Stat requirements

[glass]

Do you allow a Headband of Intellect to grant additional skill points?

No, because it specifically says it doesn't.

If not, why would you allow it to meet a feat prerequisite?

Yes, because it doesn't specifically say it doesn't.

In the first case you actually do have a score of (say) 13 (11 for skill points). Combat Expertise is not skill points; therefore your score is 13 and you qualify.

Gauntlets of ogre power, OTOH, have no such restrictions. If they boost your strength to 13, then you strength is 13. No ifs, no but, no exceptions, no brackets. With the gauntlets on you qualify for PA.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let's say you have a 13th level cleric with a 16 base Wisdom and a Periapt of Wisdom +2 (for a total Wisdom score of 18). Do you allow him to cast 7th level spells?

Yes.

After all, he doesn't "really" have a Wisdom of 17 or higher.

What does that have to do with feats or PrCs?

On the other hand, do you allow a 13th level wizard with a 16 Int to cast fox's cunning and level up to 14th level by taking Archmage (assume the other prerequisites are met)?

Or, can a human wizard polymorph into an elf to gain a level in arcane archer?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

The DMG implies (in the tables) that if your Int goes up, you retroactively get extra skill points for earlier levels AND you get extra skill points for a headband of intellect. This disagrees with the description of a Headband of Intellect. So, if they made an error here with the headband, did they also make an error with the retroactive skill points?

While this may be true for the DMG ... and I don't mean to be snyde but merely say that a reference isn't listed so I can't say one way or the other ... the 3.5 PHB is pretty clear that this is not allowed at all. [p.58 last paragraph of the second column.]

Use your character's current Intelligence score, including all permanent changes (such as inherent bonuses, ability drains, or an Intelligence increase gained at step 4, above) but not any temporary changes (such as ability damage, or enhancement bonuses gained from spells or magic items, such as a headband of intellect) to determine the number of skill points you gain.

While the DMG may be fuzzy, the PHB is not. [And ... apparently it is a table that is fuzzy; whereas in the PHB this text is pretty specific] With regard to skill points, magic items are temporary increases. And that makes sense. They are conditional upon the use of the magic item. Temporary items do not have an impact upon skill points at leveling.

Now, to draw a parallel - if temporary items are not counted with regard to skill points, a case could be made for not counting them with regard to feats. That is my take. However, this conclusion is admittedly being drawn off of a parallel - not a rule. If a Dm wanted to take on the responsibility of making sure the character met the prereqs and therefore count have a feat under certain circumstances and not others, I think that also would be a reasonable conclusion as long as the DM wanted to assume that responsibility.

 

[KarinsDad]

While this may be true for the DMG ... and I don't mean to be snyde but merely say that a reference isn't listed so I can't say one way or the other ... the 3.5 PHB is pretty clear that this is not allowed at all. [p.58 last paragraph of the second column.]


While the DMG may be fuzzy, the PHB is not. [And ... apparently it is a table that is fuzzy; whereas in the PHB this text is pretty specific] With regard to skill points, magic items are temporary increases. And that makes sense. They are conditional upon the use of the magic item. Temporary items do not have an impact upon skill points at leveling.

Precisely.

The reference in the DMG is the NPC Wizard table where different level Wizards make leaps and bounds with skill points. I think whoever created the table, just did not know the rule.

Now, to draw a parallel - if temporary items are not counted with regard to skill points, a case could be made for not counting them with regard to feats. That is my take. However, this conclusion is admittedly being drawn off of a parallel - not a rule. If a Dm wanted to take on the responsibility of making sure the character met the prereqs and therefore count have a feat under certain circumstances and not others, I think that also would be a reasonable conclusion as long as the DM wanted to assume that responsibility.

Agreed.

The item is temporary. It should not be allowed as a prerequisite for permanent abilities.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Precisely.

The reference in the DMG is the NPC Wizard table where different level Wizards make leaps and bounds with skill points. I think whoever created the table, just did not know the rule.

Thanks for putting up the example. I was curious as to where it came from.

 

[glass]

The item is temporary. It should not be allowed as a prerequisite for permanent abilities.

But feat are not in this sense permanent abilities. Lose the use of the item and you lose the use of the feat.

The feats prerequisite's do not care if they will be met tomorrow or next week, they only care if they are met now ('now' being when you select the feat, or when you try to use it).

If I am understanding your argumant correctly, you are saying, 'you can't take Power Attack, because you might take you Gauntlets off tomorrow and then you Strength won't be 13.' Is that correct?

Would you then also say, 'you can't take Power Attack, because you might be hit by a shadow tomorrow and then you Strength won't be 13'?


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

But feat are not in this sense permanent abilities. Lose the use of the item and you lose the use of the feat.

The feats prerequisite's do not care if they will be met tomorrow or next week, they only care if they are met now ('now' being when you select the feat, or when you try to use it).

If I am understanding your argumant correctly, you are saying, 'you can't take Power Attack, because you might take you Gauntlets off tomorrow and then you Strength won't be 13.' Is that correct?

Would you then also say, 'you can't take Power Attack, because you might be hit by a shadow tomorrow and then you Strength won't be 13'?

I am saying to use the Similar Rule rule.

We have a rule that says that you do not gain extra skill points, just because you have a temporary ability score enhancement magical item.

A +1 to hit for having a higher Strength is something that ALL creatures gain when they gain the temporary item.

Specific skills and feats are not something that all creatures gain when they put on the ability score enhancement item, hence, the item should not be useable to gain those types of abilities.


Put another way, spells and magic items should not be useable as feat prerequisites, only innate abilities should be useable because the spells and magic items are by definition, temporary.

 

[Storm Raven]

I am saying to use the Similar Rule rule.

We have a rule that says that you do not gain extra skill points, just because you have a temporary ability score enhancement magical item.

But we also have a rule that you gain hit points because you have a temporary ability score enhancement magical item. Why not use that "similar rule" instead?

A +1 to hit for having a higher Strength is something that ALL creatures gain when they gain the temporary item.

Specific skills and feats are not something that all creatures gain when they put on the ability score enhancement item, hence, the item should not be useable to gain those types of abilities.

Skills, no, because the item in question specifically excludes skills. It does not specifically exclude anything else. If that was intended, one would think that the rules would specify such.

Many creatures do not gain a +1 to hit from having a higher Strength - any creature that uses Weapon Finesse whose Strength score does not exceed their Dexterity score even with the enhancement falls into this category. Does this negate the ability of other creatures to gain this benefit because not all who use the item avail themselves of it? All creatures gain the ability to gain specific feats when they put on an ability score enhancement item. That some do not avail themselves of the opportunity is neither here nor there.

Put another way, spells and magic items should not be useable as feat prerequisites, only innate abilities should be useable because the spells and magic items are by definition, temporary.

Why does the temporary nature matter at all? I don't see anything concerning gaining feats that excludes temporary effects from serving as prerequisites. You are basically just making up rules from whole cloth here - not even the fictional "similar rule" rule helps your case.

 

[KarinsDad]

But we also have a rule that you gain hit points because you have a temporary ability score enhancement magical item. Why not use that "similar rule" instead?

Because that is something that all creatures gain when they gain the item AND they only gain them temporarily.

Why does the temporary nature matter at all? I don't see anything concerning gaining feats that excludes temporary effects from serving as prerequisites. You are basically just making up rules from whole cloth here - not even the fictional "similar rule" rule helps your case.

Sure it does.

You ask yourself the question:

1) Are there any unique abilities that are not gained by an ability score enhancement item, even though those abilities would be gained by having the ability score innately? Yes. Skill points for a Headband of Intellect.

That's how you find things for the Similar Rule rule. You look to see if there is something similar.

The problem with using "gaining hit points" or "save modifier" etc. is that those are not unique. All creatures gain those.

The problem with using "turn undead attempts or "bonus spells" is that those are temporary.


Skill points is the only similar rule for a permanent ability which is unique, hence, it is the only rule that is truly similar.

 

[Storm Raven]

Because that is something that all creatures gain when they gain the item AND they only gain them temporarily.

And? You aren't making any kind of argument here other than to say that everything is temporary except (apparently) for skill points and feats. That makes no sense.

Sure it does.

You ask yourself the question:

1) Are there any unique abilities that are not gained by an ability score enhancement item, even though those abilities would be gained by having the ability score innately? Yes. Skill points for a Headband of Intellect.

Yes. And those are the one thing specifically excluded. Generalizing a specific exclusion in this case isn't applying a "similar rule" rule - it is expanding an explicit exception into a general rule. That's just a silly way to interpret rules.

That's how you find things for the Similar Rule rule. You look to see if there is something similar.

So, if you phrase the rule "stat enhancment items grant all abilities of the increased stat save for increased skill points as a result of an Intelligence boosting item", suddenly your interpetation of the rule falls apart. The similar rule is that the general rule is that stat increasing effects grant all attributes of the increased stat save for the specified explicit exceptions. There are no exceptions for feats.

The problem with using "gaining hit points" or "save modifier" etc. is that those are not unique. All creatures gain those.

Feats are not unique either. You aren't making a coherent argument here.