exceptions.


glass.

 

[Storm Raven]

No.

Show me where in the books that rule resides.

It is containted in the description of the items: they grant an enhancement bonus to an ability score, with no limitations listed. You want to add a rule that says "items that grant enhancement bonuses to ability scores do not allow for permanent effects to be gained as a result of the enhanced ability score" - but no such rule exists. The rule is that an enhanced ability score works like an unenhanced ability score unless otherwise noted. The FAQ merely clarifies this explicitly.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

No, it is completely inapplicable, because it does not provide enhancement bonuses. If it did, then it would be comparable, but it does not.

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.

Except, of course, for the explicit example of bonus spells being added to a character's repertoire as a result of the enhanced ability score. BUt that doesn't fit your argument, so you ignore that. And you ignore the flat statement that temporary bonuses are treated the same as permanent bonuses except otherwise stated.

Explain how the FAQ is in error in this case. It may be in error in some other areas, but that is neither here nor there with respect to this question. If it is a grey area in the rules, this is the exact sort of thing that the FAQ is intended to cover - and a clarification has been provided concerning how the rules are intended to work.

 

[glass]

Show me where in the books that rule resides.

If you're looking for a sentance that says, "Enhancement bonuses to ability scores allow you to qualify for feats", you won't find it, because this situation results from a combination of rules.

Some feats require you to have a certain ability score. They don't specify any exceptions as to how you get that ability score.

Enhancement bonuses give you a means of boosting your ability scores. There are a couple of specific exceptions listed for what you can use them for, but nothing to do with feats.

These to things combine to allow you to use enhancement bonuses to qualify for feats. To explicitly state it would be redundant and if they were going to explicitly state every redundant rule, we'd have very long rule books.


glass.

 

[Twowolves]

No, it is completely inapplicable, because it does not provide enhancement bonuses. If it did, then it would be comparable, but it does not.

[/i]

Except, of course, for the explicit example of bonus spells being added to a character's repertoire as a result of the enhanced ability score. BUt that doesn't fit your argument, so you ignore that. And you ignore the flat statement that temporary bonuses are treated the same as permanent bonuses except otherwise stated.

Explain how the FAQ is in error in this case. It may be in error in some other areas, but that is neither here nor there with respect to this question. If it is a grey area in the rules, this is the exact sort of thing that the FAQ is intended to cover - and a clarification has been provided concerning how the rules are intended to work.

Spells per day are so incredibly temporary, it's silly. They even explicitly state that if you lose the item, you lose the spell. Not if you lose the item, you lose the spell slot until you put the item back on. It's a temporary benefit. Feats and PrCs are not temporary at all. It doesn't "fit my arguement" because it is only tangentially related to the actual question at hand.

The FAQ isn't necessarily in error, it's incomplete. The question in the FAQ doesn't deal with the subject at hand, and until it does and there is an explicit ruling on this question, all anyone can do is extrapolate from similar rules and infer some conclusion. You have done this, and so have I, but we come to different conclusions.