[3.5] Requirements for specified bonus Feats?

[Tve]

So, I've been wondering something lately, and neither google, these boards or any other board seem to have a thread addressing it.

When a class receives a specific feat, do they need to meet the prereqs of said feat? Or does this only apply where it is specifically stated?

Example: The Samurai (CW) receives Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat, even if he doesn't meet the normal requirement.

The Hulking Hurler PrC (CW) receives Throw Anything as a bonus feat. Unlike the Samurai, the Hulking Hurler does NOT specify, that it doesn't need to meet the normal prereqs.

Is this just another classic example of 3.5 rules omission, or is this actually how it's supposed to work?

I've seen a lot of Hulking Hurler builds around the interwebz (as well as Bloodstorm Blade (ToB)), where the builds does not seem to have the 15 Dex required for Throw Anything...

What are your thoughts? :smallsmile:

[Khedrac]

OK, there's RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As we guess they are Intended).

RAW: If the class says that it does not need the prerequisites then you can use the feat without them. E.g. Samurai.
If the class omits this line then it gets the feat but cannot use it except while boosted to meet the prerequisites. E.g. Hulking Hurler.

RAI: Check the rest of the class. In general I think that if a class gets a bonus feat they are intended to be able to use it regardless of prerequisites, however it is worth checking if entry to the class is supposed to meet those same prerequisites. If it does and you have found a way to bypass them, then I would not allow the feat to work - you bypassed it too.

[TuggyNE]

Note that if a class gives you a choice from a long list of possibilities, like Fighter or Wizard, it pretty much never means you get to ignore prereqs. In fact, I think you could make the case that if it doesn't say to ignore prereqs, any list of choices at all means you don't ignore them.

[Tve]

Note that if a class gives you a choice from a long list of possibilities, like Fighter or Wizard, it pretty much never means you get to ignore prereqs. In fact, I think you could make the case that if it doesn't say to ignore prereqs, any list of choices at all means you don't ignore them.

Well of cause :)
The cases I'm curious about are actually the two I've mentioned above (being the Hulking Hurler and the Bloodstorm Blade).
Both classes are thematically ranged oriented, but focused on Str rather than Dex. In both cases I think the need to attain Dex 15 would suck some serious donkey cojones, but neither of them specify, that you don't need to meet the requirements.

Also it seems, browsing around the various BB and HH builds on the web, that many have overlooked this or chosen to ignore it, as quite a lot of them don't have the necessary Dex to start flinging Greatswords and boulders...

[Yuki Akuma]

If a class description says "at level x you gain y", then by God you gain y at level x. No ifs or buts. You get it.

Specific trumps general, etc.

General: You need Dexterity 15 to get Throw Anything.

Specific: Hulking Hurlers get Throw Anything at at level 1 as part of their Really Throw Anything class feature.

[Tve]

If a class description says "at level x you gain y", then by God you gain y at level x. No ifs or buts. You get it.

Specific trumps general, etc.

General: You need Dexterity 15 to get Throw Anything.

Specific: Hulking Hurlers get Throw Anything at at level 1 as part of their Really Throw Anything class feature.

Is that a personal opinion, or is there some rule to back it up?
Seeing that classes like the Monk, Samurai and many others who also gains feats with high requirements specifically states that you don't need to meet the requirements, I find it hard to just assume it as a general rule, especially since Hulking Hurler and Samurai are from the same splatbook...

[Chronos]

A Hulking Hurler certainly gets the Throw Anything feat, even if they lack prerequisites, since their specific rules say that they do. What's less clear is if they can use that feat without the prerequisites. By the rules as written, they still have the feat, but can't use it without the prerequisites, so they would only gain the benefit under the effect of a Cat's Grace spell or similar. This was probably not what was intended, though.

[Yuki Akuma]

Is that a personal opinion, or is there some rule to back it up?

"Specific trumps general" is in fact an actual rule. A pretty fundamental rule, too! It's how the entire game actually works.

It's called 'exception based design'. You lay out the basic rules, and then make things that break those rules.

So, yes. If your class ability says you gain the feat, you gain the bloody feat.

[Diarmuid]

But there's a fundamental difference between gaining a feat and actually being able to use it.

I think that's what's more being discussed here. Yes, the HH gets to right down a bonus feat on his sheet, but can he actually bring it to bear w/o meeting the prereqs?

[Curmudgeon]

But there's a fundamental difference between gaining a feat and actually being able to use it.

I think that's what's more being discussed here. Yes, the HH gets to right down a bonus feat on his sheet, but can he actually bring it to bear w/o meeting the prereqs?
In this case it doesn't matter. The player can write down Throw Anything on their character's sheet, but what they're really (!) using is not that feat but their Really Throw Anything class feature. The class ability does everything the feat does, and more.

The answer to this question all comes down to the specific wording used.
At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat.
If the ranger selects archery, he is treated as having the Rapid Shot feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat. Having is more than selecting; it implies use after selection. The Monk gets screwed (again) by the specific language chosen by WotC; they can select a listed feat, but don't have a bypass to actually use those bonus feats.

[Tve]

Ok, so the Hulking Hurler elephantly steps around the poor wording, by adding the extra lines, specifying that they actually don't use the feat at all..

How about the Bloodstorm Blade then?

The difference then comes down to, whether your class description says "gain the use of x feat, even if you don't meet the requirement" or "gain x feat as a bonus feat".
I admit there is definitely a difference between the two, and I can agree with the fact, that you with the second option actually get to write the feat down on your character sheet, but what in the rules gives you the right to use any feature you have acquired, but to which you do not qualify?

The first thing that comes to my mind are the wondrous items from ToB (Crown of the White Raven etc.), which grants you the use of a maneuver as long as you wear the item.
Sure, you now know the maneuver but:

Anyone can wear a crown of White Ravens,
but to gain any benefi t from it, a wearer must meet the prerequisite
of the desired maneuver.
Emphasis mine.

I'm not deliberately trying to enforce stupidity here, I genuinely want the Bloodstorm Blade to work without the Dex hassle, but I can't fully grasp the consequences of ruling that if you get it, you can use, unless stated otherwise (like the Crown)..

Won't a ruling like that open up for some nasty cheddar? I can't think of something right of the back, but it seems like a very abusable statement.

[Edit]: After a quick reading, the Player's Handbook actually spells it out:

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the
indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus,
or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.
Emphasis mine.

So that pretty much rounds it up.

- The Hulking Hurler doesn't care, as he actually doesn't use the feat.
- The Samurai, Ranger and other classes reads "gets the use of X feat, without meeting the prereq's".
- The Bloodstorm Blade acquires the feat, but can't use it for squat, unless he attains a Dex of 15.

..pure Bloodstorm Blade :(

[Chronos]

Ok, so the Hulking Hurler elephantly steps around the poor wording, ...
Was that a type for "elegantly"? Because if so, that's the best typo ever.

[Tve]

Was that a type for "elegantly"? Because if so, that's the best typo ever.

Intentional typo, yes :smallsmile: