Stat requirements

[Saeviomagy]

Here's my take on it.

If we allow temporary bonuses to allow qualification for feats, then what really breaks?

Personally I don't have a problem with people having access to feats only sometimes. Since my personal point of view is that complete warriors section on PrCs is flat-out wrong (demonstrated by a number of situations which are self-contradictory), it doesn't even cause a real problem with PrCs that didn't already exist.

 

[Twowolves]

But UMD doesn't give you the ability to cast 7th level arcane spell. It gives you to ability to activate a scroll that casts the spell. "Casting from a scroll" is just shorthand for that.

So, you are hanging your intrepretation off of a single reference buried in the caster level check section of the "Activating a Scroll" section?

Is there a real point to this? Because it just seems like another example of "RAW" silliness so far.

It's semantics that distract from the point. Lets say, instead of using UMD and scrolls to meet the prerequisite for a PrC of "able to cast divine spells", use any other method to make a character who doesn't normally (without magic items or spell help) cast divine spells, and give them that ability temporarily: does that then fulfill the entry requirements for the PrC? In the SRD, Imbue with Spell Ability says the subject "casts" the spell about 3 times. True, it also has wording that implies they don't "cast" the spell, but let's say for the sake of arguement that the subject of an Imbue with Spell Ability spell can now "cast" whatever spell was donated. Does this temporary, magically enabled "casting ability" now qualify the character for a PrC with the requirement "ability to cast divine spells"? If no, then the logic used kinda leads one to think that temporary, magically enabled abilities (such as +X to a stat) shouldn't meet the prerequisites for PrCs or feats.

 

[Infiniti2000]

(answered comments out of order)

Is there a real point to this? Because it just seems like another example of "RAW" silliness so far.

It very well may be RAW silliness, but it points out the silliness in allowing items to be used as prerequisites and requirements. It's not my interpretation either, so don't blame me for it.

But UMD doesn't give you the ability to cast 7th level arcane spell. It gives you to ability to activate a scroll that casts the spell. "Casting from a scroll" is just shorthand for that.

UMD gives you the ability to activate a scroll and activating a scroll is casting a spell. It thus qualifies for a prerequisite in exactly the same way that donning gauntlets of ogre power allow you to qualify for power attack, or by polymorphing into an elf to become an arcane archer.

Everywhere else in that section it specifically states "activate the scroll".

Yes, I said roughly the same thing, didn't I?

So, you are hanging your intrepretation off of a single reference buried in the caster level check section of the "Activating a Scroll" section?

No, I'm 'hanging' it additionally on the references in the UMD section. It doesn't even matter how many times it was referenced that way, but as long as it was referenced that way once. Feel free to claim it's an un-errated error like Storm Raven did, but that hand-waving doesn't make it go away.

 

[Caliban]

It's semantics that distract from the point. Lets say, instead of using UMD and scrolls to meet the prerequisite for a PrC of "able to cast divine spells", use any other method to make a character who doesn't normally (without magic items or spell help) cast divine spells, and give them that ability temporarily: does that then fulfill the entry requirements for the PrC? In the SRD, Imbue with Spell Ability says the subject "casts" the spell about 3 times. True, it also has wording that implies they don't "cast" the spell, but let's say for the sake of arguement that the subject of an Imbue with Spell Ability spell can now "cast" whatever spell was donated. Does this temporary, magically enabled "casting ability" now qualify the character for a PrC with the requirement "ability to cast divine spells"? If no, then the logic used kinda leads one to think that temporary, magically enabled abilities (such as +X to a stat) shouldn't meet the prerequisites for PrCs or feats.

Imbue with spell ability doesn't work. What you are looking for is something like the Ring of Spell Storing, which specifically grants the ability to cast the spells stored in the ring.

My answer to that is the same as for qualifying for feats, which I provided earlier.

Being able to cast a spell once or twice is not enough. Magical stat boosts from items are effectively permanent, the ring (or even Imbue) only lasts until the spells are gone. Not the same thing at all.

Theoretically, you could have a friend continually refill the ring for you during whatever undefined "training period" takes place before leveling. In that case, yes you could technically meet the spellcasting requirements of some prc's. I'm not really worried about it. It's a lot of effort for little gain.

 

[Caliban]

(answered comments out of order)
It very well may be RAW silliness, but it points out the silliness in allowing items to be used as prerequisites and requirements.

No, it doesn't really address that issue at all. Trying to use UMD to meet a requirement for a PRC is nothing like using a semi-permanent bonus from a magic item to meet the prerequisite for a feat.

It's not my interpretation either, so don't blame me for it.

You are fighting for it, so that's no defense.

UMD gives you the ability to activate a scroll and activating a scroll is casting a spell. It thus qualifies for a prerequisite in exactly the same way that donning gauntlets of ogre power allow you to qualify for power attack, or by polymorphing into an elf to become an arcane archer.

No, the scroll is casting the spell. You are not. That's the important difference.

Yes, I said roughly the same thing, didn't I?

And yet you seem to think that one reference should have more weight than the rest of the section. Sorry, I just don't find it convincing or authoritative.

No, I'm 'hanging' it additionally on the references in the UMD section. It doesn't even matter how many times it was referenced that way, but as long as it was referenced that way once. Feel free to claim it's an un-errated error like Storm Raven did, but that hand-waving doesn't make it go away.

*shrug* If hanging it on something as thin as that works for you, great. I don't consider it a worthy arguement though. Not trying to bash you, that's just the way I see it. The rules are not technical documents, and don't use always precise or consistent language.

Insisting on treating them as if they do is just silly.

If that's really your arguement, I just don't find it convincing on any level. If it works for you, have fun with it though.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'm pretty sure I read this here before, but I can't recall. Can you choose a feat which requires a minimum stat if you only meet the requirement when you are wearing a stat-boosting magic item? Such as taking the Combat Expertise feat (Int:13 requisite) when you have an Int of 12 and wearing a Headband of Intellect +2 for a total Int of 14?

My apologies if this is a repeat. Haven't read the whole thread yet...


WOTC may have set a precident with their Star Wars d20 line. IIRC, there was a jedi (looked like a dinosaur, including size. He's usually mistaken for a non-sentient beast on first meetings) that had a feat he could only use when he improved his Dex with Force abilities (I believe it was Dodge). Not an official ruling, but if WOTC is willing to use the practice to create a character...

 

[Storm Raven]

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

No, the general rule applies across the board. The specific examples detail the application of the general rule to the question at hand. You have yet to show any evidence that the general rule is for enhancement bonuses to ability scores to provide anything other than the normal benefits of an increased score except where specifically noted.

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.

You keep saying the FAQ is in error. Yet you always fail to point out how the FAQ is in error in this case. I can also see an argument that you can use polymorph to assume a templated form - the text that prohibits this is contained in the alter self spell description, which does not allow you to change creature type as a result of casting the spell. Polymorph is a broader spell that does allow type changes. In any event, the fact that the FAQ may or may not be wrong on something else does not demonstrate that it is wrong here. You need to show how the FAQ actually contradicts some core rule related to ability score enhancements to demonstrate it is wrong on this issue. You have not.

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?

Actually, I would not, since my interpretation of the text of imbue with spell ability would mean that the imbued character is not casting the spell.

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

The rules actually aren't ambiguous. You just don't like what the rules say.

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.

You mean my saying "I woudl allow the use of ability score enhancing items to allow a character to qualify for a feat" wasn't clear enough for you? I think the problem here is that you like to read ambiguity into things that aren't actually ambiguous.

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.

No. First you have to have a rule that defines what a "temporary effect" is, and differentiate it from a "permanent effect". What attributes granted by an ability score are "temporary" and what ones are "permanent" must be defined - something that the core rules don't do as written. Next, you have to insert a rule that says that temporary bonuses to ability scores only grant those temporary effects, which is also not stated in the core rules. That is two new rules you need to insert into the core rules to make your version work, and inserting rules is the definition of a house rule.

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?

Risk is fun. If a character wants to build a character with such an inherent risk in his advancement, that's up to him. I'll be sure to let him or her know the risk he's running ahead of time, but that's part of what makes the game interesting - without risk to the characters, then the game become dull.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, I'm 'hanging' it additionally on the references in the UMD section. It doesn't even matter how many times it was referenced that way, but as long as it was referenced that way once. Feel free to claim it's an un-errated error like Storm Raven did, but that hand-waving doesn't make it go away.

Hanging it in any way on the UMD description violates the primary source rule. Nothing contained in the PHB concerning magic items can contradict what is said in the DMG on the topic and remain valid. The UMD section, quite simply, is wrong. Scrolls are activated, not cast.

 

[Storm Raven]

Under your interpretation, I agree. Under my interpretation, no. Under my interpretation, you cast from a scroll, and thus the UMD description is not error. Furthermore, it doesn't conflict with the DMG because casting a spell is merely a specific description of activating it (so the DMG saying activating is not a conflict). This is further supported by a lack of errata issued (though I realize that would be asking a lot). I haven't checked, but I'd posit that 3.0 had the same 'error'. Additionally, you're also saying that the DMG has the same error (the one example).

So, your argument now is that "activating" a scroll is interchangeable with "casting a spell", despite the fact that they use different terminology and mean entirely different things? You aren't even trying to make your arguments make sense any more.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Hanging it in any way on the UMD description violates the primary source rule. Nothing contained in the PHB concerning magic items can contradict what is said in the DMG on the topic and remain valid. The UMD section, quite simply, is wrong. Scrolls are activated, not cast.

The primary source rule only comes into effect in the event of a disagreement (conflict). There is no conflict under my interpretation. There is a conflict under yours. Ergo, my interpretation is better supported by the rules.

You aren't even trying to make your arguments make sense any more.

Nice. Aren't you amusing?

No, it doesn't really address that issue at all. Trying to use UMD to meet a requirement for a PRC is nothing like using a semi-permanent bonus from a magic item to meet the prerequisite for a feat.

Oh, I disagree. It's exactly like using a magic item because it is using a magic item. The scroll doesn't even need to be used! It's even more concrete that using a spell or some other special ability.

You are fighting for it, so that's no defense.
...If that's really your arguement, I just don't find it convincing on any level. If it works for you, have fun with it though.

There might be confusion on what I'm arguing, so let me briefly clear it up. I am arguing that reading a scroll is casting a spell. I'm arguing against letting someone use an item, spell, or special ability (in a similar manner) as a requirement or prerequisite. The other side, however, argues for such things and therefore I'm pointing out how to use a scroll to meet the various 'casts arcane spells' requirements. Of course, this approach is an ugly loophole and it's no surprise I'm getting such a violent backlash to it. But, it's not my recommended interpretation, so I by no means advocate it. I've also clearly stated that I don't think the rules define how to level-up and thus there's no definition either way about using temporary spells or items for prerequisites or requirements. If you allow it, fine, it's not against the RAW. If you don't allow it, fine, it's not against the RAW. But, if you allow it, that means you have defined level-up to have a real definition, in terms of combat rounds, and that you get some funky stuff as with the scrolls and other things.

No, the scroll is casting the spell. You are not. That's the important difference.

I pointed out a couple sentence explicitly defined the user of the scroll as casting the spell from the scroll. Not the scroll casting the spell, the person using the scroll casting the spell. UMD is very clear about it.

And yet you seem to think that one reference should have more weight than the rest of the section. Sorry, I just don't find it convincing or authoritative.

One reference in the DMG, but more than one elsewhere. What does it matter if there's one, though? If there was one reference that said "You can't use bull's strength for fulling prerequisites on feat" would you toss it out as being insufficient? Do all rules need to be duplicate multiple times before they become valid? Of course not. The 'one' in one reference should only be called into question if you think there's a conflict.