The new FAQ and armor proficiency

[JohnSnow]

I think a better wording of the FAQ would say:


"The Armor Proficiency (scale) feat requires a 13 constitution. However, fighters are considered to meet all prerequisites for the armor proficiencies listed under "armor proficiencies" in the "Class Traits" section. "

I suppose. But I don't see why the designers should have to assume we're all retarded gerbils.

"Wield" means to use. "Proficient with scale armor" means "proficient with scale armor." It's not nearly as complicated as it sounds.

I mean, you don't see people saying "I don't see where the feat is for all melee military weapons." If people are smart enough to figure out that the fighter can have a class feature of "trained in all military weapons" when such a thing is clearly impossible by taking feats, how is it hard to see how they could be trained in scale armor despite not having the prerequisite CON score?

What is the general rule that is being trumped by which specific rule?

"Every class, race, feat, power and monster...lets you break the rules in some way." (PHB, p. 11).

General rule:
"Your class tells you what kinds of armor you're proficient with. You can take feats to learn the proper use of other kinds of armor." (PHB, p. 212, emphasis mine).

Specific rule(s):

FIghter Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale; light shield, heavy shield (PHB, p. 75).

Feat: Armor proficiency (Scale)
Prerequisites: Str 13, Con 13, training with chainmail
Benefit: You gain training with scale armor.

So, all fighters are proficient in scale armor (class exception). Any character who is not proficient with scale armor because of their class may gain training with scale armor by taking the feat (feat exception). Taking the feat has prerequisites.

Quite honestly, I think threads like this are the result of naysayer rules-lawyers who want to find fault with 4e, and are just picking nits.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[mcrow]

I suppose. But I don't see why the designers should have to assume we're all retarded gerbils.

"Wield" means to use. "Proficient with scale armor" means "proficient with scale armor." It's not nearly as complicated as it sounds.

I mean, you don't see people saying "I don't see where the feat is for all melee military weapons." If people are smart enough to figure out that the fighter can have a class feature of "trained in all military weapons" when such a thing is clearly impossible by taking feats, how is it hard to see how they could be trained in scale armor despite not having the prerequisite CON score?



"Every class, race, feat, power and monster...lets you break the rules in some way." (PHB, p. 11).

General rule:
"Your class tells you what kinds of armor you're proficient with. You can take feats to learn the proper use of other kinds of armor." (PHB, p. 212, emphasis mine).

Specific rule(s):

FIghter Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale; light shield, heavy shield (PHB, p. 75).

Feat: Armor proficiency (Scale)
Prerequisites: Str 13, Con 13, training with chainmail
Benefit: You gain training with scale armor.

So, all fighters are proficient in scale armor (class exception). Any character who is not proficient with scale armor because of their class may gain training with scale armor by taking the feat (feat exception). Taking the feat has prerequisites.

Quite honestly, I think threads like this are the result of naysayer rules-lawyers who want to find fault with 4e, and are just picking nits.

But that's just my opinion.

I agree that every rule, for evey instance shouldn't be required but we do have quite a lot of "retarded gerbils" playing RPGs.

 

[Falling Icicle]

We appear to disagree on the definition of "legitimate".

In 3rd edition, classes that gave bonus feats were careful to specify that you ignore the prerequisites for those feats. Obviously, there was a reason they did that. So, when they didn't provide that kind of clarification about a similar rule in 4th edition, it's certainly a legitimate thing to ask about. How do we know they didn't do so intentionally? And, considering that it is in the FAQ, it seems quite a few people are asking about it. WotC obviously thought it was a legitimate question.

You fanboys just need to cool it. You get so easily offended when anyone raises a question that reveals even the smallest flaw in the game.

 

[Jack Colby]

The Fighter/armor thing makes perfect sense as written if you're willing to simply read what it literally says and not assume things beyond what it's telling you. The rules are clear, but mentally adding to them and assuming they are incomplete or that they say one thing but really mean something else will lead you down paths like this one.

4E rules are not a supplement to the 3E rules; they replace them 100%. Try to keep that in mind and it will make a lot more sense.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The Fighter/armor thing makes perfect sense as written if you're willing to simply read what it literally says and not assume things beyond what it's telling you. The rules are clear, but mentally adding to them and assuming they are incomplete or that they say one thing but really mean something else will lead you down paths like this one.

"An armor or weapon proficiency you gain from a class counts as the appropriate Armor Proficiency or Weapon Proficiency feat (see Chapter 6)."

It doesn't take any assumptions or adding to things for that to be clear. It counts as the feat. It says so. Now, I would never jerk fighters (or anyone else) out of their armor proficiencies because they don't have a 13 ability score. But RAW, it most certainly is a legitimate question to raise, and should be errata'd ASAP.

4E rules are not a supplement to the 3E rules; they replace them 100%. Try to keep that in mind and it will make a lot more sense.

I never said that the 3e rules still apply. The example I gave was only about how they clarified things back then, and how it would help if they gave similar clarifications now. 4e is supposed to be exceptions based rules design. If it fails to give an exception, the general rule applies. It is arguably MORE important for the authors to provide clarity and exceptions in this edition than it ever was before. Mistakes happen. Nobody is perfect. But don't attack or insult people just for asking for clarification when none was given in the rules.

 

[hong]

I never said that the 3e rules still apply. The example I gave was only about how they clarified things back then, and how it would help if they gave similar clarifications now. 4e is supposed to be exceptions based rules design. If it fails to give an exception, the general rule applies. It is arguably MORE important for the authors to provide clarity and exceptions in this edition than it ever was before. Mistakes happen. Nobody is perfect. But don't attack or insult people just for asking for clarification when none was given in the rules.

They did provide clarification. This is a thread about the wording of a FAQ answer, not the rulebooks themselves. The intended meaning of the answer is perfectly clear to anyone able to understand context.

 

[Lurker37]

I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the phrase 'counts as'

In all uses that I am familiar with:

'counts as' does not mean 'functions the same as'

nor does 'Counts as' mean 'Suffers the same conditions as'

In fact something that 'Counts as X' is usually exempt from any conditions or prerequisites that X has.

E.g. "Completing this course also counts as your third grade qualification in <xyz>." The fact that those sitting the course may not have done first or second grade <xyz> is irrelevant. If they pass this course, they will have third grade <xyz> qualification.

Apparently the writers didn't think the language was open to another interpretation, and none of the playtesters were unfamiliar with the phrase. We know from preview articles that one of their goals was to try to simplify the language. In this case it has apparently backfired.

IMO the FAQ needs to say something along the lines of 'When the rules say a class feature 'counts as' a feat, it means that the class feature grants the same mechanical benefits as having the feat, including being able to use the class feature for prerequisites for other feats and powers. It does not share any of that feat's prerequisites. Class features have no prerequisites unless noted in the class feature description.'

 

[Iku Rex]

There's an awful lot of point-missing in this thread.

To summarize: The question is if the rules for feats can be reasonably assumed to apply to class abilities that count as feats.

Specifically, if the rule that prevents you from using a feat you have if you don't meet the requirements applies to the "count as feats" class proficiencies. (Disregarding Zurai's nitpick for the moment.)


Notice that IT IS NOT ABOUT GAINING THE PROFICIENCY. That's why the FAQ is missing the point as well. If you somehow gained the Plate Proficiency feat with Str 14, or your Str dropped from 15 to 14 after getting the feat, you would be unable to use it, even though you would still have it. (This kind of thing was also possible in 3.X - you could have a feat and yet be unable to use it.)

 

[pemerton]

To summarize: The question is if the rules for feats can be reasonably assumed to apply to class abilities that count as feats.

Specifically, if the rule that prevents you from using a feat you have if you don't meet the requirements applies to the "count as feats" class proficiencies. (Disregarding Zurai's nitpick for the moment.)

Am I missing something?

As far as I can see, the argument you are sketching runs as follows:

The rule is that you can't use a feat for which you don't have the prerequisites.

The class feature counts as a feat.

Therefore, you can't use the class feature if you don't meet its prerequisites.

The prequisite of a class feature is being a member of that class.

Therefore, a Paladin (for example) who ceased to be one would lose the class feature of being trained in plate armour.​

To get the conclusion that your are suggesting (that a weak figher can't wear armour) you would need there to be a rule that the class feature shares the prerequisites of the feat. But this is not a rule, and it is not implied by the rule that the class feature counts as the feat.

 

[webrunner]

Essentially, what a Fighter has is this:

Armor Proficiency (Chainmail) (Fighter) (Not really a feat)
Prerequisites: Is a fighter
Benefit: You gain training with Chainmail
Special: For the purposes of checking whether you have it, you are considered to have the "Armor Proficiency (Chainmail)" feat, regardless of it's prerequisites

In other words, you have a class feature that confers EVERYTHING that Armor Proficiency (Chainmail) Feat does, including "Has the feat called Armor Proficiency (Chainmail)", but you dont actually get the feat, and therefore aren't subject to it's limitations.