can you take feats you temporarily qualify for?

[Smegskull]

Say a feat had the prerequisite of large creature and I have a belt of growth can a take the feat? (i know it wouldn't do anything when I wasn't enlarged).
another example could be fly by attack if you have magic wings.

I want it for my weretouched shifter that can transform into a large tiger. Does it qualify me for large creature feats?

[frogglesmash]

The rules either say you lose the feat when you no longer qualify or that you only lose the benefits of the fat when you know longer qualify. If it's the later then as far as I know you could take when you are temporarily large, but you would only be able to benefit from it when you we're large.

[Uncle Pine]

Yes.

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. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.
In other terms, if you stop qualifying for a feat for whatever reason, you can't use it until you qualify again.

Cue someone posting to say that as you don't level up while in combat you can't use abilities that have a specific in-combat duration to meet the prerequisites of a feat.

EDIT: Blue text means irony.

[Hiro Quester]

I'd say this kind of thing is DMs call.

Some rule you can qualify, but only for feats that can't be used when the temp condition wears off.

E.g. Multiattack has a prerequisite of three or more natural attacks. But it can also only be used when you have three or more natural attacks (e.g. A Druid in wildshape some of the time). So less problem there.

On the other hand, two weapon fighting requires a 15 dexterity. Perhaps having gloves of dexterity could qualify you for the feat, but the danger is that you could try to use it in situations in which you no longer qualify (e.g. In an AMF). That's more problematic.

[Shalist]

Not exactly scripture, but still relevant (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip):


(Q) A feat sometimes requires you to have a certain ability score, which is the case with Two-Weapon Fighting (it requires Dex 15). A character has, say, Dex 13, but wears an item, in this case gloves of Dexterity +2, and now her Dex score is 15. Can she take the feat and have it be active only when she wears the item?

(A) Actually yes, she could take the feat, but she would lose the use of the feat if, for whatever reason, she loses the bonus from the item.

[Venger]

FAQ is not RAW.

most people on this board say you can't do it, so if you for example, get blasted with a ray of enfeeblement, say goodbye to power attack! and everything that was keyed off it, for that matter.

I go against the grain here and say no. if you need a leg up to reach say, str 25 for awesome blow and get it from some bracers of str like normal people who need str, then if you ever take it off or get the effect suppressed, you lose it.

if you try to enter a prc that requires, say, 2nd lvl spells, say goodbye to all your class features once you burn all your slots! or if you ever get energy drained or blasted with a caster lens or have your CL reduced below the min lvl to cast those spells.

to avoid such foolishness, it's a lot easier to say "meet the prereqs at the time you take the feat as long as you don't go bananas and abuse PaO or anything to get into illithid savant" rather than try to enforce the darn CWar rules.

[Crake]

FAQ is not RAW.

most people on this board say you can't do it, so if you for example, get blasted with a ray of enfeeblement, say goodbye to power attack! and everything that was keyed off it, for that matter.

I go against the grain here and say no. if you need a leg up to reach say, str 25 for awesome blow and get it from some bracers of str like normal people who need str, then if you ever take it off or get the effect suppressed, you lose it.

if you try to enter a prc that requires, say, 2nd lvl spells, say goodbye to all your class features once you burn all your slots! or if you ever get energy drained or blasted with a caster lens or have your CL reduced below the min lvl to cast those spells.

to avoid such foolishness, it's a lot easier to say "meet the prereqs at the time you take the feat as long as you don't go bananas and abuse PaO or anything to get into illithid savant" rather than try to enforce the darn CWar rules.

I swear there was a mention in complete mage or complete arcane somewhere that explicitly said you could use items to qualify for things. I'm afb right now, so i'm not exactly sure if that's completely true, or where it's located in said books.

[heavyfuel]

FAQ is not RAW.


True, but in this case both are one and the same. Prereqs in D&D are extremely binary. You either qualify for something or you don't. It doesn't matter how you qualify, as long as you do.

Remember that if a feat says you need to have Dex 15, that's the amount needed to select and use it, then as long as you have Dex 15 you can select it and use it. Losing said prereq would only make you unable to use the feat as mentioned above.

[Venger]

I swear there was a mention in complete mage or complete arcane somewhere that explicitly said you could use items to qualify for things. I'm afb right now, so i'm not exactly sure if that's completely true, or where it's located in said books.

I can see no other reason for things like gloves of the balanced hand to exist. they should absolutely allow you to qualify for stuff, the TWF chain is too long as it is, and mundanes need all the help they can get.

well, since it's very difficult to meet certain prereqs otherwise, I am rather certain you're supposed to be able to use items to take feats (like the above awesome blow example) I searched through my copy of cmage and don't see anything like that, but if you find it, I'd love to see it

[Shoat]

There should not be an absolute ruling on this, because while there are some situations where it makes sense to use non-permanent stuff to qualify for permanent stuff (Psychic Warrior taking natural weapon feats due to almost-always having claws anyway, or items with +X to a stat qualifying you for a feat) and situations where it's utter bull**** (literally any optimization-discussion about entering a prestige class early contains crap like that - "able to cast 2nd level arcane spells" is a minimum level requirement just like BAB is, not something one can circumvent by being able to cast one spell of that level somehow).

If you fix yourself on a ruling either way it's going to result in some stupid **** at some point.
The optimal answer is "Within reason, yes. As soon as I smell cheese, no.".

[SinsI]

AFAIK there is one and only one source of temporary abilities that doesn't allow you to do that - Chameleon's Aptitude Focus, Ability Boon and Mimic Class Feature abilities explicitly state that they can't be used to qualify for feat, prestige class or other option.

It is the only exception and I think all DMs should use Rule 0 to remove that limitation, as it is extremely counterintuitive and doesn't reflect any real situation that would require the use of that prerequisite.
Furthermore, if possible you should use Unearthed Arcana's Test-Based Prerequisites instead of normal prerequisites.

[Curmudgeon]

You take a feat when you level up. That happens immediately when you're awarded enough XP to attain the next character level. There's no "wait — hold on — let me activate this item — OK I'm ready" nonsense; you either meet the prerequisites or you have to select some other feat for which you do satisfy the prerequisites.
Prerequisites

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. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.
You don't lose a feat if you no longer meet the prerequisites; you simply can't use it until you qualify again.

[Uncle Pine]

You take a feat when you level up. That happens immediately when you're awarded enough XP to attain the next character level. There's no "wait — hold on — let me activate this item — OK I'm ready" nonsense; you either meet the prerequisites or you have to select some other feat for which you do satisfy the prerequisites.

WARNING: This may bring parties to enforce 15 minutes adventuring days to ensure that everyone has all his temporary abilities on as soon as the finishing blow is dealt. Gitp takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any issue this may cause.

[Kraken]

A more realistic scenario is arguing whether, say, casting extended overland flight everyday with a 15+ hour duration qualifies you for flyby attack. Due to needing 8 hours to rest and an hour to prepare spells, you're effectively covered for any feasible time for which you could be gaining XP. This is a true grey area in my opinion.

[Segev]

In practical play, this is (perhaps obviously) a DM call. Remembering what feats are supposed to represent - that is, they're tricks and abilities you learn through practice and trial and error and by dint of effort and training - if a PC makes habitual use of the item/buff/whatever as part of his adventuring tactics, I'd be inclined to allow him to use his buffed/altered state to qualify for relevant feats, and even PrCs.

For feats and PrCs, I tend to subscribe to the CWar rule overall: if you lose the prereq, you lose the non-BAB/HD benefits of the PrC and feats. I make exception for those which would, under those rules, be self-negating (and infinite-cycling), e.g. Ur Priest and Dragon Disciple (though I'd discourage people from taking Dragon Disciple unles the game were really low-op). I think the rule mostly makes sense and allows for more fun and interesting interactions (I may be just a touch overfond of the Schroedinger's War Hulk).

To me, qualification for the feat or PrC is based on practice and minimum ability to perform its functions. If you meet it "enough" while training towards it, you can take it. If you cease to meet the requirements to be able to use it, you can't use it until you regain them.

For the feat that requires you to be Large, it's a matter that you're just plain PRACTICED at fighting with that much size and strength, and you can learn tricks that smaller things can't pull off. When you're not that big, you can't pull them off, even if you know how.

[SinsI]

For feats and PrCs, I tend to subscribe to the CWar rule overall: if you lose the prereq, you lose the non-BAB/HD benefits of the PrC and feats. I make exception for those which would, under those rules, be self-negating (and infinite-cycling), e.g. Ur Priest and Dragon Disciple (though I'd discourage people from taking Dragon Disciple unles the game were really low-op). I think the rule mostly makes sense and allows for more fun and interesting interactions (I may be just a touch overfond of the Schroedinger's War Hulk).

What happens to caster level and spells known? For example, Sorcerer with Spelldancer levels, if he used Heroics to qualify for some of its prereq feats? What happens when he casts Heroics to get the prereq again? Can he re-select the spells known?

What if you have some feat or ability that does the same thing as the prerequisite, but is named differently (i.e. Arcane Hierophant requires "trackless step" as class feature. What if you lost it as a class feature but you are of a race that has Trackless Step? Another example is if something requires Pounce and you have Sudden Leap or Sphinx Claws chakra bind)

[GilesTheCleric]

You take a feat when you level up. That happens immediately when you're awarded enough XP to attain the next character level. There's no "wait — hold on — let me activate this item — OK I'm ready" nonsense; you either meet the prerequisites or you have to select some other feat for which you do satisfy the prerequisites.
You don't lose a feat if you no longer meet the prerequisites; you simply can't use it until you qualify again.

How does this interact this GMs who grant things like roleplay xp, quest completion xp, bond xp, etc, or xp at the end of a session or quest? Or those who level up via milestone and don't really use xp at all?

[DarkSonic1337]

Why does everyone reffer to the Complete Warrior rules for PrCs and prereqs when Complete Arcane also has rules for PrCs and prereqs? What makes the complete warrior version any more valid than the complete arcane version? (which allows you to keep spellcasting).

I feel like the complete arcane version would be less of a hassle when you consider the ability to turn on and off your prereqs (Wizards gaining levels over and over to add free spells to their spellbooks, Sorcerers repicking spells known). What if you take a prestige class that grants casting and then use another prestige class to advance said casting, but then lose the prereqs for the first prestige class while still meeting the prereqs of the second? (such as using Heroics to qualify for divine crusader and advancing that with something else.)

[Fitz10019]

I've always thought that the worn-item-derived-feat-qualification nay-sayers got that impression from computer games like Neverwinter, where the programmers didn't want the hassle of rechecking feat qualification every time someone adjusts their wardrobe. I'm surprised to see the stance taken among true dice-rolling table-toppers.

[Taelas]

FAQ is not RAW.

most people on this board say you can't do it, so if you for example, get blasted with a ray of enfeeblement, say goodbye to power attack! and everything that was keyed off it, for that matter.

I go against the grain here and say no. if you need a leg up to reach say, str 25 for awesome blow and get it from some bracers of str like normal people who need str, then if you ever take it off or get the effect suppressed, you lose it.

if you try to enter a prc that requires, say, 2nd lvl spells, say goodbye to all your class features once you burn all your slots! or if you ever get energy drained or blasted with a caster lens or have your CL reduced below the min lvl to cast those spells.

to avoid such foolishness, it's a lot easier to say "meet the prereqs at the time you take the feat as long as you don't go bananas and abuse PaO or anything to get into illithid savant" rather than try to enforce the darn CWar rules.

If you lose the prerequisite of a feat, you lose the use of the feat. You don't lose the feat itself. So if you have a feat which has Power Attack as a prerequisite, and you get Str-drained below 13 Str, then you lose the use of Power Attack, but not necessarily the other feat (unless it has a separate Str prerequisite that you also fall short for).

This is not from CWar, this is straight from the PHB.

[nyjastul69]

I simply ignore the bits in CWar & CArc about disqualifying for a PrC. I think it's an editing error. That my opinion of course. RAW clearly indicated otherwise. It's a weird rules thing.

[Taelas]

How in the blazes is that an editing error?

[Segev]

I'd probably allow "+1 existing class" type benefits from a PrC to stick, just like HD and BAB. But I'll freely admit that this is a practical, at-a-table-I-hypothetically-run ruling.

The RAW are a bit touchy because CWar and CArc disagree; the easiest resolution is to treat them as applying only to PrCs in their pages, but that leaves the quesiton open for PrCs in other sources, which again puts us in DM-call territory.

[nyjastul69]

How in the blazes is that an editing error?

By editing error I mean the editors, or prolly more likely the developer, didn't do their homework. I *think* the 3.0 DMG has that as a rule. AFB ATM, but if IIRC, the 3.0 DMG had a clause similar to the ones in CAr and CWar. They were either accidently dropped during the 3.5 update, or were purposefully changed. I don't think WotC ever addressed that particular discrepancy, leading most to assume it was a purposeful change. It's a devoper issue I think, not an editing issue.

My understanding is that the designers write the material, the devopers collate that material into book form and then it's edited. WotC devolpers have a different job than the designers. I don't think those thosen terms are synonymous within WotC.

I apologize for my sloppy terminology.

[SinsI]

The RAW are a bit touchy because CWar and CArc disagree;
It is more important that neither are Core.

[Segev]

It is more important that neither are Core.

In that they do not blanket apply to the whole of the line as a general rule, yes. Note that if they did not disagree, using one or the other would imply, by their wording, that your game uses that rule universally. Since they DO disagree, they cannot both apply as blanket rules to games which include them both.

That's why it's touchy.

[nyjastul69]

In that they do not blanket apply to the whole of the line as a general rule, yes. Note that if they did not disagree, using one or the other would imply, by their wording, that your game uses that rule universally. Since they DO disagree, they cannot both apply as blanket rules to games which include them both.

That's why it's touchy.

As written they are both sketchy. They disagree with each other, and they disagree the primary source for PrC's. I believe that shows both are in error. The whybor how that error exists is relevant to me.

[Segev]

Specific does trump general, so if they apply only to the PrCs in their own books, they work without contradiction.

However, I don't think there's a general rule about this one way or the other. They do not contradict the core; they merely add to it. To contradict, the core would have to spell out something, not be silent.

[Taelas]

By editing error I mean the editors, or prolly more likely the developer, didn't do their homework. I *think* the 3.0 DMG has that as a rule. AFB ATM, but if IIRC, the 3.0 DMG had a clause similar to the ones in CAr and CWar. They were either accidently dropped during the 3.5 update, or were purposefully changed. I don't think WotC ever addressed that particular discrepancy, leading most to assume it was a purposeful change. It's a devoper issue I think, not an editing issue.

My understanding is that the designers write the material, the devopers collate that material into book form and then it's edited. WotC devolpers have a different job than the designers. I don't think those thosen terms are synonymous within WotC.

I apologize for my sloppy terminology.
That is a whopper of an assumption to make. Though you are correct that the original 3.0 DMG had it, in a section that is entirely omitted from the 3.5 DMG: "Creating Prestige Classes"

Wait. That bit isn't updated, and Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior back it up. Heh! That makes it 3.5 RAW, I believe. Funny. I had forgotten it was in the 3.0 DMG at all, so thanks for getting me to look it up.

Segev, how exactly do they disagree?


If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided.


Should a character find herself in a position (because of changed alignment, lost levels, or the like) where she no longer meets the requirements of a prestige class, she loses all special abilities (but not Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or base save bonus) gained from levels of the prestige class.

Not seeing it, personally.

[Urpriest]

Not seeing it, personally.

In one case you lose the abilities themselves, in the other you merely lose their benefit. This is a pretty major difference, since if you only lose the benefit then you still have the features if you manage to qualify again.

[Taelas]

How do you justify that? You lose the benefit. I see no proviso for getting them back.

[Segev]

How do you justify that? You lose the benefit. I see no proviso for getting them back.

A feasible way to read it.

I confess I was running on foggy memory of what CArc said, and recalling that there had been long, drawn-out debates before.

Without my books at the moment, I could only go off my memory of CWar (which was accurate).

In any event, I already pointed out that part of my preference stems from a partiality to things like Shroedinger's War Hulk. :smalltongue:

The reason it's sticky largely stems from the fact that it's not core and the core is silent on the consequences. 3.0 does not have bearing on the RAW of 3.5.

[atemu1234]

How do you justify that? You lose the benefit. I see no proviso for getting them back.

Because you still have it, and regain the prereqs later?

[Segev]

Because you still have it, and regain the prereqs later?

I believe his argument goes, "You have the abilities/powers, but no benefits from them. It doesn't say you regain those benefits when you regain the prerequisites any more than the other version says you regain the abilities/powers when you regain the prerequisites."

i.e., both say "you lose X when you lose the prerequisites," and neither provide for "but you get X back if you regain the prerequisites."

(Forgive me if I mischaracterise the position; I am just phrasing the argument as I understand it to be being made.)

[Ruslan]

Yes, you can take feats you only temporary qualify for. For example, if your Strength score is 13, you can take the Power Attack feat. Obviously, you only temporarily qualify for Power Attack, since as soon as you hit middle age, your Strength score will drop to 12.

[Taelas]

I believe his argument goes, "You have the abilities/powers, but no benefits from them. It doesn't say you regain those benefits when you regain the prerequisites any more than the other version says you regain the abilities/powers when you regain the prerequisites."

i.e., both say "you lose X when you lose the prerequisites," and neither provide for "but you get X back if you regain the prerequisites."

(Forgive me if I mischaracterise the position; I am just phrasing the argument as I understand it to be being made.)

That's correct.

[Fitz10019]

Yes, you can take feats you only temporary qualify for. For example, if your Strength score is 13, you can take the Power Attack feat. Obviously, you only temporarily qualify for Power Attack, since as soon as you hit middle age, your Strength score will drop to 12.

Nice argument. What isn't temporary in life?
Aside from taxes, of course

[atemu1234]

Nice argument. What isn't temporary in life?
Aside from taxes, of course


Student Loan Debt.

[Curmudgeon]

Not seeing it, personally.
Also note the Complete Arcane rule restricts the loss to Special abilities (those in the class table under the Special heading). That excludes other columns like Spells per Day/Spells Known. For a book of spellcasting PrCs that's a pretty major difference.

[Segev]

Student Loan Debt.

Hush, you. I'll win the lottery and pay mine off yet!

(Well, to be fair, it's SLOWLY going down..... 11 years in college, 7 of which I took loans to pay for, adds up, though. x_x )

[Venger]

If you lose the prerequisite of a feat, you lose the use of the feat. You don't lose the feat itself. So if you have a feat which has Power Attack as a prerequisite, and you get Str-drained below 13 Str, then you lose the use of Power Attack, but not necessarily the other feat (unless it has a separate Str prerequisite that you also fall short for).

This is not from CWar, this is straight from the PHB.

right. but if you rule that someone with say, awesome blow who is str damaged or what have you, then you'll lose all the feats that're unlocked by having power attack as well.

[Taelas]

right. but if you rule that someone with say, awesome blow who is str damaged or what have you, then you'll lose all the feats that're unlocked by having power attack as well.

No, you don't. You still have Power Attack, you just don't get the benefit from it. You don't lose the feat, so it still works just fine for fulfilling prerequisites.

[gomipile]

No, you don't. You still have Power Attack, you just don't get the benefit from it. You don't lose the feat, so it still works just fine for fulfilling prerequisites.

But by your logic, that character would never be able to actually use Power Attack ever again even after healing the strength damage.

[Taelas]

But by your logic, that character would never be able to actually use Power Attack ever again even after healing the strength damage.

No, that's not true, because feats specifically work when you meet the prerequisite again.


PHB, page 87, "Prerequisites": A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. For example, if your character’s Strength drops below 13 because a ray of enfeeblement spell, he or she can’t use the Power Attack feat until the prerequisite is once again met.

[gomipile]

No, that's not true, because feats specifically work when you meet the prerequisite again.
You seem to be contradicting what you said "That's correct." to above.

[Taelas]

You seem to be contradicting what you said "That's correct." to above.

That was referring to prestige classes, not feats.

[bekeleven]

You seem to be contradicting what you said "That's correct." to above.

That didn't have an until clause (until prereqs are again met) or even a while clause (lost while prereqs are not met).

[Andezzar]

I believe his argument goes, "You have the abilities/powers, but no benefits from them. It doesn't say you regain those benefits when you regain the prerequisites any more than the other version says you regain the abilities/powers when you regain the prerequisites."

i.e., both say "you lose X when you lose the prerequisites," and neither provide for "but you get X back if you regain the prerequisites."

(Forgive me if I mischaracterise the position; I am just phrasing the argument as I understand it to be being made.)You got it perfectly.


No, you don't. You still have Power Attack, you just don't get the benefit from it. You don't lose the feat, so it still works just fine for fulfilling prerequisites.The problem is that most if not all feats reiterate the prerequisites of feats they require themselves:
Prerequisites

Str 13, Power Attack.

Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.

Int 13.

Dex 13.

Dex 13, Dodge.

Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.

[Devmaar]

The problem is that most if not all feats reiterate the prerequisites of feats they require themselves:

Just off the top of my head Knock-Down requires Improved Trip but not Combat Expertise or Int 13

[Andezzar]

I said there might be exceptions, but they are few and far between.

[Taelas]

Even if that is true for feat trees (which I am not certain that it is, though it does seem like it; good catch), feats can be prerequisites for more than other feats.

[Segev]

I honestly think it safe to say that this is an area where determining the PRECISE RAW interpretation is TO only. PO will inevitably be "whatever the DM wants," because it's vague and alterable enough that somebody has to make a call somewhere.

In point of fact, I would wager that what it counts as could vary as much as build-to-build. I would, personally, allow both an Ur Priest who is not self-negating and a Schroedinger's War Hulk at a table I was running.

[Andezzar]

I honestly think it safe to say that this is an area where determining the PRECISE RAW interpretation is TO only. PO will inevitably be "whatever the DM wants," because it's vague and alterable enough that somebody has to make a call somewhere.

In point of fact, I would wager that what it counts as could vary as much as build-to-build. I would, personally, allow both an Ur Priest who is not self-negating and a Schroedinger's War Hulk at a table I was running.There is no ambiguity there. Ur-Priest and Dragon disciples do not self-disqualify. The broken rules from CArc and CW do not apply to any PrC from other books (primary source rule for CArc, no other PrCs are called Martial PrCs for CW).

The DMG never requires to fulfill the prerequisites except before taking the first level of a PrC. The DMG does not have a rule to take anything away if you do not qualify at any other point. Yes, you can even trade away feats required for taking the first level of a PrC after having taken that first level and still take additional levels of that PrC.

Of course the DM can do whatever he likes, but so can the other players, including not playing if the DM has not advertised his deviation from RAW beforehand.

[Segev]

A good DM discusses his interpretation of the RAW anyway, because, as shown in these discussions, agreement on what is actually how the RAW apply is...hazy.

Getting hostile and self-righteous about it is silly. Nobody is suggesting ambushing players with malicious rule-changes. My point remains that the DM is going to have to make a decision, even if it's just between what other person's interpretation of the RAW is "right" at his table. Because while we can argue what it is all thread long, the fact is that you can find text to justify a number of interpretations. Including your own.

[Taelas]

There is no ambiguity there. Ur-Priest and Dragon disciples do not self-disqualify. The broken rules from CArc and CW do not apply to any PrC from other books (primary source rule for CArc, no other PrCs are called Martial PrCs for CW).

The DMG never requires to fulfill the prerequisites except before taking the first level of a PrC. The DMG does not have a rule to take anything away if you do not qualify at any other point. Yes, you can even trade away feats required for taking the first level of a PrC after having taken that first level and still take additional levels of that PrC.

Of course the DM can do whatever he likes, but so can the other players, including not playing if the DM has not advertised his deviation from RAW beforehand.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the rule is in the 3.0 DMG, which technically makes it legal for 3.5.

[Curmudgeon]

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the rule is in the 3.0 DMG, which technically makes it legal for 3.5.
No, not if the 3.5 primary source on the matter explicitly removed the rule (which it did). That removal made it possible to introduce the Dragon Disciple prestige class (starting on page 183), which class would not function with that old 3.0 rule in place.

[Segev]

No, not if the 3.5 primary source on the matter explicitly removed the rule (which it did). That removal made it possible to introduce the Dragon Disciple prestige class (starting on page 183), which class would not function with that old 3.0 rule in place.

"Explicitly removed the rule" means there is text that actively contradicts it, or explicitly says "this rule from 3.0 is no longer in effect in 3.5." Such text may exist, but you'll have to produce it to prove it.

"This rule was not reprinted in 3.5's DMG" does not count as explicit removal. Implicit, at best.

(Of course, if all of 3.0 were thrown out by 3.5, that would be sufficient. The argument presented here is taht 3.0 was not thrown out, merely updated, and that things which were not updated are unchanged.)

[Taelas]

No, not if the 3.5 primary source on the matter explicitly removed the rule (which it did). That removal made it possible to introduce the Dragon Disciple prestige class (starting on page 183), which class would not function with that old 3.0 rule in place.

Not including it is not the same as explicitly removing it.

[Andezzar]

I agree that that rule is gone, but where does the primary source explicitly remove that rule?

[Curmudgeon]

Not including it is not the same as explicitly removing it.
Introducing a prestige class which the old rule would make impossible, and removing that rule, is explicitly removing it: it's removed with obvious cause.

[Taelas]

Introducing a prestige class which the old rule would make impossible, and removing that rule, is explicitly removing it: it's removed with obvious cause.

The Dragon Disciple being impossible does not mean the rule is not in effect. At best, that is an implicit rather than explicit removal, and it's not as if the designers haven't made factual errors before.

Also recall that while we are talking about the rules as a cohesive whole, they are also individual books. If you only play with the core 3.5 books and nothing else, then you aren't playing with the 3.0 rule, which allows the Dragon Disciple to function.

[Venger]

The Dragon Disciple being impossible does not mean the rule is not in effect. At best, that is an implicit rather than explicit removal, and it's not as if the designers haven't made factual errors before.

Also recall that while we are talking about the rules as a cohesive whole, they are also individual books. If you only play with the core 3.5 books and nothing else, then you aren't playing with the 3.0 rule, which allows the Dragon Disciple to function.

That's because primary trumps secondary. 3.5's DMG superceded 3.0's, and a class like urpriest or dragon disciple is not the primary source on qualifications/leveling up, so you default to the DMG so schroedinger isn't a problem.

[Andezzar]

The problem is that the 3.5 DMG does not explicitly say what parts (if any) of the 3.0 DMG is superseded by the newer version, as for example PGtF does. With explicit rules conflicts it is clear that the 3.5 book takes precedence, but there simply is no 3.5 rule to conflict with the 3.0 rule.

[Segev]

Introducing a prestige class which the old rule would make impossible, and removing that rule, is explicitly removing it: it's removed with obvious cause.That is not "explicit."

"Explicit" means "plain, unambiguous, without need for any interpolation or extrapolation."

Perhaps looking towards another common use of the term will help illustrate.

"Explicit sex" in media is when sex literally happens in full view of the observer. Any use of visual metaphores, partial nudity, suggestive sounds on a black screen or through a wall or door, etc. is not explicit, no matter how painfully obvious that sex is what you're to assume is happening.

In at least one anime, they deliberately play with this in one scene when naked limbs splay out from underneath a sheet wherein at least two silhouetted figures can be seen to be writhing together while unmistakable moans are being played as the audio. This still is not "explicit." In fact, when the sheet is removed, the two fully clothed characters are shown to just be holding sticks with dummy limbs on them that they're poking out at weird angles. (The absurd nature of the anime is such that there's no explanation for this behavior provided.)


For the rule to be "explicitly" contradicted, the text would have to paraphrase something along the lines of, "If you cease to meet the prerequisites of a PrC in which you have levels, you retain the benefits thereof in spite of no longer qualifying to enter it."

If it were an actual explicit removal, it would actually have to openly and plainly reference the rule to be removed: "The 3.0 DMG stated that you lost the benefits of a PrC for which you lost the prerequisites; this is not true in 3.5 edition."

[Smegskull]

I would like to point out that this appears to have become an argument about PrC qualification and I am concerned with feats which I believe to be significantly different as one is re-trainable for a start.

I have my PrC plan and it does not have contradiction problems (Barbarian 10/ weretouched master 5/ elemental warrior 5).

I was just trying to figure out if I my magic item to grow to huge was enough to grab the Snatch feat.

[Venger]

I would like to point out that this appears to have become an argument about PrC qualification and I am concerned with feats which I believe to be significantly different as one is re-trainable for a start.

I have my PrC plan and it does not have contradiction problems (Barbarian 10/ weretouched master 5/ elemental warrior 5).

I was just trying to figure out if I my magic item to grow to huge was enough to grab the Snatch feat.

The answer to that question is yes, same as you can hop into war hulk with a permanencied enlarge person.

[Andezzar]

I was just trying to figure out if I my magic item to grow to huge was enough to grab the Snatch feat.As long as it is active and you are huge during level up, yes you can.