Bonus Feats & Prerequisites.

[Chambers]

Discussion split from this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?420807-3-5-Athach-Cleric-14-vs-Regular-Cleric-15)


Marginally higher. The athach generally gets two more every day. That's something, but the Cleric gets greater planar binding for extra assistants, letting his spell be bigger. If we allow epic leadership, he can use circle magic to pump higher level spells into epic spellcasting.



Aside: Why does this board not support nested quoting?

Anyway, your point doesn't hold water in the ways challenges are established. The fact that the PrC'd Cleric gets more dangerous from using awaken is not, as far as the rules are concerned, any different from the athach Cleric getting more dangerous by using persisted spells to buff himself. It's possible to argue that the HD count as advancement, in which case the Cleric would have to burn them off to remain CR 15, but there's no positive indication of that in awaken.



That's how bonus feats work. Unless specified, they don't require prerequisites. It's somewhere in the MM.



You're making a conflation. The HD from awaken are neither racial nor class HD. They're just HD. Frankly, it's not entirely clear what kind of HD they are.


Is this what you're referring to?

"Originally Posted by Monster Manual, Page 7
Feats
Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B. Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat's prerequisites."


I don't see how that allows characters to ignore a feat's prerequisites when choosing a bonus feat.


Yes.



The Loremaster lists "any one feat" as one of it's secrets. There's no restriction there on what you can or can't choose, and no claim that you have to meet prerequisites. Compare the Fighter's bonus feats which both give a specific list and require you to meet the prerequisites.


There's also nothing in the Loremaster class feature that specifically allows them to ignore the feat's prerequisites, like the Monk's bonus feats does.


Indeed. It's the same as the Rogue's bonus feat special ability. It doesn't mention whether they need to meet prerequisites, so it defaults to the normal, i.e. needing to meet a feat's requirements before selecting it.


Okay. Now apply that exact same line of logic, but starting with the Fighter's bonus feats.

At best you've reached a spurious conclusion based on which example you've reasoned from, at worst it's not relevant because Loremaster explicitly says "any one feat" unlike the Monk specifying improved unarmed strike or the Fighter noting that it's feats "must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats". You might have a case with Rogue, but Loremaster is cut and dried.


3.5 is an exception based rules system, where "it doesn't say I can't do X" is not the same as "the rules allow me to do X". There's nothing explicitly stating that Loremasters need to meet a feat's prerequisites, but that does not equate to their being able to select a feat without meeting its prerequisites.


Not really. My premise is that characters must qualify for the feats they select, as per the rules under Prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites). The Fighter Bonus Feats class feature says that this rule applies for the Fighter's bonus feats. The Monk's Bonus Feats class feature says that this rule does not apply to the Monk's bonus feats. The Loremaster's bonus feat class feature does not say specifically whether this rule applies or not.

Since the Loremaster doesn't say that the character may ignore the bonus feats prerequisites then the general rule still applies.

I understand the rule in the Monster Manual to be a specific rule that applies only to Monsters; I don't take it to be another general rule. This may be the source of the disagreement. Do you take that rule in the MM to be an universal rule rather than an exception for Monsters?


I understand the rule in the Monster Manual to be a specific rule that applies only to Monsters; I don't take it to be another general rule. This may be the source of the disagreement. Do you take that rule in the MM to be an universal rule rather than an exception for Monsters?


This is 3e, not 4e. There are no "special rules for monsters" I mean, FFS, this entire debate is premised on creatures of identical CR but differing ECL, i.e. creatures that are being evaluated as monsters. A 15th level Cleric is not in any fundamental sense different from a Marut, a Mummy Lord, or a mid-age dragon. He's a creature, if he happens to be controlled by the DM he's a monster, if he happens to be controlled by a player he's a PC. And yes, the specific case of bonus feats overrides the general case of feats. Then the specific case of Fighter bonus feats overrides the general case of bonus feats. Also worth noting that Loremaster and Rogue explicitly state "any feat" without qualifications.

[Extra Anchovies]

For anyone who wants full context, the debate is over whether the Loremaster's "any one feat" secret can ignore feat prerequisites.

[Chambers]

In response to this:


This is 3e, not 4e. There are no "special rules for monsters" I mean, FFS, this entire debate is premised on creatures of identical CR but differing ECL, i.e. creatures that are being evaluated as monsters. A 15th level Cleric is not in any fundamental sense different from a Marut, a Mummy Lord, or a mid-age dragon. He's a creature, if he happens to be controlled by the DM he's a monster, if he happens to be controlled by a player he's a PC. And yes, the specific case of bonus feats overrides the general case of feats. Then the specific case of Fighter bonus feats overrides the general case of bonus feats. Also worth noting that Loremaster and Rogue explicitly state "any feat" without qualifications.

Well, there actually are some special rules for monsters, one that is particularly relevant to the previous discussion, i.e. Monsters and Associated/Non-Associated Class Levels. So there's an example of Monsters having at least one different rule than characters.

[Brova]

Well, there actually are some special rules for monsters, one that is particularly relevant to the previous discussion, i.e. Monsters and Associated/Non-Associated Class Levels. So there's an example of Monsters having at least one different rule than characters.

Well that rule is calculating a characteristic PC's don't have per se (more accurately one they don't care about) - CR. It does technically hold that while an NPC athach Cleric 14 is CR 15, a PC athach Cleric 14 is ECL 33 and considers his duplicate to not be a meaningful challenge. It's calculating related characteristics in different ways, one of which is relevant to monsters and the other of which is relevant to PCs. So a athach Cleric 14 has a CR of 15 (which means he is a "level appropriate encounter" for a 15th level party) and an ECL of 33 (which means he is a "level appropriate member" of a 33rd level party). That's dumb, but entirely consistent with both equivalence between monsters and PCs and the rules as written.

[Venger]

For anyone who wants full context, the debate is over whether the Loremaster's "any one feat" secret can ignore feat prerequisites.

No. for the same reason rogue's special ability can't ignore prerequisites. it doesn't say that it supersedes the normal rules of being able to take a feat without qualifying, so it doesn't, meaning you default to the normal rules on feats.

[Troacctid]

Here is the rule, for reference.


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.

There is also another rule governing bonus feats that are marked with a B in a monster's statblock; however, that rule is not relevant here, as we are not reading a pre-existing statblock.

[heavyfuel]

No. for the same reason rogue's special ability can't ignore prerequisites. it doesn't say that it supersedes the normal rules of being able to take a feat without qualifying, so it doesn't, meaning you default to the normal rules on feats.

Pretty much. Without a specific rule, you follow the general one. I don't see reason for debate.

[Psyren]

No. for the same reason rogue's special ability can't ignore prerequisites. it doesn't say that it supersedes the normal rules of being able to take a feat without qualifying, so it doesn't, meaning you default to the normal rules on feats.

This. Not seeing the issue. (Incidentally, this works the same way in PF.)

[Brova]

First, it is obvious that you can use a bonus feat you don't meet the prerequisites for. The MM says that: ". Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Troacctid has misread the section and seems to think that the B superscript is a kind of bonus feat. It's not, it's a way of indicating which feats are bonus feats and which feats are not.

That being said, it is correct that the general rule for feats is that you must meet the prerequisites for them. However, the Loremaster offers "Any one feat" as a secret. Compare that to the Monk, who is required to select a specific feat (such as improved unarmed strike) or the Fighter, who can pick from a specific set of feats. I would argue that in this case the specific language of "any" overrides the general requirement of meeting prerequisites.

[Troacctid]

First, it is obvious that you can use a bonus feat you don't meet the prerequisites for. The MM says that: ". Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Troacctid has misread the section and seems to think that the B superscript is a kind of bonus feat. It's not, it's a way of indicating which feats are bonus feats and which feats are not.

I know that. The point is, the MM rule is in the context of reading statblocks (under the header "Reading the Entries", subheader "Statistics Block", referencing statblocks specifically in the rule itself as well); outside of that context, the PHB takes precedence due to primary source rules.

[Venger]

First, it is obvious that you can use a bonus feat you don't meet the prerequisites for. The MM says that: ". Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." Troacctid has misread the section and seems to think that the B superscript is a kind of bonus feat. It's not, it's a way of indicating which feats are bonus feats and which feats are not.'

That is referring to racial bonus feats, which are tagged in monsters' entries with a B (for baby and me) it is not referring to bonus feats they accrued through class levels.


That being said, it is correct that the general rule for feats is that you must meet the prerequisites for them. However, the Loremaster offers "Any one feat" as a secret. Compare that to the Monk, who is required to select a specific feat (such as improved unarmed strike) or the Fighter, who can pick from a specific set of feats. I would argue that in this case the specific language of "any" overrides the general requirement of meeting prerequisites.
all right, since rogue didn't convince you, let's look at monk since you brought it up.

monk's bonus feat explicitly specifies that you don't have to meet the prerequisites. that's why it's specific trumping general. this is because there's actually rules there.

fighter (superfluously) repeats that you must meet prereqs for its feats, but that doen't mean that the absence of that text means you can just take epic spellcasting at lvl 2 without it or whatever nonsense.

if that's not enough, let's look at another example: thrall of orcus.

you can get a couple fighter feats as bonus feats if you want. they do not (superfluously) say "ps you have to qualify for them" because that's how the rules for feats already work, and in the absence of a contradiction (like monk) you default to those.

can thrall of orcus just nab whirlwind attack without the 8 billion prereq feats that come first if he wants to? no? well then neither can loremaster.

"any" does not mean "you can ignore the prerequisites." since there are many classes that allow you to get prereqless feats and indicate o by saying "also you don't have to meet the reqs," that's what'd let loremaster take whatever feat he wanted. not "any"

[Brova]

That is referring to racial bonus feats, which are tagged in monsters' entries with a B (for baby and me) it is not referring to bonus feats they accrued through class levels.

You can tell this by the zero times the word "racial" is used in the relevant paragraph.


all right, since rogue didn't convince you, let's look at monk since you brought it up.

The Rogue is a separate case. Worth noting that the paragraph also says: "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That carries with it the implication that you can have a bonus feat for which you do not meet the prerequisites. Or, that the Rogue can also take any feat he wants. At this point the entire argument devolves to questions of semantics on what precisely "have" and "select" mean.


monk's bonus feat explicitly specifies that you don't have to meet the prerequisites. that's why it's specific trumping general. this is because there's actually rules there.

fighter (superfluously) repeats that you must meet prereqs for its feats, but that doen't mean that the absence of that text means you can just take epic spellcasting at lvl 2 without it or whatever nonsense.

The Fighter's bonus feats explicitly specify that you do have to meet the prerequisites. That's why it's specific trumping general. This is because there's actually rules there.

Monk (superfluously) repeats that you must don't have to meet the prerequisites for its feats, but that doesn't mean that the absence of that text means you can't just take epic spellcasting at lvl 2 without it or whatever nonsense.

Notice how the two examples explicitly contradict. You can't make an argument for one position over the other based on that evidence because you will reach the exact opposite conclusion depending on which piece of evidence you evaluate from.


if that's not enough, let's look at another example: thrall of orcus.

you can get a couple fighter feats as bonus feats if you want. they do not (superfluously) say "ps you have to qualify for them" because that's how the rules for feats already work, and in the absence of a contradiction (like monk) you default to those.

can thrall of orcus just nab whirlwind attack without the 8 billion prereq feats that come first if he wants to? no? well then neither can loremaster.

Your entire argument here is that if I accept your argument, your argument is correct. While that is certainly true, it does not represent a particularly compelling argument for your position.

[Venger]

The Rogue is a separate case. Worth noting that the paragraph also says: "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That carries with it the implication that you can have a bonus feat for which you do not meet the prerequisites. Or, that the Rogue can also take any feat he wants. At this point the entire argument devolves to questions of semantics on what precisely "have" and "select" mean.

What are you talking about? it just says "A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability." there's no paragraph there.

again, that's talking about racial bonus feats, not class bonus feats.

if your argument is "when I get a bonus feat that doesn't remind me 'you have to meet prereqs'" then to apply it consistently, you'd need to argue that for all classes (loremaster, rogue, thrall of orcus, etc)



The Fighter's bonus feats explicitly specify that you do have to meet the prerequisites. That's why it's specific trumping general. This is because there's actually rules there.
no. it's a reiteration of the general rule (on feats) not a contradiction of it. specific trumping general doesn't apply.


Monk (superfluously) repeats that you must don't have to meet the prerequisites for its feats, but that doesn't mean that the absence of that text means you can't just take epic spellcasting at lvl 2 without it or whatever nonsense.
so you... repeated what I said but multiplied it by negative 1. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

the general rule on feats say you do have to meet reqs, not that you don't, so again, you have it backwards.


Notice how the two examples explicitly contradict. You can't make an argument for one position over the other based on that evidence because you will reach the exact opposite conclusion depending on which piece of evidence you evaluate from.

Your entire argument here is that if I accept your argument, your argument is correct. While that is certainly true, it does not represent a particularly compelling argument for your position.

they do not contradict because they are not talking about the same thing.

fighter's feats say you have to qualify for them, in keeping with the general rule. monks contradict this rule (specific trumping general) by saying that they do not need to be qualified for.

but this smokescreen aside, (I think) the topic at hand is loremaster.

it says nothing about not having to meet the reqs (so there's no specific to trump general) so you default to general, which is having to meet reqs. again, you really don't have anything to stand on.

I don't have an arguement because there isn't one, just simple RAW: unless explicitly specified otherwise by language such as "you don't have to meet prereqs," then you have to meet prereqs. loremaster has no such clause, like monk does, ergo you have to meet the prereqs.

I'm... not really sure what your argument is. it says "any" so you can pick whatever feat you want since that overrules every other rule of the game that goes against this?

[Brova]

What are you talking about? it just says "A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability." there's no paragraph there.

The paragraph in question is the one in the MM describing how you don't need to meet the prerequisites for your bonus feats. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


again, that's talking about racial bonus feats, not class bonus feats.

No, it is not. The relevant paragraph in the MM uses the word "racial" precisely zero times.


if your argument is "when I get a bonus feat that doesn't remind me 'you have to meet prereqs'" then to apply it consistently, you'd need to argue that for all classes (loremaster, rogue, thrall of orcus, etc)

Sure? I mean, I personally had only heard of Thrall of Orcus in the vague sense that I knew WotC had made a bunch of demon thrall PrCs, so I hadn't considered it. But insofar as the Thrall of Orcus offers an unrestricted bonus feat, you can use it to take any feat.


no. it's a reiteration of the general rule (on feats) not a contradiction of it. specific trumping general doesn't apply.

But why? Why is the Fighter a specific reiteration of the general rule of feats, but the Monk not a specific reiteration of the rule on bonus feats?

[DarkSonic1337]

Brova, the issue here is that the player's handbook is the primary source for general rules on playing the game (including character creation), which over rules the monster manual's general rule about feats in statblocks, as the monster manual is talking about monster statblocks.




When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities, but rather talking about a character creation option (playing the game).

So the player's handbook says you must meet the prereqs of a feat to select or use it. The monster manual says something different, but that doesn't matter because our primary source rule says to differ to the player's handbook as we are not specifically talking about "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." So you would need a specific exception to needing prereqs, which loremaster does not have.

[Brova]

Brova, the issue here is that the player's handbook is the primary source for general rules on playing the game (including character creation), which over rules the monster manual's general rule about feats in statblocks, as the monster manual is talking about monster statblocks.

So the player's handbook says you must meet the prereqs of a feat to select or use it. The monster manual says something different, but that doesn't matter because our primary source rule says to differ to the player's handbook as we are not specifically talking about "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." So you would need a specific exception to needing prereqs, which loremaster does not have.

Except it's not a primary source question, it's a specific versus general question. Feats in general require prerequisites, while bonus feats do not.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Re-stating the relevant MM/SRD quote on bonus feats:

Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat.First, I disagree that this is a general rule about bonus feats, since it's in the section about reading a monster stat block. To me it clearly applies to feats marked with a superscript B in a monster's entry, and that's it. But for the sake of argument let's suppose it is a general rule about bonus feats.

Re-stating the relevant PHB/SRD quote on feats and 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. Even if the creature in question can use any bonus feat without prerequisites, a character (i.e. a creature with class levels) cannot select that bonus feat without meeting the prerequisites.

[DarkSonic1337]

Strangely enough, by RAW a Monk cannot actually use his bonus feats unless he meats the prereqs. He may take said feats, but the Monk has no text trumping the general rule that you must meat a feat's prereqs to use it.

Something every DM I know and most here would houserule away of course, but hey we're having a RAW discussion here.

[Venger]

Brova, the issue here is that the player's handbook is the primary source for general rules on playing the game (including character creation), which over rules the monster manual's general rule about feats in statblocks, as the monster manual is talking about monster statblocks.

but rather talking about a character creation option (playing the game).

So the player's handbook says you must meet the prereqs of a feat to select or use it. The monster manual says something different, but that doesn't matter because our primary source rule says to differ to the player's handbook as we are not specifically talking about "monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." So you would need a specific exception to needing prereqs, which loremaster does not have.

Yes. This is precisely why loremaster does not work in the way Brova thinks it does. Primary trumps secondary trumps specific trumps general.


Except it's not a primary source question, it's a specific versus general question. Feats in general require prerequisites, while bonus feats do not.

It is a primary source question. bonus feats requiring prereqs is the standard. cases like monk are specific trumping general (since they contradict it) not the other way around.

[Andezzar]

Strangely enough, by RAW a Monk cannot actually use his bonus feats unless he meats the prereqs. He may take said feats, but the Monk has no text trumping the general rule that you must meat a feat's prereqs to use it.

Something every DM I know and most here would houserule away of course, but hey we're having a RAW discussion here.Yup, one of the oldest dysfunctions of 3.5, alongside the monk not being proficient with his unarmed strike.

[Venger]

Yup, one of the oldest dysfunctions of 3.5, alongside the monk not being proficient with his unarmed strike.

Yep. Even Curmudgeon houserules that one away.

[Brova]

First, I disagree that this is a general rule about bonus feats, since it's in the section about reading a monster stat block. To me it clearly applies to feats marked with a superscript B in a monster's entry, and that's it.

You are wrong about that. The text describes "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B", implying that bonus feats, which the paragraph applies to, are marked with a B, rather than (as you suggest) that the paragraph applies only to those bonus feats marked with a B.


Emphasis mine. Even if the creature in question can use any bonus feat without prerequisites, a character (i.e. a creature with class levels) cannot select that bonus feat without meeting the prerequisites.

Again, the text also says "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That implies that a creature can have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites. Now, it is technically true that "have" and "select" are different words. However, the entry in question (Loremaster) states "any feat" unlike the Fighter, which requires you to meet prerequisites. You might be able to win that by RAW the Rogue shouldn't get any bonus feat he wants, but the Loremaster is cut and dried.

[Venger]

You are wrong about that. The text describes "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B", implying that bonus feats, which the paragraph applies to, are marked with a B, rather than (as you suggest) that the paragraph applies only to those bonus feats marked with a B.



Again, the text also says "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That implies that a creature can have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites. Now, it is technically true that "have" and "select" are different words. However, the entry in question (Loremaster) states "any feat" unlike the Fighter, which requires you to meet prerequisites. You might be able to win that by RAW the Rogue shouldn't get any bonus feat he wants, but the Loremaster is cut and dried.

You might argue that it implies that, but the point is it doesn't actually say that. RAW vs RAI(rules as implied in this case)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You are wrong about that. The text describes "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B", implying that bonus feats, which the paragraph applies to, are marked with a B, rather than (as you suggest) that the paragraph applies only to those bonus feats marked with a B.I get that you're somehow certain that "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B" means that all bonus feats are marked with a superscript B. As stated in a section of the Monster Manual on reading the monster entries, which are the only places you ever see bonus feats with the superscript B. But no one else is, so you might want to rethink things.
Again, the text also says "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites." That implies that a creature can have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.As listed in the monster statblock.
Now, it is technically true that "have" and "select" are different words.It would be troubling if you didn't agree to this, but I'm not sure about the distinction between "technically true" and just "true" here.
However, the entry in question (Loremaster) states "any feat" unlike the Fighter, which requires you to meet prerequisites. You might be able to win that by RAW the Rogue shouldn't get any bonus feat he wants, but the Loremaster is cut and dried.So the entire argument rests on whether the Loremaster table entry of "Any one feat" lets you ignore all prerequisites? I really don't see how the word "any" means you can ignore prerequisites; it just means there are no restrictions stated in Loremaster.

[Brova]

I get that you're somehow certain that "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B" means that all bonus feats are marked with a superscript B. As stated in a section of the Monster Manual on reading the monster entries, which are the only places you ever see bonus feats with the superscript B. But no one else is, so you might want to rethink things.

Uh, what? I have no idea what point you think you've proven. You're not even right that the B superscript appears only in monster entries. It's also in the entries for sample characters of various PrCs. Also, appeal to popularity.


It would be troubling if you didn't agree to this, but I'm not sure about the distinction between "technically true" and just "true" here.

Well, it's a fairly meaningless distinction in that to have something you necessarily selected it at some point. Ergo if it is possible for you to have a thing it must be possible for you to select that thing.


So the entire argument rests on whether the Loremaster table entry of "Any one feat" lets you ignore all prerequisites? I really don't see how the word "any" means you can ignore prerequisites; it just means there are no restrictions stated in Loremaster.

I don't think you understand what "any" means. Absent a qualification such as "subject to X restrictions" the word "any" used in this context (describing which elements of a set you can select) implies no elements of the set cannot be selected. As such, "any one feat" means exactly that - whatever feat you want, no qualifications required or questions asked.

[Andezzar]

Well, it's a fairly meaningless distinction in that to have something you necessarily selected it at some point. Ergo if it is possible for you to have a thing it must be possible for you to select that thing.That conclusion is false. You can have something without being able to select it. A gift for example is such a thing. It was selected by someone else, so you cannot select it but you have it once it is given.


I don't think you understand what "any" means. Absent a qualification such as "subject to X restrictions" the word "any" used in this context (describing which elements of a set you can select) implies no elements of the set cannot be selected. As such, "any one feat" means exactly that - whatever feat you want, no qualifications required or questions asked.That is an "interesting" interpretation. Do you think a multiclass wizard15/cleric 1 can use his 8th level wizard spell to spontaneously cast mass cure critical wounds?
The cleric can “lose” any prepared spell that is not a domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name).Wizard spells are prepared spells and are not domain spells. The rule does not claim that you must normally be able to cast such a spell.

D&D is an exception based ruleset. Any exception must be explicit. The exception to ignore all other rules pertinent to feats is not explicit.

[Telok]

Fuel to the fire:
Compare the Monster Manual's Elf Warrior, Drow Warrior, and Troll Hunter stat blocks. Is the SRD wrong or does it faithfully copy the MM?

The troll ranger has the ranger bonus feats listed with the B on the SRD. The elf and drow lack the racial bonus feats in the stat blocks. So the statted Drow Warrior in the SRD apparently isn't proficent with the hand crossbow he's carrying, by the RAW stat block.

[Zombimode]

Fuel to the fire:
Compare the Monster Manual's Elf Warrior, Drow Warrior, and Troll Hunter stat blocks. Is the SRD wrong or does it faithfully copy the MM?

The troll ranger has the ranger bonus feats listed with the B on the SRD. The elf and drow lack the racial bonus feats in the stat blocks. So the statted Drow Warrior in the SRD apparently isn't proficent with the hand crossbow he's carrying, by the RAW stat block.

Except he is. It is listed under "Drow traits", and "Drow traits" is a special quality of the drow warrior.

[Brova]

That is an "interesting" interpretation. Do you think a multiclass wizard15/cleric 1 can use his 8th level wizard spell to spontaneously cast mass cure critical wounds? Wizard spells are prepared spells and are not domain spells. The rule does not claim that you must normally be able to cast such a spell.

Super strict RAW, probably yes. However, the Cleric's spontaneous casting ability carries with it the very strong implication that he can use it only with Cleric spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If we're splitting hairs, we can't forget this one. The loremaster ability doesn't say you get a bonus feat, it says you get 'any one feat'. The MM1 paragraph doesn't even apply here.

[Brova]

If we're splitting hairs, we can't forget this one. The loremaster ability doesn't say you get a bonus feat, it says you get 'any one feat'. The MM1 paragraph doesn't even apply here.

Feats that don't come from your level progression (i.e. the ones at 1/3/6/9/etc) are bonus feats.

[Chronos]

Where is that rule stated?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Feats that don't come from your level progression (i.e. the ones at 1/3/6/9/etc) are bonus feats.
Maybe so, but I'd still like a rules quote for that*, because it's not on the SRD or in the PHB. There is also nothing about ignoring prerequisites for bonus feats. The MM1 quote is the only source for that, and it doesn't apply to selecting feats, and it completely contradicts the PHB rule on using feats. You're going to have to pick one or the other, with the PHB being the primary source. In other words, 'creatures' arguably don't get to use the bonus feats they don't meet prerequisites for, no matter what the Monster Manual says, because out of the two rules, we have to go by the PHB rule.^


*Of course you refer to these feats as bonus feats in speech, but I can't find a rule that clearly divides up feats into two types, with different rules for acquiring them.
^Most likely, creatures with bonus feats are meant to have class or racial abilities that allow them to ignore prerequisites, but the MM doesn't say that.

[Telok]

Except he is. It is listed under "Drow traits", and "Drow traits" is a special quality of the drow warrior.
Ach, I missed that. So the MM sometimes includes racial bonus feats and sometimes dosen't include them on the feat line. D&D as normal.

[Troacctid]

Super strict RAW, probably yes. However, the Cleric's spontaneous casting ability carries with it the very strong implication that he can use it only with Cleric spells.

Super strict RAW says no. There is a rule that says you cannot use slots from one class to spontaneously cast spells from a different class. It's in the Rules Compendium page 130-something, I think. I'm AFB this time but I quoted it just the other day in a different thread.


Ach, I missed that. So the MM sometimes includes racial bonus feats and sometimes dosen't include them on the feat line. D&D as normal.

Drow don't get any racial bonus feats. See, look at their racial traits. You got your spell-likes, your racial weapon proficiencies, your spell resistance, all that stuff, but no bonus feats, not a one.

[Brova]

Super strict RAW says no. There is a rule that says you cannot use slots from one class to spontaneously cast spells from a different class. It's in the Rules Compendium page 130-something, I think. I'm AFB this time but I quoted it just the other day in a different thread.

That's entirely possible. I don't own a Rules Compendium and it is not part of the SRD. As such, any time I talk about RAW there's some chance it was overruled by the Rules Compendium. Which, seeing as it has new rules, should really have been called "pay us for errata".