Stat requirements

[Twowolves]

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.

It applied across the board....how? Because you say it does? Because you interpret it that way and anyone else who disagrees is wrong? I haven't shown any less evidence than you have. We both quoted rules, used the similar rule analogy, and extrapolated what we each thought was a correct assumption. Only YOU can't let it go. I have shown why I think the way I do, and you just fall back on the same line, ignoring everything else you don't like. I don't see why you still care, seeing as how you already stated that in addition to feats, you'd let spells and magic items to meet prerequisites for PrCs too, no matter how silly, illogical or nonsensical. All in the name of the holy writ of the FAQ

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.

I don't have to show a thing. This isn't a court or trial. I say the FAQ is in error in some places, therefore the ENTIRE DOCUMENT is untrustworthy. Fruit of the poisonous tree. If it's wrong on polymorph, it very well could be wrong here, and therefor you shouldn't take it as gospel.

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.

Ah, I see. "Cast a spell" only really means "cast a spell" when it's convenient for you, even though the SRD says the subject "Casts" the spell, what, 3 times? Talk about ignoring evidence you don't like.

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

Riiiiight. Kinda like there is no ambiguity in the phrase "casts the spell", and you still interpret that to mean something else, and for no other reason than because it supports your side and no other.

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.

I think the problem here is not my alleged ambiguity, but your obstinance. I was trying to show correlation between ability score enhancing items enabling feats, and other similar effects enabling other, similar benefits. You gladly shout from the mountaintops all about ehnahncement bonuses to ablitiy scores, but blithely danced around Polymorph and Imbue with Spell Ability for almost 3 pages.

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.

Right. I have to define "temporary effect" and not "temporary". Whatever. Temporary is already defined by Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1tem·po·rary
Pronunciation: 'tem-p&-"rer-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin temporarius, from tempor-, tempus time
: lasting for a limited time
- tem·po·rar·i·ness noun

So then, I not only have to define a common word, codify it in some rules set to placate you, and then point out the blatantly obvious use of the word in context, all so you can claim I'm inserting a house rule? Nice try. Well, not really.

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.

Sound to me like you enjoying hosing a player who's munchkin enough to try cheezing his way into a feat or PrC this way. That's not risk, that's ruining another character's build. Would you also warn a rogue that not everything is susceptible to sneak attack damage, then constantly throw undead/constructs/oozes at them? Risk is hanging on in combat for just another round or two, trying to swing the tide of battle, when both sides are near defeat. Risk is being down on spells, healing and hp, but trying just one more door in the dungeon. Risk is trying an unexpected maneuver in combat, changing the tempo of the fight. Having your character gimped by the DM with a Dispel Magic, isn't risk, nor fun. It's unfair.

 

[IcyCool]

Sound to me like you enjoying hosing a player who's munchkin enough to try cheezing his way into a feat or PrC this way. That's not risk, that's ruining another character's build. Would you also warn a rogue that not everything is susceptible to sneak attack damage, then constantly throw undead/constructs/oozes at them? Risk is hanging on in combat for just another round or two, trying to swing the tide of battle, when both sides are near defeat. Risk is being down on spells, healing and hp, but trying just one more door in the dungeon. Risk is trying an unexpected maneuver in combat, changing the tempo of the fight. Having your character gimped by the DM with a Dispel Magic, isn't risk, nor fun. It's unfair.

You should probably read some of the things you post, this little gem is priceless. Are you the sort of person who complains about it when the DM has an NPC use Mord's Disjunction?

I'd also like to point you to Storyteller01's post on this page (post #216).

 

[Twowolves]

You should probably read some of the things you post, this little gem is priceless. Are you the sort of person who complains about it when the DM has an NPC use Mord's Disjunction?

I'd also like to point you to Storyteller01's post on this page (post #216).

Dispel Magic and Mord's Disjunction aren't quite in the same league. A 9th lvl spell is a Big Deal, Dispel Magic is 3rd/4th lvl, and common as dirt. Anything capable of casting 9th lvl spells should be a major focus of the adventure, allowing one to prepare for the possibility of a Disjunction. Dispel Magic thrower is under every rock.

I re-read everything I post, when I have time. It still sounds to me like Storm Raven thinks it's "fun" (his words, not mine) to hamstring a character who uses magic items to qualify for a feat. All a part of the "risk" you take when you play in his game.

And having your magic items destroyed is different from being denied your basic abilities, such as feats and prestige class abilities.

Storyteller01's post is the best evidence I've seen yet that a boosted stat would qualify you for a feat. But if SR can carry on about the glory of the FAQ, I'm sure I wouldn't be remiss in pointing out that "d20" doesn't equal "D&D", and that the best that could be said of this example is that it's similar enough to warrant extrapolation.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

This is the kind of language and behaviour which we will not tolerate in the rules forum at the present time.

Storm Raven gets a 3 day ban.

If you see it happening but don't report it, we might miss it, but we do NOT want to see this kind of oneupmanship.

Thanks.

 

[glass]

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?

Yes, of course.

I certainly don't think the designers thought so, but it isn't explicitly denied either.

ISIBAISIA, I don't care what the designers thought or wanted, only what they wrote.

EDIT: Although it's fine if you do care.


glass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

ISIBAISIA, I don't care what the designers thought or wanted, only what they wrote.

Now I don't know what ISIBAISIA means, but I want to forestall any arguments breaking out about 'rules as written' vs 'designer intent'. Both can be used happily in conversations in the Rules forum, and any attempt to trump someones view with "RAW" is likely to result in ban-O-rama.

Please remember, clarifying why you interpret the rules in a particular way is great. Implying that interpreting the rules in a way different to you is bad is not fine.

Cheers

 

[glass]

Now I don't know what ISIBAISIA means,

"I've Said It Before And I'll Say It Again." EDIT: Although, given the mods' response, I probably won't!

but I want to forestall any arguments breaking out about 'rules as written' vs 'designer intent'. Both can be used happily in conversations in the Rules forum, and any attempt to trump someones view with "RAW" is likely to result in ban-O-rama.

I was merely trying to point out (and admittedly I could have phrased it better) that 'designers intent' and 'RAW' are not necesarily the same thing, and that I was discussing the latter. I was getting mixed signals from the other participant in this debate as to which they were actually interested in discussing, and I didn't want us to be debating past each other. I probably should just have asked directly, so I will:

Can those debating in this thread let me know if there position is 'designer intent', or 'RAW', or both?


glass.

 

[Caliban]

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Because it's not.

Like I said, if you think this is a reasonable interpretation, good for you. If you think your DM will buy this line of reasoning, have fun with it.

I just don't find it reasonable on any level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Can those debating in this thread let me know if there position is 'designer intent', or 'RAW', or both?

Now that this thread will cool down a little and I won't be backhanded just for disagreeing, I will rejoin it.

My position is that given no rules, allowing the items to be used for feats and prestige classes is probably the literal position. It is not actually stated anywhere, but it typically should be the one defaulted to since one can allow for the use of those items for practically everything else.

Given that, my own personal opinion is that spells and items should not be used has only two tiny pieces of RAW that I can use the Similar Rule with to support. The fact that a Headband of Intellect does not allow for more skill ranks and the fact that Int is not retroactive for skill ranks of earlier levels indicates to me that permanent distinctive abilities like skill ranks can only be acquired by innate ability scores. Hence, I use the Similar Rule rule to apply this to other permanent distinctive abilities (i.e. abilities other players might have, but then again, might not such as Feats and PrCs). Obviously, this is not explicit, otherwise, I would not have to use the Similar Rule rule.

And granted, the designers might have done this for skill ranks to make it easy for players to handle their skill ranks without them going up and down.

But, I do not think, even with the risk involved, that you should pick up a ring and suddenly be capable of a prerequisite for something and then not be capable anymore once you put down the ring. Obviously, others disagree.

I also do not think that feats should be allowed within Magic Items, but the designers slipped in a few there as well, although it is a handful out of thousands, so I'm not quite sure everyone agreed on them and these items might have just accidentally gotten included. Feats should be unique and special, and not something you can find in a treasure chest. IMO.

 

[IanB]

Sound to me like you enjoying hosing a player who's munchkin enough to try cheezing his way into a feat or PrC this way. That's not risk, that's ruining another character's build. Would you also warn a rogue that not everything is susceptible to sneak attack damage, then constantly throw undead/constructs/oozes at them? Risk is hanging on in combat for just another round or two, trying to swing the tide of battle, when both sides are near defeat. Risk is being down on spells, healing and hp, but trying just one more door in the dungeon. Risk is trying an unexpected maneuver in combat, changing the tempo of the fight. Having your character gimped by the DM with a Dispel Magic, isn't risk, nor fun. It's unfair.

I think it is an awfully large leap of logic to go from someone saying there is risk involved for the character to assuming that they would go out of their way to hose the character at every turn.

Maybe SR's attitude was making you more hostile than you would otherwise be, but that strikes me as a fairly unreasonable conclusion.