Stat requirements

[Infiniti2000]

If he's 4th-level, then taking off the amulet drops him to -7; he's unconscious, bleeding severely, and mostly dead (but slightly alive!). At this point, it's too late.

Just a nitpick, but he'd drop to -3 if he had 1hp and took off a +2 amulet of health.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just a nitpick, but he'd drop to -3 if he had 1hp and took off a +2 amulet of health.

Yeah ... Me do maths good.

 

[KarinsDad]

Inference.

Precisely.

Inference, not rules.

 

[Caliban]

That that kind of "risk" was very easily taken advantage of, and could be seen as picking on the character when the gamble didn't pay off. It's one thing to have an ability negated by a monster as a plot point or adventure challenge (like a Beholder's Anti-Magic cone, or the "you wake up naked" adventure hook), but it's another to have an unusual vulnerability like that. Now either the DM avoids Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic situations or else it has a compounded affect on the risk taking character, which could be perceived as intentionally punishing a character for obtaining a feat/PrC this way.

You don't need magical stat boosting items to be vulnerable to not meeting prerequisites for feats. Heck, it doesn't even take a 3rd level spell.

Ray of enfeeblement is a 1st level spell, and it can make almost any fighter unable to qualify for Power Attack, or any other feat with a strength requirement.

From the new Spell Compendium, the Ray of Clumsiness does the same thing for Dexterity and any feat with Dex as a prerequisite.

The 2nd level spell Touch of Idiocy reduces all three mental stats at once. You can lose access to Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Natural spell, etc.

That's not even mentioning the poisons and diseases that can damage various stats.

Heck, I have a character who eventually bought Gloves of Dexterity +2 because he was tired of losing access to Dodge and Mobility everytime he used the Enlarge Person spell. That's not going to stop him from losing access to them if he get's hit with a Ray of Clumsiness though.

And all of these spells last much longer than the 1d4 rounds that a succesful targeted Dispel Magic lasts. None of them allow saving throws either, while Dispel Magic requires a succesful level check. They do require touch attacks, but those are much easier to succeed at.

Choosing to use a magic item to qualify for a feat leaves you no more vulnerable than qualifying with an unadjusted stat.

Using a magic item to help you qualify for a PRC is pretty hard to do (outside of meeting stat requirements), and is usually an obviously poorer choice than just meeting the requirements normally.

 

[Caliban]

Precisely.

Inference, not rules.

Pretty much like your ruling about magic items not allowing you to meet the prerequisites.

So if you can use it to support your position, why can't he use it to support his?

 

[KarinsDad]

Pretty much like your ruling about magic items not allowing you to meet the prerequisites.

So if you can use it to support your position, why can't he use it to support his?

I have no problem with him doing so.

As long as we are clear that there are no rules one way or the other and this entire thread is mostly speculation.

 

[Caliban]

I have no problem with him doing so.

As long as we are clear that there are no rules one way or the other and this entire thread is mostly speculation.

Actually, as has been pointed out, the rules only state that you need to have a stat that meets the prerequisite for the feat. It places no qualifications on how you achieve that stat. Anything else is speculation.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have no problem with him doing so.

So - are you going to answer the other questions I posed?

Or do they just lead you in a direction you aren't comfortable going?

 

[Infiniti2000]

So - are you going to answer the other questions I posed?

Why would he answer your rhetorical questions when he agrees with you?

 

[Twowolves]

You don't need magical stat boosting items to be vulnerable to not meeting prerequisites for feats. Heck, it doesn't even take a 3rd level spell.

Ray of enfeeblement is a 1st level spell, and it can make almost any fighter unable to qualify for Power Attack, or any other feat with a strength requirement.

From the new Spell Compendium, the Ray of Clumsiness does the same thing for Dexterity and any feat with Dex as a prerequisite.

The 2nd level spell Touch of Idiocy reduces all three mental stats at once. You can lose access to Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Natural spell, etc.

That's not even mentioning the poisons and diseases that can damage various stats.

Heck, I have a character who eventually bought Gloves of Dexterity +2 because he was tired of losing access to Dodge and Mobility everytime he used the Enlarge Person spell. That's not going to stop him from losing access to them if he get's hit with a Ray of Clumsiness though.

And all of these spells last much longer than the 1d4 rounds that a succesful targeted Dispel Magic lasts. None of them allow saving throws either, while Dispel Magic requires a succesful level check. They do require touch attacks, but those are much easier to succeed at.

Choosing to use a magic item to qualify for a feat leaves you no more vulnerable than qualifying with an unadjusted stat.

Using a magic item to help you qualify for a PRC is pretty hard to do (outside of meeting stat requirements), and is usually an obviously poorer choice than just meeting the requirements normally.

All of your examples are of ability damage, a subtracting from a score, and not the removal of a bonus. The difference is where the character's stats are "naked". And I just don't think a character's permenant abilities should be based on something so external to the character as a magic item or a spell effect.

I agree that IF the DM lets a player meet a requirement of a feat or a PrC with magic, it's a poorer choice than just meeting the requirements normally. I never said it was bad to interpret the rules that way, just not very sensical. What I did say was that after seeing posters put forth rules-based positions both for and against, I personally was swayed one way and not the other. I never tried to change anyone's mind, just explain why I felt the way I did. Perhaps overzealous at times, but never maliciously.