Stat requirements

[Storm Raven]

KD never once said this, so please do not say that I think differently than I do.

So, this quote wasn't you?

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.

Because this really seems to say you think that bonus spells are permanent abilities.

To me, feats and skill ranks are basically permanent, regardless of whether they can be used.

And? I do think anyone is disagreeing with you here.

If your Int goes down (for whatever reason), you do not lose skill ranks. If your Int goes up, you do not gain retroactive skill ranks.[/quote]

Because of an explicit limitation built into changes in Intelligence and its impact on skill points. A limitation that does not apply to any other ability score or attribute. Show me where it says you should expand specific exceptions to a general rule.

Ditto for feats.

Ditto for BAB.

Ditto for Base Saving Throws.

There are only a few ways in the game to lose these "basically permanent abilities" such as losing levels (or dying or using the broken Psychic Reformation).

And this is a total non-sequitur. Has your argument completely broken down at this point?

That is not true for extra hit points for CON, extra spell slots for spells, bonuses to Reflex saves for Dex, etc. These are temporary bonuses to abilities because you can lose them by losing ability score points.

Yes, you can.

You can also lose access to the use of feats by losing ability score points. How is this different?

With regard to extra spell slots, the ability enhancement spells in the book explicitly prevent that. So, the only similar rule in the book for ability enhancement items in the book is the spells that were used to craft those items.

Unlike the spells, the ability score enhancing items have no limitation built in to their description. The general rule concerning ability enhancements therefore applies.

 

[Storm Raven]

I would really like to see from where you pulled that "quote" of me, because I didn't say it. I said nothing about the FAQ when I said that above. I said every example in the rules about losing access to a feat was due to ability score damage and not loss of access to ability boosting magic. Don't put words in my mouth to discredit my position.

You didn't say this?

Every example you pose is an example of an enhanced stat modifying rolls of some sort,

Because that is pretty much nullified by the fact that I did post examples of an enhanced stat modifying things other than rolls. And given that all of the examples I posted are drawn from the FAQ, that pretty much means that you are talking about the FAQ.

I have not changed my arguement. I will concede the fact that, yes, an enhanced score will give you bonus spells, and yes, that is indeed not a modifier to a roll of any kind. Nor is a bonus to a caster's spell DC techinically a modifier to a roll. They are still TEMPORARY benefits, which has actually been my arguement all along. A temporary boost to a stat shouldn't allow for a permenant benefit, and I don't think it does, even if a "temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permenant one". Feats don't require a "+X modifier from Str", they require a "Str=X".

It is a good thing that the enhancement bonus items don't add to your Strength modifier then. They add to your Strength score. Once again, you have come up with an argument that is at odds with how the rules work. Gauntlets of Ogre Power +2 don't increase your Strength modifier by +1, they increase your Strength by +2. Your Strength score goes from 11 to 13 when you wear them.

Look at it another way: if you rule this way, should you not also say that any temporary boost to a stat, skill, or any other prerequisite should qualify a character for a feat or a class? I certainly don't think the designers thought so, but it isn't explicitly denied either.

I think they did think so, thus the quote "a temporary bonus to an ability score has the same effect as a permanent one unless otherwise stated". The animal boost spells have limitations otherwise stated. Those limitations do not include a restriction on qualifying for feats.

 

[Twowolves]

I see. I went looking for my quote and I didn't find it, instead I found an earlier one which was before you began quoting the FAQ. My mistake.

In any case, the FAQ section you are quoting is specifically talking about uses per day of special abilities, and your "be all end all" quote was from that section. It deals with turning undead and laying on of hands. You extrapolated that quote, out of context, to apply to everything regarding enhancement bonuses to a stat. The FAQ is flat out wrong in places, contradicting the rules as written, not just clarifying them. It is not definitive, it is in fact flawed. It lends weight to your arguements, it doesn't prove them.

Your quote about my arguing that feats don't specify stat modifiers is not accurate either. Perhaps it was a poorly worded example on my part, but you STILL ignore the transient nature of the stat boosting spells and items, and you back it up with a quote taken out of context from a flawed document. The fact that the designers specifically address skill points (a PERMENANT addition to a character) and use a blanket statement addressing all other TEMPORARY uses of an enhanced stat (checks, spells/day, hp etc) tells me pretty plainly that stats enhanced through transient magical means were most assuredly NOT meant to qualify for a permenant change to a character's abilities. You have extrapolated from similar rules (boosted stats granting bonus spells) and so have I, but you claim your quote from the FAQ makes your interpretation better than anyone elses?

By your logic, a 2nd level cleric with enough xp to hit 3rd level (and thus choose a new feat) could read a scroll of Divine Power CL8, gain a BAB of +8, then level up and choose Improved Critical. Likewise, a character could be able to cast a divine spell through the use of Imbue w/ Spell Ability to qualify for a feat or PrC, or use a magic item that provided a feat to enter a PrC with it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

By your logic, a 2nd level cleric with enough xp to hit 3rd level (and thus choose a new feat) could read a scroll of Divine Power CL8, gain a BAB of +8, then level up and choose Improved Critical.

No, I made the same mistake. Divine Power is limited by character level, not by caster level.

 

[Storm Raven]

I see. I went looking for my quote and I didn't find it, instead I found an earlier one which was before you began quoting the FAQ. My mistake.

In any case, the FAQ section you are quoting is specifically talking about uses per day of special abilities, and your "be all end all" quote was from that section. It deals with turning undead and laying on of hands. You extrapolated that quote, out of context, to apply to everything regarding enhancement bonuses to a stat.

If the FAQ quote read as you wanted it to it would say "temporary bonuses to ability scores are treated the same as permanent ones with respect to temporary abilities, except as otherwise noted." It does not. It says temporary bonuses are the same as permanent bonuses unless otherwise stated.

The FAQ is flat out wrong in places, contradicting the rules as written, not just clarifying them. It is not definitive, it is in fact flawed. It lends weight to your arguements, it doesn't prove them.

And the simple fact is that the text of the rules lends no weight to your argument, or even anything that could be considered contradictory to the FAQ. The text says enhancement bonuses adds to your ability score. The text gives specific exceptions to the effects of this increased ability score. Feats are not listed in those exceptions. The FAQ clearly does not contradict these rules.

Your quote about my arguing that feats don't specify stat modifiers is not accurate either.

You said that allowing items to qualify you for feats shouldn't be allowed because they don't specify that you have to have +X bonus to ability checks, but instead X abilitcy score. That is a non-sequitur of an argument, because ability score enhancing items grant a bonus to the ability score itself. Your arguments are so all over the place that they are starting to really lose cohesion.

Perhaps it was a poorly worded example on my part, but you STILL ignore the transient nature of the stat boosting spells and items, and you back it up with a quote taken out of context from a flawed document. The fact that the designers specifically address skill points (a PERMENANT addition to a character) and use a blanket statement addressing all other TEMPORARY uses of an enhanced stat (checks, spells/day, hp etc) tells me pretty plainly that stats enhanced through transient magical means were most assuredly NOT meant to qualify for a permenant change to a character's abilities. You have extrapolated from similar rules (boosted stats granting bonus spells) and so have I, but you claim your quote from the FAQ makes your interpretation better than anyone elses?

The blanket statement does not limit itself to "temporary" uses of an enhanced ability score. In point of fact, the distinction between permanent uses and temporary ones is one that you (and KD) have made up from whole cloth. If the designers intended there to be such a distinction, then they would have defined one. They did not. Instead, they gave us specific exceptions. The basic rule is that enhancement bonuses enhance the underlying attribute they are modifying (from the online glossary):

enhancement bonus
A bonus that represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.

Note that the enhancment bonus to an ability score is a "general bonus to an ability score". It does not specify "a bonus for temporary effects only", a limitation you have invented that appears to have no basis in the rules. Please explain where your limitation comes from, other than your own imagination.

By your logic, a 2nd level cleric with enough xp to hit 3rd level (and thus choose a new feat) could read a scroll of Divine Power CL8, gain a BAB of +8, then level up and choose Improved Critical. Likewise, a character could be able to cast a divine spell through the use of Imbue w/ Spell Ability to qualify for a feat or PrC, or use a magic item that provided a feat to enter a PrC with it.

I think you need to reread the rules on divine power.

Imbued spells don't appear to actually be "cast" so much as "used". I see no problem with allowing a character in possession of a feat granting item using that feat to enter a PrC.

 

[Twowolves]

If the FAQ quote read as you wanted it to it would say "temporary bonuses to ability scores are treated the same as permanent ones with respect to temporary abilities, except as otherwise noted." It does not. It says temporary bonuses are the same as permanent bonuses unless otherwise stated.

[/i]

And the simple fact is that the text of the rules lends no weight to your argument, or even anything that could be considered contradictory to the FAQ. The text says enhancement bonuses adds to your ability score. The text gives specific exceptions to the effects of this increased ability score. Feats are not listed in those exceptions. The FAQ clearly does not contradict these rules.



[/i]

The blanket statement does not limit itself to "temporary" uses of an enhanced ability score. In point of fact, the distinction between permanent uses and temporary ones is one that you (and KD) have made up from whole cloth. If the designers intended there to be such a distinction, then they would have defined one. They did not. Instead, they gave us specific exceptions.


I think you need to reread the rules on divine power.

Imbued spells don't appear to actually be "cast" so much as "used". I see no problem with allowing a character in possession of a feat granting item using that feat to enter a PrC.

The FAQ says temporary bonuses are the same as permenant bonuses in one section, and then proceeds with about half a page of examples regarding that particular question. It could easily be said that you are cherry-picking quotes out of context, and applying them universally where there isn't definitive proof it was meant to be so.

You say "it doesn't say you can't, so you must be able to", where I say "it doesn't say you can". You say "if they meant it your way, they would have said so", as if they stated everything perfectly the first time they printed any rules. I say "it never occured to them, so they haven't thought about it and made a FAQ entry or ruling on it yet". I think your arguement is not conclusive. Sue me.

Imbue with Spell Ability
To cast a spell with a verbal component, the subject must be able to speak. To cast a spell with a somatic component, it must have humanlike hands. To cast a spell with a material component or focus, it must have the materials or focus.

Flat out says the subject "casts" the spell.

Regarding Divine Power = Fine, the specifics of that particular example are flawed, but not the arguement. Try instead an 8th level cleric (BAB=+6), with enough xp to hit 9th lvl, cast the spell, the BAB "becomes equal to character level", +8, the cleric levels up immediately and then takes his 9th level feat as Improved Critical. Same basic arguements, but now the semantics are properly observed.

But what it comes down to is that you FINALLY answered my question; you have no problem letting magic items and spells meet requirements for PrCs or feats, and you freely (now) admit that. I don't believe that it was the designers' intent that it work that way. In fact, it just reeks of twisting rules to get something a character doesn't deserve, and pouting "but that's what it saaaaaaayyyysss" when common sense would dictate otherwise.

I posed the initial question, saw compelling evidence on both sides, and have choosen how it will work in my game. You don't have to like it, you can call it a house-rule (even though others would disagree), you can call me anything you like (just not late for supper), I don't really care. Until such time as you play in my game or I in yours, I couldn't really care less what you think. All you have proven to me is that you would argue with a brick wall. And to what end? To convince me, personally, that I'm somehow wrong? To "win" an arguement online? LoL! Whatever makes you happy....

 

[Storm Raven]

The FAQ says temporary bonuses are the same as permenant bonuses in one section, and then proceeds with about half a page of examples regarding that particular question. It could easily be said that you are cherry-picking quotes out of context, and applying them universally where there isn't definitive proof it was meant to be so.

The examples are discussing the specific question asked. The general rule is the start of the discussion, and underlies all of the examples. There is no text in any part of the FAQ that even hints that your position is correct.

You say "it doesn't say you can't, so you must be able to", where I say "it doesn't say you can". You say "if they meant it your way, they would have said so", as if they stated everything perfectly the first time they printed any rules. I say "it never occured to them, so they haven't thought about it and made a FAQ entry or ruling on it yet". I think your arguement is not conclusive. Sue me.

It doesn't say you cannot anywhere. You keep saying the FAQ is flawed, but you don't even have textual support in the core rule books. All you have is "they didn't say you can", which is a losing argument, because where they intended for there to be limitations, they explicitly listed them. That they listed certain limitations weakens your argument, it doesn't strengthen it, since one would expect them to list something as obvious as "increased ability scores do not allow you to qualify for feats.

Flat out says the subject "casts" the spell.

And in other sections, it makes the recipient's relationship to the spell much more unclear:

The transferred spell’s variable characteristics (range, duration, area, and the like) function according to your level, not the level of the recipient.

Once you cast imbue with spell ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the imbue with spell ability spell. In the meantime, you remain responsible to your deity or your principles for the use to which the spell is put.

The spell does not function according to their character level, but yours, They aren't descirbed as "casting" the spell, but "using" it. You can revoke their ability to use it at will. That doesn't seem like they are the caster of the imbued spell at all.

Regarding Divine Power = Fine, the specifics of that particular example are flawed, but not the arguement. Try instead an 8th level cleric (BAB=+6), with enough xp to hit 9th lvl, cast the spell, the BAB "becomes equal to character level", +8, the cleric levels up immediately and then takes his 9th level feat as Improved Critical. Same basic arguements, but now the semantics are properly observed.

I'm okay with that. Any time the cleric does not have BAB +8, he cannot use his feat. If he wants to have a feat that he can only use when he is under the influence of divine power, that's not really a problem that I can see.

But what it comes down to is that you FINALLY answered my question; you have no problem letting magic items and spells meet requirements for PrCs or feats, and you freely (now) admit that.

I don't think this was a secret to anyone but you.

I don't believe that it was the designers' intent that it work that way. In fact, it just reeks of twisting rules to get something a character doesn't deserve, and pouting "but that's what it saaaaaaayyyysss" when common sense would dictate otherwise.

Your "common sense" requires that you insert not one, but two new rules into the text of the books. First you have to have a rule that defines what effects are 'temporary" and what effects are "permenent" (neither of which is defined in the rules as of this time), and secondly, you need to insert a rule that says "temporary bonuses to ability scores can only provide temporary effects, and not permanent ones". My interpretation of the rules requires no new rules be added, but merely that the rules as written be applied.

Your version is clearly a house rule.

I posed the initial question, saw compelling evidence on both sides, and have choosen how it will work in my game. You don't have to like it, you can call it a house-rule (even though others would disagree), you can call me anything you like (just not late for supper), I don't really care. Until such time as you play in my game or I in yours, I couldn't really care less what you think. All you have proven to me is that you would argue with a brick wall. And to what end? To convince me, personally, that I'm somehow wrong? To "win" an arguement online? LoL! Whatever makes you happy....

Yours is clearly a house rule. If you want to use such a rule, that doesn't bother me, but it is contrary to the actual text of the rules. I play with several house rules - ones which I make clear to my players ahead of time. I do think your house rule really unduly limits options of characters and removes a lot of potential fun from the game: a character who relies upon gloves of Dexterity to qualify for Two-Weapon Fighting finding himself subject to a dispel magic spell and losing his feat tree for example.

 

[Storm Raven]

So, are the (scroll) rules in error or not? You said it both ways and then claimed that we weren't even talking about scrolls (i.e. 'with respect to levelling').

The UMD section is in error. According to the primary source rule, the DMG is the primary source for information about magic items, and if the PHB contradicts it, the DMG text trumps it. The text in the PHB concerning scrolls is trumped by the text in the DMG. The primary source rule (from the 3.5 PHB errata):

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[Twowolves]

The examples are discussing the specific question asked. The general rule is the start of the discussion, and underlies all of the examples. There is no text in any part of the FAQ that even hints that your position is correct.

The "general rule" only applies to the question at hand. Extrapolating it further is your interpretation.

It doesn't say you cannot anywhere. You keep saying the FAQ is flawed, but you don't even have textual support in the core rule books. All you have is "they didn't say you can", which is a losing argument, because where they intended for there to be limitations, they explicitly listed them. That they listed certain limitations weakens your argument, it doesn't strengthen it, since one would expect them to list something as obvious as "increased ability scores do not allow you to qualify for feats.

The FAQ also says you can polymorph into a templated creature, when the RAW specifically says you can't. I agree that it would have been simple enough to say something to the effect of "increased ability scores do not allow you to qualify for feats", but they didn't. Doesn't prove to me that they meant it and just didn't think it was an often enough occurance to warrant mentioning. They also made LOTS of other omisions and mistakes, otherwise there wouldn't be a FAQ nor Errata.

And in other sections, it makes the recipient's relationship to the spell much more unclear:



The spell does not function according to their character level, but yours, They aren't descirbed as "casting" the spell, but "using" it. You can revoke their ability to use it at will. That doesn't seem like they are the caster of the imbued spell at all.

So, in one case, the text supports your idea and in another it supports mine. I can agree with that. No clear answer = do it however you feel is right. You obviously would let it serve as a prerequisite for a PrC, and I would not. Can't we all just get along?

I'm okay with that. Any time the cleric does not have BAB +8, he cannot use his feat. If he wants to have a feat that he can only use when he is under the influence of divine power, that's not really a problem that I can see.

Well, I'm not ok with it. I see it as trying to exploit an ambiguous wording of the rules.

I don't think this was a secret to anyone but you.

Except you would never answer ANY of my hypothetical questions leading up to your admission, instead arguing semantics and avoiding the question. Polymorph isn't an enhancement bonus, Divine Power doesn't key on caster level, blah blah blah. I only kept coming up with scenarios to get you to answer the basic question, and it took forever.

Your "common sense" requires that you insert not one, but two new rules into the text of the books. First you have to have a rule that defines what effects are 'temporary" and what effects are "permenent" (neither of which is defined in the rules as of this time), and secondly, you need to insert a rule that says "temporary bonuses to ability scores can only provide temporary effects, and not permanent ones". My interpretation of the rules requires no new rules be added, but merely that the rules as written be applied.

So, in your view, a DM must specifically insert a rule that defines the word "temporary"?? Then further, you need a rule that says that temporary bonuses provide temporary effects? Noooo, you have no need for "common sense", obvioiusly.

I do think your house rule really unduly limits options of characters and removes a lot of potential fun from the game: a character who relies upon gloves of Dexterity to qualify for Two-Weapon Fighting finding himself subject to a dispel magic spell and losing his feat tree for example.

It's fun to lose a feat in an Anti-magic Shell? It's fun to lose access to the benefits of a PrC because you rolled a "1" on a save and fried your Gauntlets of Ogre Power?

Riiiight.....
/roll

 

[IcyCool]

It's fun to lose a feat in an Anti-magic Shell? It's fun to lose access to the benefits of a PrC because you rolled a "1" on a save and fried your Gauntlets of Ogre Power?

Riiiight.....
/roll

Due to the extreme drawbacks a player could run into by using items to qualify for feats, you'll find that very few of them will actually do it. Those that do and then complain when they lose their feat tree due to just this sort of occurance are probably not the sort of people who are condusive to everyone having fun in a group, so you get rid of them. Now everyone is having more fun.