Stat requirements

[Twowolves]

I did read the post, I just wanted to have a clear, concise answer. Now, my new question (which should clear up your question):

Why do you deny Bob access to his Power Attack feat? His bare, naked str score is 13. He has a temporary bonus of -4 (also referred to as a penalty) to his score, so it is currently a 9. But his base score is a 13.

Now take it in reverse. Bill has a str score of 12. He puts on some Gauntlets of Ogre Power which grant him a "temporary" bonus of +2 to his score, and now his str is 14. Why can Bob not select Power Attack as a feat? Why don't you rule the same for both Bob and Bill?.

Edit - I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to irritate you. I'm also not telling you that you are playing the game wrong. If you and your friends are having fun, then I'd say you're playing it right.

Ok, thank you for the clarification. I feel as if I've been saying the same thing over and over again, just to different people. I must be getting paranoid in my old age!

My rationale is that Fighter Bill cannot use a temporary effect to gain a permenant advantage, in the sense that actually having Power Attack as a feat is not the same as having the ability to use a Power Attack effect at times. It's a permenant ability of the character, albeit one that Bob can be denied use of under certain, limited circumstances. Selecting a feat and using a feat are two different things, in my opinion. And really, it doesn't have much effect on anyone's game in practice, except for the fact that the a loss of the use of a feat due to the loss of an item will potentially come up more often than just the loss of an item, compounding the deficit. I think this can feel unfair; not only do you lose the use of your gauntlets, but you also lose the use of your entire PA chain of feats as well. Even worse, if you used the feat to qualify for a PrC, especially one that you have many levels in or used to qualify for even more PrCs, you lose it all in one fell swoop. Risky? Yes. Worth it? Hell no! But I don't really see the need to allow for this unpleasantness to happen if the ambiguous rules are interpreted the way I do.

 

[Asmo]

It is only when he is the beneficient of a Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance ("I have the power!") that he gains enough Strength to perform these maneuvers.
That's a pretty cut-and-dried example of allowing magic items to help you qualify.

Wait, are you saying that if Adam drinks a Potion of Bulls Strength that pushes his Str to 13 he can take Power Attack, and when the effect of the potion fades away he still have Power Attack? Or I´m just crazy? Just trying to understand..

Asmo

 

[Infiniti2000]

Dimwhit and Patryn, I also agree.

Others in this discussion don't.

*shrug*

I also agree that the new score would allow someone to qualify for or not qualify for a feat or PrC. The difference is that I don't agree that there's an instantaneous moment chosen by the character in game to level up, thus allowing that potentially very short time frame relevant. I have little trouble with this for feats since the rules account adequately for the loss of those abilities (and I don't recall any feats off hand which do not have lower tier prerequisites similarly listed). I have much more trouble with it for PrC's.

 

[IanB]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. I feel as if I've been saying the same thing over and over again, just to different people. I must be getting paranoid in my old age!

My rationale is that Fighter Bill cannot use a temporary effect to gain a permenant advantage, in the sense that actually having Power Attack as a feat is not the same as having the ability to use a Power Attack effect at times. It's a permenant ability of the character, albeit one that Bob can be denied use of under certain, limited circumstances. Selecting a feat and using a feat are two different things, in my opinion. And really, it doesn't have much effect on anyone's game in practice, except for the fact that the a loss of the use of a feat due to the loss of an item will potentially come up more often than just the loss of an item, compounding the deficit. I think this can feel unfair; not only do you lose the use of your gauntlets, but you also lose the use of your entire PA chain of feats as well. Even worse, if you used the feat to qualify for a PrC, especially one that you have many levels in or used to qualify for even more PrCs, you lose it all in one fell swoop. Risky? Yes. Worth it? Hell no! But I don't really see the need to allow for this unpleasantness to happen if the ambiguous rules are interpreted the way I do.

The point I was trying to make is that bonuses and penalties are the exact same thing. If access is denied based on one, access should therefore be granted based on the other. I would have clarified what you asked sooner but my lunch and meeting went over time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Wait, are you saying that if Adam drinks a Potion of Bulls Strength that pushes his Str to 13 he can take Power Attack, and when the effect of the potion fades away he still have Power Attack? Or I´m just crazy? Just trying to understand..

You're just crazy. He's saying that he can take Power Attack, but the rules on feats are clear that when his strength drops, he loses access to the feat (but not anything the feat is based on, like a PrC or other feats).

 

[Asmo]

You're just crazy.

Ahh! Good to know!

Asmo

 

[IcyCool]

I have much more trouble with it for PrC's.

Which, if you don't use the rules in CW, I can totally understand.

And to Twowolves, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the potential for unpleasantness and lack of fun aspect. You see that as a problem, and I see the player who whines about it (particularly when he knew about it in advance) as the problem. Maybe that means you are nicer than I am. I've just recently started taking the whole "life is too short to game with people you don't like gaming with" philosophy to heart, so I might be overdoing it a bit.

 

[Dimwhit]

I also agree that the new score would allow someone to qualify for or not qualify for a feat or PrC. The difference is that I don't agree that there's an instantaneous moment chosen by the character in game to level up, thus allowing that potentially very short time frame relevant. I have little trouble with this for feats since the rules account adequately for the loss of those abilities (and I don't recall any feats off hand which do not have lower tier prerequisites similarly listed). I have much more trouble with it for PrC's.

I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't allow someone with an 11 STR to drink a potion of Bull's Strength, level up, and take Power Attack before the potion wears off. I think that's stretching it too far. For me to allow it, the character would need an item (which effectively gives him the ability on a semi-permanent basis) or it would need to come from a EX/SP/SU ability, such as wildshape, that the character has access to all the time.

So that's where I draw the line. Deciding at which point in time exactly that a character levels is therefore a moot point for me. (Man, that was an awkward sentence.) Doesn't come in to play with the way I would rule on the issue.

Edit: So if I have it right, I think I'm more or less agreeing with you.

 

[KarinsDad]

The point I was trying to make is that bonuses and penalties are the exact same thing. If access is denied based on one, access should therefore be granted based on the other. I would have clarified what you asked sooner but my lunch and meeting went over time.

Just like the character that has the Headband, casts Fox's Cunning on himself, takes off the headband and loses the bonus spell slot.

Not all aspects of the game (given the theory that a bonus item allows you acquire spell slots) are equal.

 

[IanB]

Just like the character that has the Headband, casts Fox's Cunning on himself, takes off the headband and loses the bonus spell slot.

Not all aspects of the game (given the theory that a bonus item allows you acquire spell slots) are equal.

I'm not actually sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?