Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 2792154" data-attributes="member: 18093">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.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. 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?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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification