Stat requirements

[Caliban]

All of your examples are of ability damage, a subtracting from a score, and not the removal of a bonus.

Nope. None of the spells I mentioned do ability damage.

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 was responding to your statement that using a stat-boosting item somehow makes a PC significantly more vulnerable to temporarily losing access to a feat. I believe I have shown that it does not.

If the stat is reduced temporarily by something external to the character, they lose access to the feat. It doesn't matter if it's ability damage or a temporary penalty, or what the "naked" stat was. Only if the stat is currently below what is required for the feat.

You won't let a PC use magic to qualify for a feat, but you seem to have no problem with a temporary spell making them unable to meet the prerequisite for a feat with their "naked" score. Why the double standard? It just doesn't seem very consistent.

And as for "permanent abilities", PC's can get all sorts of permanent abilities based on magic items as they gain levels. Bonuses to saves, AC, attack, damage, caster level, the ability to fly, regenerate, etc. And all of these can go away in an anti-magic field. It's just part of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Sure, after you tell me what the Green Day reference is.

 

[Caliban]

Sure, after you tell me what the Green Day reference is.

IcyCool already explained it. You used "alternative" instead of "alternate" in your post.

"Alternative" is also a genre of music.

Green Day is a well known (to some) alternative band.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, after you tell me what the Green Day reference is.

Oh, yeah, sure.

You said "an alternative universe."

Alternative is a style of music that was wildly popular back in the 90s, and is more or less still popular today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_music). One of the biggest bands of the time was named Green Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Day). They're still pretty big today, though their music has changed a bit (quite possibly, they've "sold out" depending on who you ask, but that's just about always true of every band).

That just caused an amusing mental image when superimposed on the famous ending to 2001: A Space Oddessey ("My God ... It's full of stars.")

So, an alternative universe would, naturally, be full of rock stars - I picked Green Day because I thought they were well-known enough to communicate the joke without this kind of explanation.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, an alternative universe would, naturally, be full of rock stars - I picked Green Day because I thought they were well-known enough to communicate the joke without this kind of explanation.

Only to people who are not older than dirt.

 

[IcyCool]

Only to people who are not older than dirt.

*shrug* Some of us pre-dirt folk got the joke.

 

[KarinsDad]

Inference.

While the object is inactive, you no longer have those spell slots. They, quite simply, no longer exist.

The rules on preparing spells / resting tells you when you get your spell slots back.

But what rules tell you that the spell slots no longer exist?

Similar to spells within an Antimagic Field, they may merely be surpressed.

PS. I am not saying that this is what happens, I am saying that there are no rules on it, so the interpretation is up to each DM.

EDIT:

Include, of course, that spells from bonus slots are cast first. So if you have 1 + 1 3rd-level spells, and cast Fireball, and then lose your bonus slot, you do not lose your remaining memorized spell.

Which is the exact opposite of what the FAQ states.

EDIT 2:

Consider the following:

A sorceror is traveling through town, when he comes to a magic shoppe. He buys a headband of +2 Charisma, which grants him one additional bonus 3rd-level spell slot.

Can he cast one more fireball today, or must he wait until tomorrow, after he has rested?

This is a new spell slot. One the Sorcerer never had before and one for which he has never rested.

That is not the same scenario as the original one, so it is not clear that the "must rest" rule applies if Dispel Magic suppresses the magic of the item.

EDIT 3:

Consider, also, the following: "Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character’s mind."

Wouldn't losing the bonus spell slots provided by a magic item fall under such a rule?

It would be reasonable to rule this way using this rule as a Similar Rule.

But, there are no rules on it, so it is just as reasonable to rule that the spell slot is merely suppressed or temporarily unavailable.

Also, you dropped the preceding sentence:

"Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it."

which indicates that the spell stays until the Wizard casts it or until a wipe spell event that is clearly called out in the rules happens. Losing your magic item or having it temporarily dispelled is not necessarily such an event.

In fact, we have the rules on Resurrection that indicate that even Death itself will not wipe out your prepared spells. So, the alternative interpretation has some support within the rules.

 

[Twowolves]

Nope. None of the spells I mentioned do ability damage.

You are correct. Monster abilities and poison do damage, the spells inflict drain. They are both a subtraction from baseline. Neither are the removal of a bonus. Semantics and handwaving.

I was responding to your statement that using a stat-boosting item somehow makes a PC significantly more vulnerable to temporarily losing access to a feat. I believe I have shown that it does not.

Significantly more? I didn't say that. I said "more vulnerable", the extent of which would obviously depend on the DM in question. And it would be more vulnerable. What would be significant would be the degree of loss.

If the stat is reduced temporarily by something external to the character, they lose access to the feat. It doesn't matter if it's ability damage or a temporary penalty, or what the "naked" stat was. Only if the stat is currently below what is required for the feat.

For the purposes of differentiating between ability drain and ability damage, sure it doesn't matter. What's your point here? That IF someone allowed a character to qualify for a feat or PrC with a magic item that they are no more or less vulnerable to losing access to the feat/PrC? What are you getting at here?

You won't let a PC use magic to qualify for a feat, but you seem to have no problem with a temporary spell making them unable to meet the prerequisite for a feat with their "naked" score. Why the double standard? It just doesn't seem very consistent.

No double standard at all. It's pretty consistant to me. Permenant abilities can only be gained with permenant prerequisites. It would be a double standard if one wouldn't allow bonus spell slots from a stat boosting magic item, perhaps, but made you lose slots if you lose the item.

And as for "permanent abilities", PC's can get all sorts of permanent abilities based on magic items as they gain levels. Bonuses to saves, AC, attack, damage, caster level, the ability to fly, regenerate, etc. And all of these can go away in an anti-magic field. It's just part of the game.

Explain to me again how a magic item grants you the permenant, innate ability to fly by letting you have access to a feat or PrC? Bonuses to saves from a Cloak of Resistance doesn't make your inherant, class-based save bonus go up, it gives you a resistance bonus to a save roll. It does not (and should not) qualify you for a feat that requires a "Base Fort Save of +4" if the Cloak +2 raises your base fort save from +2 to +4. A Magic Weapon spell doesn't give you a bonus to BAB (and thus make you elligible for a feat with a minimum BAB), it gives you an enhancement bonus to hit.

And yes, you lose access to all magic items and spells in an Anti-Magic field, but that's equally hard on every character, unless a character also then loses access to his normally-innate feats as well. Some would just say "tough, you shouldn't have taken that risk when you took that feat". I just never think the situation should have come up in the first place, because the rules, as I read them, allowed it.

 

[IcyCool]

You are correct. Monster abilities and poison do damage, the spells inflict drain. They are both a subtraction from baseline. Neither are the removal of a bonus. Semantics and handwaving.

Well, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't do damage or drain. It inflicts a Strength penalty.

 

[KarinsDad]

Explain to me again how a magic item grants you the permenant, innate ability to fly by letting you have access to a feat or PrC? Bonuses to saves from a Cloak of Resistance doesn't make your inherant, class-based save bonus go up, it gives you a resistance bonus to a save roll. It does not (and should not) qualify you for a feat that requires a "Base Fort Save of +4" if the Cloak +2 raises your base fort save from +2 to +4. A Magic Weapon spell doesn't give you a bonus to BAB (and thus make you elligible for a feat with a minimum BAB), it gives you an enhancement bonus to hit.

I think this is one of the important issues here.

WotC went out of their way to differentiate BAB and Skill Ranks and what level of spell a character can cast when they discussed Prestige Class prerequisites precisely because they didn't want loopholes in qualifying for the PrC ahead of time.

They did not put this level of due diligence into feat prerequisites. But, it would seem that there should be no difference between the two.

I do not think you can use this to argue that WotC did this intentionally. I think it just slipped through the cracks since early PrC acquisition tends to be a lot more potent and potentially game unbalancing than individual feats. They also put item cost and wealth by character levels in order to balance out treasure as well. Some aspects of the game are just more likely to be abused than others. I think the reason people are comfortable with items being used to assist in the prerequisites for feats are that feats in general are not typically viewed as unbalancing.