3.5 Augment Summoning for Druids (and an interesting derail about bonus feats)

[Taffimai]

The Augment Summoning feat has Spell Focus (conjuration) as a prerequisite, but there are very few conjuration spells on the druid list, and most of those don't have saves. Would you rather:


Wave the prerequisite
Set a different prerequisite, and if so, which feat?
Advise a different feat, and if so, which one and why?

[Zaq]

Unless you're playing with a really high-op group, I don't think the prerequisite is a problem. Druids are crazy powerful to begin with, and Augment Summoning is a good choice for them even with the prereq in place.

Starting from scratch, it's not great game design to require a nearly useless prereq feat, but looking at the game as it actually exists, Druids are powerful enough that I don't think it's better game design to intentionally make them more powerful.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Druids don't need the help, especially considering they can just wander over and nab Greenbound Summoning.

[Segev]

I can never remember; do the bonuses from Augment Summoning overlap with anything from Greenbound Summoning, or are they all different types of bonuses/bonuses to different things?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Both are untyped from different sources (one from the greenbound template and one from the augment summoning feat).
Edit: I once ran a character with greenbound summoning, augment summoning, rashemi elemental summoning, augment elemental, and summon elemental. It was quite potent, but the book keeping was a nightmare. Maybe if I find a program to help me, otherwise never again.

[Roga]

Both are untyped from different sources (one from the greenbound template and one from the augment summoning feat).
Augment Summoning's bonuses aren't untyped. They are Enhancement bonuses. The bonuses from the Greenbound are racial bonuses. They do stack, but are not untyped. So if you cast bull's strength on your summon it wouldn't get any benefit due to not stacking with Augment Summoning's bonus.

edit: I accidentally a word.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Augment Summoning's bonuses aren't untyped. They are Enhancement bonuses. The bonuses from the Greenbound are racial bonuses. They do stack, but are not untyped. So if you cast bull's strength on your summon it wouldn't get any benefit due to not stacking with Augment Summoning's bonus.

edit: I accidentally a word.

Urg wow. I really dropped the ball there. Does mean you don't need imbue summoning though.

[Darrin]

Advise a different feat, and if so, which one and why?


You can skip the Spell Focus (Conjuration) feat by taking the Planar Touchstone/Touchstone feat, link to the Catalogues of Enlightenment, and gain the domain power of the Cult of the Dragon Below (Augment Summoning as a bonus feat).

[Curmudgeon]

You can skip the Spell Focus (Conjuration) feat by taking the Planar Touchstone/Touchstone feat, link to the Catalogues of Enlightenment, and gain the domain power of the Cult of the Dragon Below (Augment Summoning as a bonus feat).
Yes, you gain Augment Summoning as a domain granted feat. But what makes you think you can skip Spell Focus (Conjuration)?
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. You get a bypass on the prerequisites for selecting the feat, since it's automatic with acquiring the domain. You still can't use Augment Summoning unless you satisfy the prerequisites.

[eggynack]

I would maybe consider basing it on your book access. If you're playing close to core only, with few of the insane druid feats, then augment summoning is a must take feat with or without the tax, and so you should probably keep the tax. If you're running a game that has a wider variety of books, however, then you might be better off just dropping it. The biggest reason for that is that druids just get way better feats than augment summoning if you have all books, so augment needs the boost. On a strict power level basis, who's taking augment when you could have greenbound, rashemi elemental, or even ashbound? The power level of non-summoning feats also gets in the way of augment somewhat, as it's hard to justify a bonus of that sort when aberration wild shape is sitting right there. A somewhat secondary reason is that it becomes pretty easy to get augment without spending a feat tax, or any feats at all. Half-orc substitution levels are likely the best way, and taking some moonspeaker levels does the job as well. Waiving the prerequisite isn't necessarily a thing I would do personally, but if you have access to all of that crazy druid stuff, then it shouldn't cause problems.

[Pluto!]

Yes, you gain Augment Summoning as a domain granted feat. But what makes you think you can skip Spell Focus (Conjuration)? You get a bypass on the prerequisites for selecting the feat, since it's automatic with acquiring the domain. You still can't use Augment Summoning unless you satisfy the prerequisites.
There is no one alive who plays by your rules interpretations.

[Curmudgeon]

There is no one alive who plays by your rules interpretations.
Really? I never noticed that all my players were Necropolitans. Every time I offer to DM I get a full table. I'd be happier to play more and DM less, but it doesn't work out that way very often.

[daremetoidareyo]

Domains that grant feats that you can't use are pointless. I don't dm that way, and I would totally mock the DM who did rule that way as a player. You know, behind their back at first and then directly. Totally try to shame that sort bureaucratic play style out of existence.

Back to the OP; Another option is a level of contemplative, which grants a domain of your chosen deity.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't always agree with Curmudgeon, but I would totally play in his games if I knew him in real life, and he's a valuable resource to this forum.

[Hiro Quester]

It's totally worth the extra feat. The augmentation is a good benefit.

It's so much a benefit that my DM asked me to retrain those feats. My Druid character is getting too powerful for our moderately optimized group. So I had to tone down a few things, including retraining augment summons and its prerequisite feat tax.

[jiriku]

I wouldn't change the prerequisites of Augment Summoning. It's a niche choice as-is, but it's perfectly fine for the game to contain niche choices. And, as noted, with full book access Touchstone provides a path to obtaining Augment Summoning without prerequisites, and Touchstone adds only minimal additional costs.

[Taffimai]

Thanks everybody!

I probably should've given you more information so you wouldn't all have been tempted to go with secret option four: Optimisation Go! :smallwink: My player is 8 years old, still learning the game, and this druid (currently level 1) is going to be his very first caster character.

Given that several of you have said that in a low-optimisation game the feat is strong enough to warrant a feat tax, I've decided to go with Augment Healing: noticeable right now, but irrelevant at higher levels.

I'm really happy with how this turned out, I had never heard of those Touchstones before and they're going to fit so beautifully into my campaign later on, it's as if they were written just for me :smallsmile:

[Killer Angel]

Yes, you gain Augment Summoning as a domain granted feat. But what makes you think you can skip Spell Focus (Conjuration)? You get a bypass on the prerequisites for selecting the feat, since it's automatic with acquiring the domain. You still can't use Augment Summoning unless you satisfy the prerequisites.

From a very strict RAW pov you are right, but I think this is a case where RAI is painfully clear.

[Curmudgeon]

From a very strict RAW pov you are right, but I think this is a case where RAI is painfully clear.
So? Is there a reason to extend extra capabilities to Clerics, one of the most powerful classes in D&D? It would be easy enough to create a house rule here to give them the value of your "painfully clear RAI", but I don't see any incentive to do so. The same situation comes up with Monks and their Bonus Feats class feature: they're given a bypass to select those feats, but not to use them. However, given the weak capabilities of that class, creating a house rule to let them also use those 6 feats without satisfying the prerequisites makes sense.

Basic questions when considering a house rule:

Who benefits? (Answer: mostly Clerics.)
Who suffers? (Answer: anyone who doesn't have this domain, as a matter of relative power.)

[Killer Angel]

So? Is there a reason to extend extra capabilities to Clerics, one of the most powerful classes in D&D?

Basic questions when considering a house rule:

Who benefits? (Answer: mostly Clerics.)
Who suffers? (Answer: anyone who doesn't have this domain, as a matter of relative power.)


I would be fine one way or the other. I don't think a single feat is a so big balance Issue.

[jiriku]

To my mind, the "you get the feat but can't use it" is overly legalistic. We have a whole set of classes including the monk with bonus feats, the cleric with Augment Summoning from domain, even crusader with Diehard, that apparently gets a feat but doesn't qualify for it. We can easily solve this "problem" by understanding "qualify" to mean "possess a legal and persistent method of acquiring" rather than "meet the prerequisites listed in the prerequisites" section. It's rarely appropriate to put much weight on semantic nuances when interpreting D&D rules, and it's not a house rule to follow the obvious intent of a text.

[Lerondiel]

Thanks everybody!

I probably should've given you more information so you wouldn't all have been tempted to go with secret option four: Optimisation Go! :smallwink: My player is 8 years old, still learning the game, and this druid (currently level 1) is going to be his very first caster character.

Given that several of you have said that in a low-optimisation game the feat is strong enough to warrant a feat tax, I've decided to go with Augment Healing: noticeable right now, but irrelevant at higher levels.

I'm really happy with how this turned out, I had never heard of those Touchstones before and they're going to fit so beautifully into my campaign later on, it's as if they were written just for me :smallsmile:


An 8 year old playing a 3.5 full caster? Very impressive :)

[bekeleven]

You get a bypass on the prerequisites for selecting the feat, since it's automatic with acquiring the domain. You still can't use Augment Summoning unless you satisfy the prerequisites.



Who benefits? (Answer: mostly Clerics.)
Who suffers? (Answer: anyone who doesn't have this domain, as a matter of relative power.)


Bonus Feat
At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

[Sliver]

So monks can select these feats, but not use them?

[Curmudgeon]

So monks can select these feats, but not use them?
Alas, that's the RAW of it. It gives Monk builds greater flexibility in acquiring those feats, but that's all; the feats can't be used until the Monk satisfies the prerequisites.

[bekeleven]

So, who benefits? The cleric makes an obscure domain slightly closer value to Planning and Undeath, the monk is able to use core class features.

[Curmudgeon]

So, who benefits? The cleric makes an obscure domain slightly closer value to Planning and Undeath, the monk is able to use core class features.
So you think it's a balanced house rule if you both give the Cleric more options higher in Tier 1 and let the Monk negate their usual penalties for attempting to disarm someone? Because ignoring feat prerequisites in these two cases varies greatly in value.

[Uncle Pine]

So, who benefits? The cleric makes an obscure domain slightly closer value to Planning and Undeath, the monk is able to use core class features.

Remember that Monk isn't proficient with her unarmed strike, so she can't really use her core class features to begin with.

[bekeleven]

It helps that I ban clerics in my games. But even without that, this makes no difference in a cleric's theoretical power (besides slightly enabling a lower-powered cleric build) while giving a nice helping hand to the monk, who we can hope will at least reach his designer-intended core-only power level.

So, I disagree with your analysis of "who benefits" and "who doesn't benefit" from a rule allowing characters to use bonus feats. Ignoring martial monk for now.

It does buff Catalogs of Enlightenment but you can't even use that without a DM so, meh.

[eggynack]

So you think it's a balanced house rule if you both give the Cleric more options higher in Tier 1 and let the Monk negate their usual penalties for attempting to disarm someone? Because ignoring feat prerequisites in these two cases varies greatly in value.
Yeah, I'd say that's balanced in this case. Adding augment summoning as a possible domain granted feat for clerics, and making it effectively only cost one feat for non-clerics, is pretty low impact. I don't know if any of those classes would actually take advantage of those benefits all that often, as I don't recall that domain being mentioned all that much for clerics despite the fact that people almost certainly think it works the way you're saying is wrong, and I've already mentioned why this isn't imbalanced on a druid. And, on the monk side, those bonus feats are one of your biggest incentives to enter the class. Losing stuff like improved trip and stunning fist is a big deal, and the impact of a reasonable feat on a monk, and a similarly reasonable feat on a cleric, when taking the feat on a cleric comes at a cost, helps the monk more. Of course, something like a fighter gets left out of the equation and is imbalanced against the field, but again, I don't think the impact on caster power is high enough that I'd mind working with clear RAI.

[Twurps]

Domains that grant feats that you can't use are pointless. I don't dm that way, and I would totally mock the DM who did rule that way as a player. You know, behind their back at first and then directly. Totally try to shame that sort bureaucratic play style out of existence.

Pot and kettle: I'd much rather sit at Curmudgeon's table than with anybody using the tactic above for stuff he doesn't like.

Besides: you can use the domain granted feat. You just have to take the prereq. If you're smart enough to plan ahead for this domain to give you a free feat, you should be smart enough to plan for the prereq's as well.

[AnonymousPepper]

I'm scratching my head at why any non-robot would actually approve of the way Curmudgeon's looking at this.

It's one thing to acknowledge that the RAW is screwy. There's no shortage of that in D&D or really in any PnP system. It's another thing entirely to selectively apply poorly-written rules for the sake of arbitrary, subjective balancing goals - in this case, text that says you can select feats but doesn't explicitly say you can use them, despite the implication being jarringly obvious. Curmudgeon's interpretations pass on a technicality but utterly fail on the sanity test. Suppose you made a deal with a person on the street that he could pick out a couple of food items from the grocery store of his choice if he did something for you, to which he agreed and then followed through, and then after he did, you told him he could have the items, but could not eat them, as you had never specifically told him he could? It's similarly batty.

Surely there are better ways to achieve said arbitrary balancing goals than by making yourself appear to be officious and bureaucratic to levels previously found only in Disney villains just for the hell of it. Like, you know, just asking your players to stick to a reasonable power level, which I've found literally always works when dealing with everyday human beings.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I'm scratching my head at why any non-robot would actually approve of the way Curmudgeon's looking at this.

It's one thing to acknowledge that the RAW is screwy. There's no shortage of that in D&D or really in any PnP system. It's another thing entirely to selectively apply poorly-written rules for the sake of arbitrary, subjective balancing goals - in this case, text that says you can select feats but doesn't explicitly say you can use them, despite the implication being jarringly obvious. Curmudgeon's interpretations pass on a technicality but utterly fail on the sanity test. Suppose you made a deal with a person on the street that he could pick out a couple of food items from the grocery store of his choice if he did something for you, to which he agreed and then followed through, and then after he did, you told him he could have the items, but could not eat them, as you had never specifically told him he could? It's similarly batty.

Because the RAW is clear and RAW is what we have to work with here. Implications are irrelevant to RAW discussion. Honestly I have no idea how Curmudgeon rules it in his games but it becomes a houserule then and thus not of much use to us.

Also your example falls flat. Once he has the food it becomes his legal property; you have no say over it. In this case you have specific rules that govern all feats; possessing them does not alter the rules that govern them.

[Pluto!]

{scrubbed}

[ZamielVanWeber]

{scrubbed}

RAW is not clear. RAW is written with casual terms and up precise definitions by folks who are trying to make and play a casual game. RAW are ambiguous in almost all cases, this among them.

Okay, so we have the rule that Curmudgeon quoted. Please explain the ambiguity in it.

[Andezzar]

It's one thing to acknowledge that the RAW is screwy. There's no shortage of that in D&D or really in any PnP system. It's another thing entirely to selectively apply poorly-written rules for the sake of arbitrary, subjective balancing goals - in this case, text that says you can select feats but doesn't explicitly say you can use them, despite the implication being jarringly obvious. Curmudgeon's interpretations pass on a technicality but utterly fail on the sanity test. Suppose you made a deal with a person on the street that he could pick out a couple of food items from the grocery store of his choice if he did something for you, to which he agreed and then followed through, and then after he did, you told him he could have the items, but could not eat them, as you had never specifically told him he could? It's similarly batty.Your real world analogy is besides the point. It would only reflect the rules issue if you specified that the person needs separate permissions to have and to eat the food.

A possibly better analogy: you participate in a sweepstake, the main prize is a car. You win. Would that win allow you to drive the car even if you didn't have a license?


{scrubbed}.You seem to miss the point. It is not that houserules are bad or inferior to RAW, but that houserules of one group, do not help any other group, nor do they help establish what the rules actually are.

[ericgrau]

The feat tax for augment summoning isn't underpowered but a less boring house rule could be to allow spell focus (conjuration) to instead give a +1 caster level to conjuration spells. This is a little useful but not OP for low level conjuration spells while its usefulness fades at higher level. Healing, summoning and battlefield control all benefit a little at low level. I would not necessarily extend this alternative to other schools though since they may benefit more from a raised caster level at high level. If you really want to be strict then you could add "only for the purposes of duration and amount healed."

As for the side debate, RAW isn't always clear cut and there is usually some RAI involved that is impossible to avoid, no matter how much you wish it weren't so. Often RAW simply isn't specific enough to give a clear answer, RAI is your only choice, and your "RAW" is actually RAI. Literal interpretations, interpretations from "it doesn't say I can't", interpretations from "it doesn't say I can", and many other RAI arguments are pretending to be RAW but are in fact RAI. It is nice to get as much of a clear answer from the books as you can, but that is not always possible. The RAI isn't necessarily wrong, but it is open for debate.

[Andezzar]

While you do have a point generally, in this case it is pretty clear cut. You need to fulfil the prerequisites to select and to use feats. The domain and the monk class either only grant a feat or allow you to select one. All of this is explicitly in the rules. however the rules do not mention allowing you to use it. So it is RAW that the character acquires a feat, but it is not RAW that he is allowed to use it. Whether this is intentional or a mistake is a matter of opinion as to what the writers intended. Since none of the writers have issued a statement of their intention, either interpretation is a (in)valid as the other.

[Anlashok]

You still can't use Augment Summoning unless you satisfy the prerequisites.

Not according to that entry in the monster manual you don't like. Characters can use bonus feats they have even if they don't meet the prerequisites.

[ericgrau]

While you do have a point generally, in this case it is pretty clear cut. You need to fulfil the prerequisites to select and to use feats. The domain and the monk class either only grant a feat or allow you to select one. All of this is explicitly in the rules. however the rules do not mention allowing you to use it. So it is RAW that the character acquires a feat, but it is not RAW that he is allowed to use it. Whether this is intentional or a mistake is a matter of opinion as to what the writers intended. Since none of the writers have issued a statement of their intention, either interpretation is a (in)valid as the other.
Nor is it RAW that he is barred from using it. It could be implied that when he is allowed to select the feat without prerequisites that he is also able to use the feat without prerequisites. Ignoring that implication is actually excessively literal RAI rather than RAW. It's true that either interpretation could be valid... though I think one is more likely and more valid.

[torrasque666]

Nor is it RAW that he is barred from using it. It could be implied that when he is allowed to select the feat without prerequisites that he is also able to use the feat without prerequisites. Ignoring that implication is actually excessively literal RAI rather than RAW. It's true that either interpretation could be valid... though I think one is more likely and more valid.
Implicitly allowing something isn't the same as explicitly allowing something, and seeing as how D&D runs off of an exception based rules system, implication isn't enough.

[Andezzar]

Not according to that entry in the monster manual you don't like. Characters can use bonus feats they have even if they don't meet the prerequisites.Like or dislike is irrelevant. What matters are the rules. The primary source rule clearly gives the PHB priority over the MM in all matters that concern playing the game outside of the stuff in the MM. So the waiving of the prerequisites for use only applies to the those feats in the MM marked by a B.


Implicitly allowing something isn't the same as explicitly allowing something, and seeing as how D&D runs off of an exception based rules system, implication isn't enough.My thoughts exactly.

[ericgrau]

Implicitly allowing something isn't the same as explicitly allowing something, and seeing as how D&D runs off of an exception based rules system, implication isn't enough.
Like doing things that aren't explicitly disallowed, that gets fishy once you take it to the overly literal extreme. You'll find many other common activities you can't do either if you won't do anything that isn't precisely spelled out rather than generally spelled out. You may have to stop a campaign altogether.

[Anlashok]

Like or dislike is irrelevant. What matters are the rules. The primary source rule clearly gives the PHB priority over the MM in all matters that concern playing the game outside of the stuff in the MM. So the waiving of the prerequisites for use only applies to the those feats in the MM marked by a B.
Primary source is irrelevant here because the PHB is silent on the subject. Its ruling can't supersede the Monster Manual's when it has none and the superscript b is just how you denote a bonus feat in a stat block anyways.

[Andezzar]

Like doing things that aren't explicitly disallowed, that gets fishy once you take it to the overly literal extreme. You'll find many other common activities you can't do either if you won't do anything that isn't precisely spelled out rather than generally spelled out.Not quite. Common activities can be done (at least on the prime material plane) as they have real world counterparts and the prime explicitly is supposed to work like the real world unless the rules say otherwise. If there is a question whether such a common activity is successful and no rules exist the DM will have to make up a houserule to determine success.

There may still be several activities that seem reasonable to be allowed, but if they are not explicitly allowed they are not explicitly allowed. If you do allow them, that is a houserule and not RAW D&D. I'm not saying making up such rules is bad, but simply that they are not RAW.


Primary source is irrelevant here because the PHB is silent on the subject. Its ruling can't supersede the Monster Manual's when it has none and the superscript b is just how you denote a bonus feat in a stat block anyways.Excuse me?
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’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.The PHB clearly states that you need to fulfil the prerequisites to use a feat and if you don't you cannot use it. The MM rule cannot supersede that for anything outside the MM.

[eggynack]

Excuse me?The PHB clearly states that you need to fulfil the prerequisites to use a feat and if you don't you cannot use it. The MM rule cannot supersede that for anything outside the MM.
The PHB does not have primary source supremacy over the monster manual on this matter. There are a few specific ways each of these three core books have primacy over the other two, but feat rules are not one of them. And, unlike complete warrior, which lacks the underlying promise of primacy, the monster manual very much has such an allowance. In fact, if we're going really technical, if anything bonus feats fall under the monster manual's purview, as it is said to contain the rules for extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. Not a very specific dominion, but it's better than anything the PHB is said to have. And, of course, the monster manual also has the power given by the dictate of general versus specific. The PHB says that you need certain things to use feats in general, and the monster manual says that that's not true of bonus feats in the specific sense.

[Curmudgeon]

In fact, if we're going really technical, if anything bonus feats fall under the monster manual's purview, as it is said to contain the rules for extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? There is nothing in Augment Summoning which says that it's Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-like, nor in the general rules for feats stating that their benefits are so typed.

[eggynack]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? There is nothing in Augment Summoning which says that it's Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-like, nor in the general rules for feats stating that their benefits are so typed.
They're abilities, and probably not natural ones. It's about as close as it gets in that section, I think, and the PHB definitely doesn't get closer by those rules. I definitely don't see much call to say the PHB is the unambiguous winner here, and the specific versus general argument in the absence of primacy, or the kinda vague primacy argument for the MM, might point to the MM as victor.

[Andezzar]

The PHB does not have primary source supremacy over the monster manual on this matter. There are a few specific ways each of these three core books have primacy over the other two, but feat rules are not one of them.Actually it does:
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.Characters acquiring and using feats most definitely is part of playing the game. Additionally feats are not special abilities (unless the feat says so)
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).



The PHB says that you need certain things to use feats in general, and the monster manual says that that's not true of bonus feats in the specific sense.Yes, but according to the primary source rule as quoted above that can only apply to feats that monsters get.

[Curmudgeon]

They're abilities, and probably not natural ones.
"Probably not natural" is a very weak argument, as I'm sure you realize. However, we don't even get that far, because you've first got to show that the benefit a feat confers is specifically a special ability. Since feats are instead in a different category, according to Monster Manual (page 7), you can't establish the basis for your claim.
Special sections describe how the creature fights and give details on special attacks, special qualities, skills, and feats.
The book has already established what special abilities are (page 6).
Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).
Thus feats (and skills) are not special abilities.

[eggynack]

Actually it does:Characters acquiring and using feats most definitely is part of playing the game.

No, feats are a part of building characters. They're not strictly an element of playing the game in this sense. They impact the game, but they do so in the same way that, say, prestige class selection does. They're a bit of a metagame object, especially if you consider it in the context of underlying feat rules rather than the rules associated with particular feats.



Yes, but according to the primary source rule as quoted above that can only apply to feats that monsters get.
Not really, no. It seems that neither source has the weight of primacy, so the primary source rules are irrelevant. Whether this is monster related or not has little to do with the issue, as the bonus feat rule given is one that applies to bonus feats generally.

Additionally feats are not special abilities (unless the feat says so)

"Probably not natural" is a very weak argument, as I'm sure you realize. However, we don't even get that far, because you've first got to show that the benefit a feat confers is specifically a special ability. Since feats are instead in a different category, according to Monster Manual (page 7), you can't establish the basis for your claim.
The book has already established what special abilities are (page 6).
Thus feats (and skills) are not special abilities.
That's fair, I suppose. As I noted, the argument from MM primacy is probably the weakest one. However, the lack of MM primacy does not necessarily mean the existence of PHB primacy, and I can't find any reason for there to be PHB primacy, so we head into either ambiguous or general versus specific territory, and by those arguments you wind up with no perfect solution or monster manual victory respectively. The idea that feats are special abilities would help my argument, but it is not strictly necessary for the overall argument to work.

[Sliver]

Even if you argue that the MM is in charge over bonus feats, it is still irrelevant for this case. It is in charge of a specific set of 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

Nothing indicates that you should add this superscript B to any feats you gain. It's not a general rule for all bonus feats, it is only the case for those that are marked this way.

You can't even use sample monsters that have levels in, say, monk, to argue the point. Yes, these feats are marked with the B, while monsters that have bonus feats from a fighter class don't have the B added. That supports the claim that you don't need the prereqs to use the bonus feats, but it is inconsistent with the claim that bonus feats are marked with a B.

Does it mean fighter feats aren't bonus feats? Does it mean that the Bonus Feats a monk gets are the norm, with the ability to ignore prereqs, and the fighter is the exception, still needing to apply to his feats?

No, it means nothing about all the bonus feats in the game.

I play that if you can select it while ignoring prereqs, you can use it as well. I don't claim that it is RAW though.

Unless noted otherwise, you need the prereqs to both select and to use feats. It's obvious that you need to always qualify for a feat in order to use it. Yes, it's silly that you can select feats without the prereq but not use them, but unless the rules include using the feat as an exception, that's the way it is. MM creatures have this exception, Monks don't..

[Andezzar]

No, feats are a part of building characters. They're not strictly an element of playing the game in this sense. They impact the game, but they do so in the same way that, say, prestige class selection does. They're a bit of a metagame object, especially if you consider it in the context of underlying feat rules rather than the rules associated with particular feats. How is building characters not part of playing the game? How is using a feat not part of playing the game? Are you no longer playing the game, when you use power attack?

[eggynack]

Even if you argue that the MM is in charge over bonus feats, it is still irrelevant for this case. It is in charge of a specific set of bonus feats.



Nothing indicates that you should add this superscript B to any feats you gain. It's not a general rule for all bonus feats, it is only the case for those that are marked this way.

You can't even use sample monsters that have levels in, say, monk, to argue the point. Yes, these feats are marked with the B, while monsters that have bonus feats from a fighter class don't have the B added. That supports the claim that you don't need the prereqs to use the bonus feats, but it is inconsistent with the claim that bonus feats are marked with a B.

Does it mean fighter feats aren't bonus feats? Does it mean that the Bonus Feats a monk gets are the norm, with the ability to ignore prereqs, and the fighter is the exception, still needing to apply to his feats?

No, it means nothing about all the bonus feats in the game.

You are mistaken. The text you cite in question says that feats marked with a b are bonus feats, and it separately says that bonus feats can be used without prerequisites. The b marker isn't ever stated as a requirement to reach the point where you can skip prerequisites. The superscript b is only relevant insofar as it gives monsters an in to this bonus feat rule, but any other feat that is cited as a bonus feat is party to the same rule set.

How is building characters not part of playing the game? How is using a feat not part of playing the game? Are you no longer playing the game, when you use power attack?
You're playing the game when you use power attack, but you're not really playing the game when you select power attack. Playing the game is stuff like the combat rules, or the magic rules. Stuff you use when you're actually adventuring. Otherwise, "playing the game" effectively encompasses every rule in existence, and the other listed stuff that the PHB is stated to have primacy over are entirely redundant, because literally anything in the game can be called playing the game, including rules specifically stated to be under the purview of the DMG and MM like magic item rules and templates.

[Curmudgeon]

The text you cite in question says that feats marked with a b are bonus feats, and it separately says that bonus feats can be used without prerequisites.
You mean "separately" as in the very next sentence of the same paragraph, where the context of bonus feats with a superscript B has been established?

[Andezzar]

You're playing the game when you use power attack, but you're not really playing the game when you select power attack. Playing the game is stuff like the combat rules, or the magic rules. Stuff you use when you're actually adventuring.While I disagree with this, let's assume it is correct. We are talking about how to use a feat. So fulfilling the prerequisites to use a feat is part of playing the game, even by your own admission.

[eggynack]

You mean "separately" as in the very next sentence of the same paragraph, where the context of bonus feats with a superscript B has been established?
The first sentence provides context, but only insofar as it sets forth the topic of bonus feats, and creates a rule for how they're denoted on monsters. The first sentence does not strictly inform the parameters of the second. The second and third sentences just straight up say that creatures can use bonus feats they lack the prerequisites for, independent of the preceding sentence's rule.

Edit:
While I disagree with this, let's assume it is correct. We are talking about how to use a feat. So fulfilling the prerequisites to use a feat is part of playing the game, even by your own admission.
I think that using the feat itself, the actual rule for how to power attack, could be considered part of the rules for playing the game. I don't think that whether the feat itself is usable in keeping with prerequisites is necessarily a part of that. Besides, the monster manual, in putting forth this bonus feat rule, is effectively creating a more specific rule for an issue previously untouched on, so I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. The PHB says that you need prerequisites to use feats. The monster manual says that bonus feats in the specific sense break that rule. Resolving that issue seems pretty clear cut in favor the monster manual to me.

[Sliver]

So fighters need the prereqs to select a bonus feat, but not to use it?

[eggynack]

So fighters need the prereqs to select a bonus feat, but not to use it?
I'm not sure if the line about needing to meet prerequisites means that the fighter bonus feats inherit all of the prerequisite rules, or just the ones pertaining to taking the things. The rules for fighter feats say you have to care about prerequisites, but it doesn't really imply that you ever have to stop caring. The thing about the monster manual rules that makes them important is that they just provide blanket protection for bonus feats against necessarily having to meet prerequisites for taking or using them, but when the specific rules pierce the veil of that protection, I'm inclined to think they pierce the whole thing, and not just part of it. I haven't done a massive amount of semantic poking into this one yet, so it could swing elsewhere, but I think that makes sense.

[Zilzmaer]

The first sentence provides context, but only insofar as it sets forth the topic of bonus feats, and creates a rule for how they're denoted on monsters. The first sentence does not strictly inform the parameters of the second. The second and third sentences just straight up say that creatures can use bonus feats they lack the prerequisites for, independent of the preceding sentence's rule.

The first sentence states that "bonus feats" are marked with a superscript B. Where do you get this assumption that any feats not marked with a superscript B are considered bonus feats by this rule? Why would there be multiple different definitions of the term "bonus feats" being talked about in the same paragraph without differentiating between them?


I think that using the feat itself, the actual rule for how to power attack, could be considered part of the rules for playing the game. I don't think that whether the feat itself is usable in keeping with prerequisites is necessarily a part of that. Besides, the monster manual, in putting forth this bonus feat rule, is effectively creating a more specific rule for an issue previously untouched on, so I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. The PHB says that you need prerequisites to use feats. The monster manual says that bonus feats in the specific sense break that rule. Resolving that issue seems pretty clear cut in favor the monster manual to me.

What else could "how to Power Attack" be considered, if not how to play the game? Why do you think that the rule for how to use Power Attack (and, by extension, if you can use Power Attack on a given attack) isn't part of how to play the game?

The Monster Manual is, indeed, creating a specific rule that supercedes the general rule of needing the prerequisite to use a feat; however, it is only creating this rule for the feats it deems "bonus feats", and it tells you how to identify those feats: with a superscript B.


As an aside, since I'm just now joining the discussion, I have always played and plan to always play that you can use any feat you legitimately obtain. That doesn't change the fact that it is a(n entirely reasonable and very widespread) houserule.

[eggynack]

The first sentence states that "bonus feats" are marked with a superscript B. Where do you get this assumption that any feats not marked with a superscript B are considered bonus feats by this rule? Why would there be multiple different definitions of the term "bonus feats" being talked about in the same paragraph without differentiating between them?
Because there's nothing indicating they're talking about two different things in the text. Where do you get the assumption that the game has two entirely different definitions for what a bonus feat is? Because I don't have the assumption that any feats are bonus feats. I just think that when the game says, "Here's a bonus feat," that means that that thing is a bonus feat.


What else could "how to Power Attack" be considered, if not how to play the game? Why do you think that the rule for how to use Power Attack (and, by extension, if you can use Power Attack on a given attack) isn't part of how to play the game?
Well, one could consider them the rules for feats, but I did say that I would consider the rules for how to power attack part of playing the game. I'm saying that I don't necessarily consider under the surface aspects of character creation a part of playing the game. So, by this argument, the amount you can power attack for would be part of playing the game, but the fact that you generally need to maintain 13 strength to use it would not be.

The Monster Manual is, indeed, creating a specific rule that supercedes the general rule of needing the prerequisite to use a feat; however, it is only creating this rule for the feats it deems "bonus feats", and it tells you how to identify those feats: with a superscript B.
No, it tells you a way to identify those feats. All of the feats we're discussing here have things that denote them as bonus feats as well, in particular being called bonus feats. For example, all of the monk granted feats exist under the big ol' header "Bonus Feat".

[Zilzmaer]

Because there's nothing indicating they're talking about two different things in the text. Where do you get the assumption that the game has two entirely different definitions for what a bonus feat is? Because I don't have the assumption that any feats are bonus feats. I just think that when the game says, "Here's a bonus feat," that means that that thing is a bonus feat.

Never mind on this part; I was slightly misremembering the wording of the rule. I see, now; for anyone who doesn't, "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B." does not state that all bonus feats are marked in this way, merely that sometimes they are.


Well, one could consider them the rules for feats, but I did say that I would consider the rules for how to power attack part of playing the game. I'm saying that I don't necessarily consider under the surface aspects of character creation a part of playing the game. So, by this argument, the amount you can power attack for would be part of playing the game, but the fact that you generally need to maintain 13 strength to use it would not be.

I wouldn't say that a rule delineating when you can Power Attack, or use any other feat, is part of character creation; after all, every time you use the feat will be during gameplay, with the exception of feats that specifically modify how you build your character (eg Extra Spell). I would tend to say, however, that if a Shadow damaged a Barbarian's Strength down to 10, said Barbarian would be unable to use Power Attack until he was healed. That's a rule for how to play the game, not build a character.

[eggynack]

I wouldn't say that a rule delineating when you can Power Attack, or use any other feat, is part of character creation; after all, every time you use the feat will be during gameplay, with the exception of feats that specifically modify how you build your character (eg Extra Spell). I would tend to say, however, that if a Shadow damaged a Barbarian's Strength down to 10, said Barbarian would be unable to use Power Attack until he was healed. That's a rule for how to play the game, not build a character.
I don't even think that's necessarily part of play. It's like the underlying mechanics for how much your character is able to do, rather than what your character is actually doing. Having power attack, or having the ability to use power attack, isn't really part of playing the game in the same way that actually using power attack is. For evidence of this, consider the fact that they list rules for playing the game separately from rules for playing PC races and rules for using base class descriptions, in spite of the fact that the latter two could very easily be slotted into the former by the same logic that is being applied to feats. Redundancy isn't strictly a rules object, but it seems pertinent when determining what is actually being said. In any case, I think that specific versus general applies regardless of how you read the primary source rules.

[Zilzmaer]

I don't even think that's necessarily part of play. It's like the underlying mechanics for how much your character is able to do, rather than what your character is actually doing. Having power attack, or having the ability to use power attack, isn't really part of playing the game in the same way that actually using power attack is. For evidence of this, consider the fact that they list rules for playing the game separately from rules for playing PC races and rules for using base class descriptions, in spite of the fact that the latter two could very easily be slotted into the former by the same logic that is being applied to feats. Redundancy isn't strictly a rules object, but it seems pertinent when determining what is actually being said.

I guess we're just going to disagree on this one. I definitely agree that obtaining Power Attack is not part of playing the game, but I do feel that the rules for when and how to use the feat are gameplay, just as the rules for when and how to make a skill check, or a saving throw. As for your evidence, my PHB does not have a section entitled "Playing the Game" or similar. It has "Abilities", "Races", "Classes", "Skills", "Feats", "Description", "Equipment", "Combat", "Adventuring", "Magic", and "Spells". All of those sections have at least some relevance to playing the game; many of them contain much content for character building. For example, the section in "Classes" on Wizards tells you how to prepare your spells at the start of the day. That's not character building; it is something that actually happens during the game, and can be roleplayed through, or interrupted by a monster attack, as the players and DM wish. Similarly, the "Feats" section has material for character building, but it also tells you how to use these abilities you get, and in what circumstances you can use them. It also tells you how to resolve the effects of these abilities. That is gameplay.


In any case, I think that specific versus general applies regardless of how you read the primary source rules.

My understanding (which may be faulty) is that, unless a source is the primary source, specific exceptions within a source only apply to that source's material, rather than to all related material. In this case, my understanding is that, because the Monster Manual is not the primary source for how feats work, any specific rules printed therein override the general rules only for feats found therein.

[eggynack]

I guess we're just going to disagree on this one. I definitely agree that obtaining Power Attack is not part of playing the game, but I do feel that the rules for when and how to use the feat are gameplay, just as the rules for when and how to make a skill check, or a saving throw.
How to use the feat, certainly, and when to use the feat, often, but these are meta-issues associated with usability, and rarely come up in a gameplay context. The point is, the link between feat prerequisites and playing the game is tenuous at best.


As for your evidence, my PHB does not have a section entitled "Playing the Game" or similar. It has "Abilities", "Races", "Classes", "Skills", "Feats", "Description", "Equipment", "Combat", "Adventuring", "Magic", and "Spells". All of those sections have at least some relevance to playing the game; many of them contain much content for character building.
That's what I'm saying. By this broad definition, literally everything is playing the game. Magic items, a thing under the purview of the DMG, is playing the game, and the rules for special abilities, ostensibly a thing with MM primacy, is also playing the game. Of course, this would also include things that are not listed in the primary source rules. For example, if the PHB were to say anything of prestige classes, then the rules there would presumably override those in the DMG, because the PHB even has book and topic precedence on that decidedly DMG centered issue. This would also mean that the DMG absolutely does not have such precedence where the issue is concerned when considered in a larger context, which is a rather weird ramification.


My understanding (which may be faulty) is that, unless a source is the primary source, specific exceptions within a source only apply to that source's material, rather than to all related material. In this case, my understanding is that, because the Monster Manual is not the primary source for how feats work, any specific rules printed therein override the general rules only for feats found therein.

I know that's the case for rules disputes where both rule sets are on the same plane of generality, as is the case for the Complete Warrior vs. DMG issue, but here, where the presumably secondary source is absolutely a specific exception, and one not explicitly ruled against by the presumably primary source, I'm not sure that the primary source rule would win out. After all, the primary source rules are supposed to only come into play when the sources disagree, and there isn't much of a disagreement here. One source says that a rule applies universally, and the second agrees but points out an exception. The second source is acting under the assumption that the first is accurate, and proceeding from there, rather than stating new rules without basis.

[Segev]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...

...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

Therefore, when something allows you to "have" a feat without meeting the prequisites, its exception-based permission also allows you to ignore the part that says you must meet prerequisites to "use" said feat.


Really? I never noticed that all my players were Necropolitans. Every time I offer to DM I get a full table. I'd be happier to play more and DM less, but it doesn't work out that way very often.

Really? You should use detect undead more often. I know they're all using disguise self, but a D&D veteran of your experience should knwo to run various detection magics periodically as habit.

[Zilzmaer]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...

Well, yes, but I was arguing strictly based on the RAW. As I stated, I've never considered playing with what Curmudgeon says is RAW on this issue (or a good deal others, for that matter).


...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

Therefore, when something allows you to "have" a feat without meeting the prequisites, its exception-based permission also allows you to ignore the part that says you must meet prerequisites to "use" said feat.

I will definitely admit that you have a point here. I might even come back to address it in a future post. But for now, unfortunately, I'm falling asleep, because I've been up for ~26 hours now, and I've been filling the time between comments here with updating statblocks for Summon Nature's Ally to reflect Greenbound Summoning/Ashbound/Rashemi Elemental Summoning/Augment Summoning/Augment Elemental, because I hate myselfsomeday want to play a summoner druid. So I bid you people good night, and thank you for keeping the discussion civil.



EDIT:
The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

It states that you must meet prerequisites in order to both "have and use" feats, meaning that you can either have (but not use) feats for which you don't have the prereqs, or you can use (but not have) those feats. In order to both have it and use it, you must meet the prerequisites. While I don't have a specific rule to back me up, I don't think anyone is going to seriously say that you can use feats you don't have. (With the exception of abilities that let you act as though you had a feat for some purpose without actually giving you said feat.) D&D being an exception-based system, I think that's plain. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can," is, after all, a very flawed argument. Thus, if you want to use a feat, you must have the feat; thus, you must fulfill the prerequisites.

[eggynack]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...
I guess, but I'm getting a bit tired of being on the, "Curmudgeon is holding far too strictly to RAW, to the point of it being problematic," side, and really liking being on the, "Actually, the RAW isn't nearly as clearcut as Curmudgeon indicates, and the rules seem to in fact swing against him," side. At the very least, I think the argument so far has shown that there's some reasonable doubt to the idea that this is the inarguable RAW, and at most, it may have shown that the rules coincide with the typical RAI, which would be a cool thing.

...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."
That would be true were it true, but it's not true so it's not true. Or, to put that a non-ridiculous way, the text very much says select or use, rather than select and use. I might be missing some second citation that says a thing you're saying, but the rules Curmudgeon quoted very much say the thing you're saying they don't say.


But for now, unfortunately, I'm falling asleep, because I've been up for ~26 hours now, and I've been filling the time between comments here with updating statblocks for Summon Nature's Ally to reflect Greenbound Summoning/Ashbound/Rashemi Elemental Summoning/Augment Summoning/Augment Elemental, because I hate myselfsomeday want to play a summoner druid. So I bid you people good night, and thank you for keeping the discussion civil.

Fancy. To go a bit off-topic, I dunno that you necessarily need to do both of those. Greenbound and rashemi elemental summoning are a bit on the mutually exclusive side of things, with the former being better in low level games and the latter better in high level games. My typical methodology for altering statblocks is to copy and paste a template sheet a few times, and then fill in the details after, because putting in the little idiosyncrasies is invariably the most annoying part.

[Zilzmaer]

Greenbound and rashemi elemental summoning are a bit on the mutually exclusive side of things, with the former being better in low level games and the latter better in high level games. My typical methodology for altering statblocks is to copy and paste a template sheet a few times, and then fill in the details after, because putting in the little idiosyncrasies is invariably the most annoying part.

Well, yes, Rashemi is nearly worthless until ~lvl 11 or so, and Greenbound stops being very useful around there. But the DM I'd most likely be playing under usually starts us out low level, so Greenbound is worth getting. I'd also be trading out Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, because I've done that character before, and want something different.

[eggynack]

Well, yes, Rashemi is nearly worthless until ~lvl 11 or so, and Greenbound stops being very useful around there. But the DM I'd most likely be playing under usually starts us out low level, so Greenbound is worth getting. I'd also be trading out Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, because I've done that character before, and want something different.
I think the case against greenbound uselessness is a bit overstated, as those bonuses are pretty amazing, but I suppose it's a pretty low cost maneuver picking up both if you don't have to get wild shape or animal companion feats. Whatcha trading out for? I'm inclined to think shifter is the best way to lose the animal companion, especially on a summoner, but wild shape has basically no good trades.

[Zilzmaer]

I think the case against greenbound uselessness is a bit overstated, as those bonuses are pretty amazing, but I suppose it's a pretty low cost maneuver picking up both if you don't have to get wild shape or animal companion feats. Whatcha trading out for? I'm inclined to think shifter is the best way to lose the animal companion, especially on a summoner, but wild shape has basically no good trades.

I am planning on Shifter, because Rapid Summoning at 12 is the only way I've found to reduce the casting time for SNA. Getting access to Moonspeaker for free Augment Summoning and double duration summons is just gravy. I was planning on trading Wild Shape for the variant from Unearthed Arcana commonly called Deadly Hunter, because we don't always get our full WBL, and having Wis to AC means less spent on AC and more on other things; the boost to speed could be nice, too. Ideally, I'd trade it for something worthwhile and buy a Monk's Belt, though. Do you have a better suggestion for what to do with Wild Shape other than, y'know, actually using it?

[eggynack]

I was planning on trading Wild Shape for the variant from Unearthed Arcana commonly called Deadly Hunter, because we don't always get our full WBL, and having Wis to AC means less spent on AC and more on other things; the boost to speed could be nice, too. Ideally, I'd trade it for something worthwhile and buy a Monk's Belt, though. Do you have a better suggestion for what to do with Wild Shape other than, y'know, actually using it?
There's not much, to be honest. You tend to get stuff that's either strictly worse or just much worse, and I'm inclined to think that deadly hunter nearly falls into the former category at levels after you get wild shape, and even there the benefit is a bit on the marginal side. I kinda like aspect of the dragon from dragon magic, however, if only because it falls into the much worse end of the spectrum. I'd say that dragon magazine stuff like wild reaper is the best out there, but my list indicates that those options only trade part way and/or trade other stuff that interferes with your current plans. Your best bet might just be making up a trade of some kind, with the one that makes most sense to me being the addition of a domain. Still not quite even, I suspect, but at least it's the kinda uneven that's founded on incomparables.

Edit: The real answer, I think, is to just keep the ability and use it in a different way. Standard wild shape splits off into defense/utility and combat, so if you tended towards one of those you can tend towards the other, and aberration, dragon, and exalted wild shape are all strong feats that play very differently, so if you used one of those, or didn't use any, then you can run one you haven't used yet. It's one of those abilities that might just be too good to lose, and it's versatile enough that using it in multiple games doesn't necessarily bring about the same experience. The real goal, I think, would be the creation of an optimal platform for slinging summons, and that generally means something with high defenses that can keep out of the way. Lotta things that can accomplish that, including the will-o'-wisp with its magic immunity, the blink dog with its ludicrous teleportation action, and from wild shape classic, the venerable desmodu hunting bat, with its high AC, excellent flight, and enhance activated vision mode.

[Segev]

the text very much says select or use, rather than select and use. I might be missing some second citation that says a thing you're saying, but the rules Curmudgeon quoted very much say the thing you're saying they don't say.

*looks again*

Huh, you're right.

Never mind. Curmudgeon does seem to be correct in his reading of the RAW. It's obscure but unambiguous.

I stand by the fact that it is so obscure and so clearly against the obvious intent that a DM needs to call it out to his players if he's running it that way. Normally, I wouldn't argue "intent," but everything except that one bit of sloppy wording points to the designers BELIEVING what they wrote allowed monks (and others) to make use of the feats they are allowed to skip prereqs for.

I therefore contend that a DM who does not at least alert his players to it as he would to a house rule is playing a "gotcha" game if he tries to enforce it on his players after they'd built towards the contrary assumption.

[Darrin]

I am planning on Shifter, because Rapid Summoning at 12 is the only way I've found to reduce the casting time for SNA.


Golden Desert Honey (300 GP, Complete Mage p. 136). If 300 GP a lump is too steep, try using a Chaos Flask (100 GP, Planar Handbook p. 76) to create half a pound of it.

[Zilzmaer]

Edit: The real answer, I think, is to just keep the ability and use it in a different way. Standard wild shape splits off into defense/utility and combat, so if you tended towards one of those you can tend towards the other, and aberration, dragon, and exalted wild shape are all strong feats that play very differently, so if you used one of those, or didn't use any, then you can run one you haven't used yet. It's one of those abilities that might just be too good to lose, and it's versatile enough that using it in multiple games doesn't necessarily bring about the same experience. The real goal, I think, would be the creation of an optimal platform for slinging summons, and that generally means something with high defenses that can keep out of the way. Lotta things that can accomplish that, including the will-o'-wisp with its magic immunity, the blink dog with its ludicrous teleportation action, and from wild shape classic, the venerable desmodu hunting bat, with its high AC, excellent flight, and enhance activated vision mode.

I suppose this is a valid point. I don't know when I'm going to actually get to play the character, so I don't know what the rest of the group will look like, though. Playing a tier 1 character, I don't want to step on the mundane's shoes at all outside of my main shtick, but maybe no one else will want to play a sneaky type, or no one else will pick up blindsight or other special senses, so it could be worth keeping around anyway.

[Curmudgeon]

Never mind. Curmudgeon does seem to be correct in his reading of the RAW. It's obscure but unambiguous.

I stand by the fact that it is so obscure and so clearly against the obvious intent that a DM needs to call it out to his players if he's running it that way.
So you think a rule about feat prerequisites, in the FEATS chapter of the rulebook, under the PREREQUISITES heading on the very first page of that chapter, where that rules section is only two paragraphs long, is somehow "obscure"? :smallconfused:

[Segev]

So you think a rule about feat prerequisites, in the FEATS chapter of the rulebook, under the PREREQUISITES heading on the very first page of that chapter, where that rules section is only two paragraphs long, is somehow "obscure"? :smallconfused:

When it requires a close parsing of "select or use" and noticing that the class features which specifically bypass the prerequisites for selecting them do not include the "or use" clause, and it is painfully obvious from not just how the class is presented but how examples are used that the writers intended it to permit the characters to make use of the selected feats, yes. I do consider that obscure. If it weren't obscure, you wouldn't have to point it out and then argue strenuously to get people to acknowledge it.

[Curmudgeon]

If it weren't obscure, you wouldn't have to point it out and then argue strenuously to get people to acknowledge it.
So you've got a subjective criterion: if you fail to apprehend a rule that's unambiguously stated, in the clearly labeled and obvious location for that rule, then it's "obscure". If I instead point out that the rule is in the obvious location and clearly stated, that's arguing strenuously to overcome its "obscurity".

[daryen]

More to the point, by sticking with that reading, you have outright eliminated one class (Monk), and eliminated part of another (TWF Ranger). So, either the writers of PHB either made one mistake in a two paragraph rules section, or they wasted several other pages with a class that can't be played and another class that loses half of a defining class feature.

(Whether Monk and TWF Ranger are good classes is irrelevant. The issue isn't that they are terrible; the issue is that you literally cannot play a Monk, and playing a TWF Ranger is exceptionally difficult, with Curmudgeon's rules interpretation.)

[Segev]

So you've got a subjective criterion: if you fail to apprehend a rule that's unambiguously stated, in the clearly labeled and obvious location for that rule, then it's "obscure". If I instead point out that the rule is in the obvious location and clearly stated, that's arguing strenuously to overcome its "obscurity".

No. If you read the rules in a common-understanding way and did not happen to read that one sentence in that one section, but instead relied on the fact that you know what the word "prerequisites" means, and had no reason to check to see if the rules say that your ability to select a feat in spite of not having the prerequisites might not mean you can use the feats you've selected...that's not unreasonable.

In fact, most players of the game seem to have. As evidenced by the fact that you have to have this conversation so often and strenuously.

Following the RAW exactly is often all about being a literal genie. But being a literal genie DM without warning players about things that they might not realize if they haven't read the rules as closely nor precisely as you have and instead took a class at its apparent word and intent...is not cool. That's "gotcha" DMing, and while I am reasonable enough that I'd want to rebuild or even change characters rather than walk away in a huff when I discovered this about your table, it would also damage my trust in my DM, as I would now know I have to ask him pretty much any time an exception-based rule comes up whether it fully covers what it seems to before I risk taking the game at its apparent word. I now know I must read the fine print and know the game exactly as well as the DM, lest I be caught in a loophole of fine print with no recourse.

[Brookshw]

obvious intent

*cough* *sputter*, er, what?

[torrasque666]

I will note that in 99.99% of ranger and monk stat blocks that I've seen(I'm not going to trawl through my entire library) have the feats denoted with a B which would give it the same connotation as the B found in monster stat blocks. And before anyone says "well the writer's don't always get it right" its far too many samples to just be a misunderstanding.

[daryen]

I will note that in 99.99% of ranger and monk stat blocks that I've seen(I'm not going to trawl through my entire library) have the feats denoted with a B which would give it the same connotation as the B found in monster stat blocks. And before anyone says "well the writer's don't always get it right" its far too many samples to just be a misunderstanding.

Can't help you there. All I can go by is the SRD. And, if Curmudgeon is correct, then those classes/class features are pointless (or nearly so). Even if you dig down to the feat description, where there is a special note just for the Ranger feats, it only talks about being "treated as having" the feat. There is nothing that says anything or implies anything about "using". So if "having" and "using" are indeed separate, then that TWF Ranger had better have a 15 dex. Or that archery Ranger had better have a 13 dex *and* Point Blank Shot. Or that class feature is worthless.

[Andezzar]

No one disputes that it is bad game design not to give monks and rangers the ability to use the feats they get without fulfilling the prerequisites, but that does not change the fact that allowing them to do so is a houserule.

Additionally high DEX is not a bad thing for a TWF ranger. I see no problem there.

The monk is a bit more screwed with the RAW of bonus feats. DEX, WIS, INT 13+ is not bad for the monk, he is MAD anyways and not for the feats.
The IUS requirement is an unnecessary feat tax, but that could have been fixed by giving the monk proficiency with the unamred strike, IUS, unarmed damage progression, and the ability to benefit from effects that augment manufactured weapons instead of the weird unarmed strike class feature.
Stunning Fist is no problem, because the feat explicitly allows the monk to use it (even more often than others).
The required combat expertise isn't bad for a monk either (they tend to have more than DEX 12+ anyways).

BTW what happens if you exchange one of the feats marked with B with another feat? Does that even work? Does the monster still not have to fulfill the prerequisites to use the feat? I bet that can be abused. Remember Elves? They have quite a few bonus feats. I bet there are a few feats that an elf could benefit more form than weapon proficiency longsword. 30% concealment (3x Self Concealment) and 5 rounds of haste/day (Blinding Speed) will make some very dangerous non-drow Elves.

[eggynack]

No one disputes that it is bad game design not to give monks and rangers the ability to use the feats they get without fulfilling the prerequisites, but that does not change the fact that allowing them to do so is a houserule.
True. That the text pretty clearly states that bonus feats can be made immune to that rule is what changes that fact.

[Andezzar]

Only if you say the rules for if and when you are allowed to use feats are not part of the rules for playing the game.

[Segev]

...obvious intent...*cough* *sputter*, er, what?

You read what I wrote.

I stand by it, in this case.

Normally, I would not use such terms; intent is rarely if ever truly obvious, though it is often fairly strongly hinted. Here, it is unmistakable to anybody who is not (metaphorically) deliberately trying to cover their eyes in order to avoid being able to tell whether it is daytime while standing outside in the desert in clear weather.

It is only through very careful parsing of the rules for feat prerequisites and the precise wording given for the rules for Monk (and many other classes') bonus feats that Curmuddgeon's (accurate) reading can be discerned. Everything written blatantly portrays (for instance) Monks as expected to have and use those bonus feats. It is clear to anybody who reads it casually or in depth that the writers of the Monk (and similar classes) believed they were giving the Monks those feats without need for prerequisite. There is literally no indication, beyond that extremely fine parsing of two well-separated sets of rules for very precise wording, that it is expected that monks should require the prerequisites for those feats in order to use them. A casual reading of the rules, without a rigorous study and fine attention to exactly worded detail, would not bring one to the conclusion Curmuddgeon (correctly) draws from the RAW.

RAI is ridiculously clear, here. It takes deliberately ignoring how everything else is written to pretend otherwise.


I will add, further, that one can easily see several ways this mistake between what is written and what is intended could arise. Two of them are simply that either the writer of the Monk class didn't read the rules on prerequisites as precisely as needed, or that the final rule on prerequisites was edited sometime after the Monk class was written and the Monk's prerequisite-bypass exception was not caught for update. Post-game-launch, so few people noticed what Curmuddgeon has that it just never rose to the level that errata-writers' attention would be drawn to it.

Heck, I've been rather involved in TO for years, and this thread is the first time I've actually seen this brought up. I won't say it wasn't discovered while 3.5 was still being published, but it was not a well-known rules hole, and it was not something that 99.999% of gaming tables would ever even realize was an issue.

It is painfully clear what was intended. So much so that the fact that what was intended and what actually is written are different is obscure knowledge, where "obscure" means "not well-known even amongst the optimization community."

[Andezzar]

Heck, I've been rather involved in TO for years, and this thread is the first time I've actually seen this brought up. I won't say it wasn't discovered while 3.5 was still being published, but it was not a well-known rules hole, and it was not something that 99.999% of gaming tables would ever even realize was an issue.

It is painfully clear what was intended. So much so that the fact that what was intended and what actually is written are different is obscure knowledge, where "obscure" means "not well-known even amongst the optimization community."I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)

[torrasque666]

I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)
There is the school of thought of Martial Monks taking things like (Greater) Weapon Specialization, or other things that require a minimum Fighter level to take, at first level. Not the most powerful use of the bonus feat, but a cheesy one.

[Segev]

I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)

Of course it's a house rule; the RAW are, once it's pointed out, clearly lacking in support for being able to use the class features they seem to suggest the Monk has. It's a rules error. Or dysfunction, as they like to call it around here.

All I'm arguing here is that, unlike most situations, RAI is painfully obvious. There is no way they meant the monk to be nonproficient with unarmed strikes, nor to have to take the prerequisite feats, without mentioning that, in spite of language using these abilities or granting special permissions to take feats for which you lack prerequisites, you can't actually USE them without taking those prerequisites and gaining that proficiency anyway.

The notion that you can get something without meeting its prereqs but need the prereqs anyway is so counter-intuitive that, were it the intent behind the design, there would have been something indicating it in examples or discussion as to how to take advantage of it. At the least, something mentioning "this still doesn't let you USE the feats" would have appeared, as it does in a few other areas where a partial exception is made but the writers didn't want the readers to take it too far.

TL;DR: The RAI here is obvious. Yes, that's unusual.

[Andezzar]

While I agree that the writers intended the monk to be proficient with unarmed strike and able to use his bonus feats, the RAI is a lot less clear for all the other bonus feats.

Looking over the MM I asked myself are there actually feats marked with B that have prerequisites that can be lost? A creature cannot really lose its BAB (Weapon FinesseB) and most other feats thus marked do not have prerequisites at all or come from the aforementioned classes (e.g. sample vampire)

[eggynack]

Only if you say the rules for if and when you are allowed to use feats are not part of the rules for playing the game.
Not necessarily. The general versus specific argument seems pretty convincing to me. And, of course, my arguments for the thing you're saying being the case also make a sort of sense. After all, can you name me a rule that could not be considered part of the rules for playing the game, under your interpretation of the term?

[Curmudgeon]

Even if you dig down to the feat description, where there is a special note just for the Ranger feats, it only talks about being "treated as having" the feat. There is nothing that says anything or implies anything about "using".
There's some ambiguity in that Ranger language. The prerequisite rules talk about selecting and using, which are clear terms. But what is "having" with respect to those terms? You seem to be equating it with "selecting", and excluding "using". If you're selecting something you don't yet have it, and if you're using it you necessarily do have it. So I believe it's within reasonable DM interpretation to treat "having" as more like the combination of "selecting" and "using". That puts the Ranger class in working order, rules-wise. (Doesn't fix anything else, of course.)

[Andezzar]

Not necessarily. The general versus specific argument seems pretty convincing to me. And, of course, my arguments for the thing you're saying being the case also make a sort of sense. After all, can you name me a rule that could not be considered part of the rules for playing the game, under your interpretation of the term?That's it, the PHB is the primary source for everything except whatever is in the other books. So the PHB tells us that you need to fulfil the prerequisites for selecting and using a feat. The MM only overwrites the requirement for selecting certain feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not change the rules for any other feat

Alternatively you can say generally you need to fulfil the prerequisites both for selecting and using a feat and the MM specifically waives that requirement for selecting a certain subset of feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not say anthing about waiving the need to fulfil the prerequisites for using any feat.

[eggynack]

That's it, the PHB is the primary source for everything except whatever is in the other books. So the PHB tells us that you need to fulfil the prerequisites for selecting and using a feat. The MM only overwrites the requirement for selecting certain feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not change the rules for any other feat

Alternatively you can say generally you need to fulfil the prerequisites both for selecting and using a feat and the MM specifically waives that requirement for selecting a certain subset of feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not say anthing about waiving the need to fulfil the prerequisites for using any feat.
You're inserting an extraneous piece of text in your summary. The MM explicitly overwrites the requirement for all bonus feats, not just ones with a B marker.

[Zilzmaer]

That's it, the PHB is the primary source for everything except whatever is in the other books. So the PHB tells us that you need to fulfil the prerequisites for selecting and using a feat. The MM only overwrites the requirement for selecting certain feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not change the rules for any other feat

Alternatively you can say generally you need to fulfil the prerequisites both for selecting and using a feat and the MM specifically waives that requirement for selecting a certain subset of feats (i.e. bonus feats marked with B). It does not say anthing about waiving the need to fulfil the prerequisites for using any feat.


You're inserting an extraneous piece of text in your summary. The MM explicitly overwrites the requirement for all bonus feats, not just ones with a B marker.

Eggynack has the right of it here; the Monster Manual in no way says that every bonus feat must be marked with a superscript B, merely that some are. It also states that creatures with bonus feats can use them, even if they don't meet the prerequisites. That said, where he and I disagree is that the Monster Manual text only applies to the creatures within, and the primary source (the PHB) supercedes this rule for all other creatures.

[Andezzar]

Are there bonus feats in the MM that are not marked with a B?

[eggynack]

Are there bonus feats in the MM that are not marked with a [sup]B[/B]?
I doubt it. But, bonus feats in other sources are lacking in a B, and the MM's rule doesn't discriminate between those having and those lacking. The only real issue is, as noted, whether the Monster Manual rule holds sway over this issue with regards to the PHB and other sources. I'm inclined to think it does, especially by virtue of specific versus general. The superscript B thing definitely isn't part of the issue though.

[Zilzmaer]

Are there bonus feats in the MM that are not marked with a B[/B]?

I'm not sure, and don't particularly feel like checking. Is it relevant?


Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B ([SUP]B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat.

It doesn't seem to matter if it's marked; the rule does not state that all bonus feats are marked, it merely explains what the marking means. Does the argument change if all bonus feats in the Monster Manual are marked? Does it change if not all of them are? I can't see that it makes a difference.

[Andezzar]

You are right about the B. Extending this rule to bonus feats outside the MM or other books that also have the rule, to me seems like extending the PrC rule from CArc to PrCs in other books.

If the MM rule extended to all bonus feats, it would cause a weird interaction with the retraining rules.
If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats.So what happens if a fighter, ranger or monk wants to use the retraining rules to retrain a class feature (bonus feat or fighting style)?

[eggynack]

You are right about the B. Extending this rule to bonus feats outside the MM or other books that also have the rule, to me seems like extending the PrC rule from CArc to PrCs in other books.
It's a bit similar, except as I've noted, the Complete Warrior rule isn't really more specific than the DMG rule, where the Monster Manual rule is definitely more specific than the PHB rule, and Complete Warrior has extremely limited claim to primacy, while the Monster Manual is one of the only three books that has claim to the rule. They're different situations as a result, and the resolution may thus be different.

[Andezzar]

It's a bit similar, except as I've noted, the Complete Warrior rule isn't really more specific than the DMG rule, where the Monster Manual rule is definitely more specific than the PHB rule, and Complete Warrior has extremely limited claim to primacy, while the Monster Manual is one of the only three books that has claim to the rule. They're different situations as a result, and the resolution may thus be different.The CW rule does not apply at all to other PrCs because it only applies to a subset of classes named Martial Prestige Classes. There are no such classes in other books. CArc does not further categorize its PrCs but it still cannot overwrite the Primary source for PrCs which is the DMG. This would violate the primary source rule and it is not how specific trumps general works. You cannot claim a rule is specific to allow it to overwrite a general rule and then give it general applicability.

[eggynack]

The CW rule does not apply at all to other PrCs because it only applies to a subset of classes named Martial Prestige Classes. There are no such classes in other books. CArc does not further categorize its PrCs but it still cannot overwrite the Primary source for PrCs which is the DMG.
No, the rule in Complete Warrior explicitly applies to all PrC's. To quote, "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 text is under the martial prestige classes header, but that doesn't diminish the generality.


This would violate the primary source rule.
I disagree on the basis of both mentioned points. First, that the PHB's claim to primacy is vague at best, and second because the PHB doesn't really contradict the MM such that primacy is invoked because the PHB never really rules specifically on the nature of bonus feats.

And it is not how specific trumps general works. You cannot claim a rule is specific to allow it to overwrite a general rule and then give it general applicability.

This is absolutely how specific versus general works. There's a spectrum of specificity after all. A rule that applies to all feats is more specific than a rule that applies only to all bonus feats, and the PHB rule is the former, where the MM rule is the latter.

[atemu1234]

The CW rule does not apply at all to other PrCs because it only applies to a subset of classes named Martial Prestige Classes. There are no such classes in other books. CArc does not further categorize its PrCs but it still cannot overwrite the Primary source for PrCs which is the DMG. This would violate the primary source rule and it is not how specific trumps general works. You cannot claim a rule is specific to allow it to overwrite a general rule and then give it general applicability.

Which is true, ridiculous, and if I didn't hate that rule, I'd disagree with not allowing it to overwrite core.

[Zilzmaer]

A rule that applies to all feats is more specific than a rule that applies only to all bonus feats

Wait, what? The set {bonus feats} is a subset of the set {all feats}. You're saying that a rule applying to everything in the superset is more specific than the rule applying only to everything in the subset? Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

[eggynack]

Wait, what? The set {bonus feats} is a subset of the set {all feats}. You're saying that a rule applying to everything in the superset is more specific than the rule applying only to everything in the subset? Would you mind explaining your reasoning?
Sorry, I meant the opposite, especially because the opposite perspective is the one that supports my argument.

[Zilzmaer]

Sorry, I meant the opposite, especially because the opposite perspective is the one that supports my argument.

That makes a lot more sense. I still think the PHB is the primary source, but I decided to stop derailing the thread, because I doubt I'll change any minds.

[eggynack]

That makes a lot more sense. I still think the PHB is the primary source, but I decided to stop derailing the thread, because I doubt I'll change any minds.
I figure this is pretty much the thread now, though I agree that there's not all that much room for argument at this point, at least on the primacy side. The part about specific versus general could plausibly be open, but it's tricky. Way I generally consider derails, things are fine as long as you continue to answer questions that the OP asks. He could come back, and be all like, "How's about this druid thing?" and then an answer would be provided, and then maybe more crazy prerequisite arguing. Either way, I'm glad at least some ambiguity was opened as pertains to the issue, because the whole, "Have but can't use," interpretation of bonus feats has always bugged me.

[daryen]

There's some ambiguity in that Ranger language. The prerequisite rules talk about selecting and using, which are clear terms. But what is "having" with respect to those terms? You seem to be equating it with "selecting", and excluding "using". If you're selecting something you don't yet have it, and if you're using it you necessarily do have it. So I believe it's within reasonable DM interpretation to treat "having" as more like the combination of "selecting" and "using". That puts the Ranger class in working order, rules-wise. (Doesn't fix anything else, of course.)

Don't follow. If I am able to select a feat without its prerequisite, I now *have* the feat. My character now unequivocally has the feat. But, as you have already established, the character can't *use* it. So, the character has the feat, but can't use it.

I fail to see how that is any different from a Ranger with a 14 Dex who "has" the TWF feat. Just because the character has the feat means nothing about his use of the feat. Again, as you have previously established.

So, yes, that Ranger had better get a 15 Dex if he wants to use TWF. And he better get that Dex climbing if he wants to take any follow-on feats.

Personally, if my DM has no problem combining "selecting" and "using" under the heading of "having", I see no reason why my DM would have a problem understanding that being allowed to gain a feat without a prerequisite logically would allow them to use it. After all, once a feat is selected (with or without a prerequisite), my character definitely "has" that feat.

But, then, that is probably just my crippled brain speaking.

[Curmudgeon]

No, the rule in Complete Warrior explicitly applies to all PrC's. To quote, "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 text is under the martial prestige classes header, but that doesn't diminish the generality.
Then what about the different prestige class rule in Complete Arcane (page 17)? It's got the same scope as the Complete Warrior rule (page 16). If you claim that they both apply generally, you have to resolve the conflict in what happens when you fail to meet the entry requirements for a PrC.

[Brookshw]

snip

While I utterly agree with your end game here and haven't restricted bonus feat use at my table I don't really find the reasoning you've provided satisfying, certainly not to establish intent (discounting monk unarmed strike).

What Curmudgeon's pointed out is drawing to my mind an intentional soft-baking of base class requisites that existed in 2e, where many of the designers of 3e hailed from.

Of course this is a meaningless exercise, largely in part because I don't especially care about my point, but ultimately as intent is difficult to prove in this type of situation.

[Segev]

While I utterly agree with your end game here and haven't restricted bonus feat use at my table I don't really find the reasoning you've provided satisfying, certainly not to establish intent (discounting monk unarmed strike).

You'll have to explain to me how you see designer intent could be otherwise, and upon what you base your alternate possible intentions the designers may have had, because I don't know how to express it any more clearly and I cannot see any alternate reasoning that I have not thoroughly refuted. That is, if you care for me to try to explain myself further. If not, we can agree to disagree; people are allowed to be wrong on the internet, despite the heresy inherent therein. :smalltongue:

[nyjastul69]

No, the rule in Complete Warrior explicitly applies to all PrC's. To quote, "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 text is under the martial prestige classes header, but that doesn't diminish the generality.

This is incorrect. CW has no authority to overwrite the DMG as the primary source for PrC's. It applies to the PrC's in that book, but it does not apply to any other PrC's. IMO the PrC rules from CW and CA are the authors mistaken opinion that 3.5 PrC's work like 3.0 PrC's. They dont. The 3.5 DMG makes that clear.

[Brookshw]

You'll have to explain to me how you see designer intent could be otherwise, and upon what you base your alternate possible intentions the designers may have had, because I don't know how to express it any more clearly and I cannot see any alternate reasoning that I have not thoroughly refuted. That is, if you care for me to try to explain myself further. If not, we can agree to disagree; people are allowed to be wrong on the internet, despite the heresy inherent therein. :smalltongue:

Oh dear gods please don't invest the energy. I don't have a horse in this race, not even one of the bioengineered mini kind that can stand in your palm. Your post was indepth enough I felt that I owed you some form of response.

What I think is lacking ultimately boils down to trying to establish legitimacy which isn't really possible. It's the same sort of reaction I'd have to my realtor saying a seller agreed to something shouldn't be "great", it should be "is it in writing?". We're not in disagreement exactly though I'm happy to leave an open mind to other interpretations. So I suppose we'll have to settle for agree to maybe?

[Segev]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the reply, then. :)

No point continuing a discussion that would just run around in circles agreeing with itself. Especially if it did so in an argumentative tone, which oft happens on forums.

[eggynack]

Then what about the different prestige class rule in Complete Arcane (page 17)? It's got the same scope as the Complete Warrior rule (page 16). If you claim that they both apply generally, you have to resolve the conflict in what happens when you fail to meet the entry requirements for a PrC.
The exact same thing happens. Those sources lose, and the DMG wins.

This is incorrect. CW has no authority to overwrite the DMG as the primary source for PrC's. It applies to the PrC's in that book, but it does not apply to any other PrC's. IMO the PrC rules from CW and CA are the authors mistaken opinion that 3.5 PrC's work like 3.0 PrC's. They dont. The 3.5 DMG makes that clear.
Nowhere in that quote did I say that the thing being quoted was capable of changing the DMG. The entire point was that the reason the DMG wins that battle is not predicated on some explicit claim on Complete Warrior's part that its rule applies only within that book.

[nyjastul69]

No, the rule in Complete Warrior explicitly applies to all PrC's. To quote, "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 text is under the martial prestige classes header, but that doesn't diminish the generality.


I disagree on the basis of both mentioned points. First, that the PHB's claim to primacy is vague at best, and second because the PHB doesn't really contradict the MM such that primacy is invoked because the PHB never really rules specifically on the nature of bonus feats.

This is absolutely how specific versus general works. There's a spectrum of specificity after all. A rule that applies to all feats is more specific than a rule that applies only to all bonus feats, and the PHB rule is the former, where the MM rule is the latter.


The exact same thing happens. Those sources lose, and the DMG wins.

Nowhere in that quote did I say that the thing being quoted was capable of changing the DMG. The entire point was that the reason the DMG wins that battle is not predicated on some explicit claim on Complete Warrior's part that its rule applies only within that book.

I apologize. It seemed to me that you were saying the CW line about PrC's applies across the board.

[Zilzmaer]

The exact same thing happens. Those sources lose, and the DMG wins.

Oh, what the heck, let's try again: If CW and CArc have no authority to change PrC outside those books, due to the primary source rule, why would the MM have the authority to change how creatures outside the MM use feats? Sure, the MM is the primary source for (non-player race) creatures, but the PHB is the primary source for feats, which comprise only a part of any creature. The feats seem more specific than the creatures, so the PHB should win.

[Troacctid]

Would it be relevant for me to point out that the Dragon Below domain doesn't have any language of any kind allowing you to bypass prerequisites? It just says you gain Augment Summoning as a bonus feat. There's no "...even if you don't meet the prerequisites" disclaimer or anything on it. As far as I can tell, it's pretty logical that it would require you to have Spell Focus (Conjuration).

Also, IIRC, the Monster Manual has several monsters with unmarked bonus feats. I know the sample Lich is one example.

[eggynack]

Oh, what the heck, let's try again: If CW and CArc have no authority to change PrC outside those books, due to the primary source rule, why would the MM have the authority to change how creatures outside the MM use feats? Sure, the MM is the primary source for (non-player race) creatures, but the PHB is the primary source for feats, which comprise only a part of any creature. The feats seem more specific than the creatures, so the PHB should win.
I think I've already explained why pretty clearly, and on multiple occasions now. As I've said, it comes down to the lack of specificity the complete sources have with regards to the issue, as well as the fact that the PHB has little to no claim to primacy in this matter. The nature of the sources is irrelevant with regards to specificity. All that matters is the specificity of the actual specific rule in question. And, finally, the PHB isn't explicitly the primary source for feats, and it absolutely isn't the definite primary source with regards to the nature of bonus feats.

Edit:
Would it be relevant for me to point out that the Dragon Below domain doesn't have any language of any kind allowing you to bypass prerequisites? It just says you gain Augment Summoning as a bonus feat. There's no "...even if you don't meet the prerequisites" disclaimer or anything on it. As far as I can tell, it's pretty logical that it would require you to have Spell Focus (Conjuration).

Not especially. The feat doesn't need to tell you that you don't need prerequisites to select it. You get the feat no matter what happens, because the ability just says, "Here ya go, have a feat."

[Brookshw]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the reply, then. :)

No point continuing a discussion that would just run around in circles agreeing with itself. Especially if it did so in an argumentative tone, which oft happens on forums.

What!!! How dare you take that perfectly reasonable tone with me! I demand satisfaction! Admit that you might be right! Say it! SAY IT!

[Roga]

Would it be relevant for me to point out that the Dragon Below domain doesn't have any language of any kind allowing you to bypass prerequisites? It just says you gain Augment Summoning as a bonus feat. There's no "...even if you don't meet the prerequisites" disclaimer or anything on it. As far as I can tell, it's pretty logical that it would require you to have Spell Focus (Conjuration).

Also, IIRC, the Monster Manual has several monsters with unmarked bonus feats. I know the sample Lich is one example.

It's possible that a character could select as their 1st level feat and have this ability online when they get it. The troubling part is that this logic extended means that some classes grant bonus feats that are impossible to gain the benefit of without multiclassing before taking their class. I feel that if a core class grants a specific bonus feat at level 1, that the class couldn't possibly meet the prerequisites to as a level 1 character, then the intent is clear that they get to use it then.

Example: Cleric gets domains at level 1, and selects the War Domain. This grants proficiency in the diety's chosen weapon as well as Weapon Focus (said weapon). However, Weapon Focus requires a Base Attack bonus of +1, which is impossible for a level 1 cleric. To say that they get the feat, but no benefit until they gain another level is counter-intuitive. If a class gave you an ability at level one, but said you can't use it until level 2, you'd ask "Why didn't you just give it to me at level 2?"

[eggynack]

Nice. I finally found my citation for feats as extraordinary abilities. Specifically, the book of exalted deeds, page 39, where it says, "These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)." The source is a bit secondary in nature, but I don't really know of any rule in the PHB that'd override it, and it definitely points to the idea that a feat is a special ability. Thus, I return to my contention that the monster manual has a reasonable claim of primacy with regards to feats, due to the fact that it explicitly governs extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities.

[Segev]

What!!! How dare you take that perfectly reasonable tone with me! I demand satisfaction! Admit that you might be right! Say it! SAY IT!

Okay! OKAY!! *sobs* I'm right, just like always! I never make mistakes, and everybody should heed every unerringly perfect word I type! Are you happy now that you made me admit it?! :smallsigh:

[Andezzar]

Nice. I finally found my citation for feats as extraordinary abilities. Specifically, the book of exalted deeds, page 39, where it says, "These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)." The source is a bit secondary in nature, but I don't really know of any rule in the PHB that'd override it, and it definitely points to the idea that a feat is a special ability. Thus, I return to my contention that the monster manual has a reasonable claim of primacy with regards to feats, due to the fact that it explicitly governs extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities.Not quite. BoED only claims that Exalted feats are supernatural abilities and that most feats are extraordinary. Without a rule actually saying which feat is extraordinary, the latter part is meaningless. I don't recall any feat itself being categorized as extraordinary ability. There are however a couple of feats that grant special abilities of various types (e.g [Epic] Fast Healing grants an extraordinary ability of the same name, [Reserve] Feats grant supernatural abilities), without being special abilities themselves.

[eggynack]

Not quite. BoED only claims that Exalted feats are supernatural abilities and that most feats are extraordinary. Without a rule actually saying which feat is extraordinary, the latter part is meaningless. I don't recall any feat itself being categorized as extraordinary ability. There are however a couple of feats that grant special abilities of various types (e.g [Epic] Fast Healing grants an extraordinary ability of the same name, [Reserve] Feats grant supernatural abilities), without being special abilities themselves.
I don't really need them specifically categorized as extraordinary. This source indicates that feats, whether they are extraordinary or otherwise, are almost certainly special abilities. It doesn't really matter what kinda special abilities they are, because the monster manual has claim to all of them, and while this source is annoyingly vague about which type is the right one, that overall categorization as special ability seems clear cut.

[Brookshw]

Okay! OKAY!! *sobs* I'm right, just like always! I never make mistakes, and everybody should heed every unerringly perfect word I type! Are you happy now that you made me admit it?! :smallsigh:

*squinty glare* that's right, you remember your place. Right on top. With the winners. Now don't you forget it *fist shake*

[Andezzar]

I don't really need them specifically categorized as extraordinary. This source indicates that feats, whether they are extraordinary or otherwise, are almost certainly special abilities. It doesn't really matter what kinda special abilities they are, because the monster manual has claim to all of them, and while this source is annoyingly vague about which type is the right one, that overall categorization as special ability seems clear cut.Actually they have to be specifically categorized. BoED claims that most feats are extraordinary, which means that there are some that are not. It could be that the entirety of non-extraordinary feats are the [Exalted] feats, but the book gives no indication that this is the case. If a feat is not categorized as extraordinary it cannot be part of the extaordinary subset. Furthermore if a feat is not categorized as extraordinary, supernatural psi-like or spell-like, it cannot be a special ability as all special abilities are of one of the four types.

[eggynack]

Actually they have to be specifically categorized. BoED claims that most feats are extraordinary, which means that there are some that are not. It could be that the entirety of non-extraordinary feats are the [Exalted] feats, but the book gives no indication that this is the case. If a feat is not categorized as extraordinary it cannot be part of the extaordinary subset. Furthermore if a feat is not categorized as extraordinary, supernatural psi-like or spell-like, it cannot be a special ability as all special abilities are of one of the four types.
As I recall, special abilities that go uncategorized default to extraordinary, and more generally, a lack of explicit categorization does not deny a thing status as a special ability.

[Andezzar]

As I recall, special abilities that go uncategorized default to extraordinary, and more generally, a lack of explicit categorization does not deny a thing status as a special ability.But where does it actually say that feats even are special abilities? Also I'd like to know where you get that default rule. The MM has this to say about special abilities:
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

[eggynack]

But where does it actually say that feats even are special abilities?
Right there in the BoED, I think. After all, that was my original citation in support of the point. Basically, the BoED is saying, "Most feats are this kind of special ability." The core implication of this statement is that other feats, rather than falling into some heretofore unmentioned category, would be different types of special ability. The quote puts the feats in that realm, attaching feats to the special ability rules.

Also I'd like to know where you get that default rule. The MM has this to say about special abilities:
That'd be the one. The thing of it is, it doesn't say there that you need explicit categorization as one of the three types to be a special ability. Abilities can lack explicit categorization, and yet still be special abilities, because they'll just naturally fall into one of those categories, even if it's not clear which one.

[Andezzar]

Right there in the BoED, I think. After all, that was my original citation in support of the point. Basically, the BoED is saying, "Most feats are this kind of special ability." The core implication of this statement is that other feats, rather than falling into some heretofore unmentioned category, would be different types of special ability. The quote puts the feats in that realm, attaching feats to the special ability rules. It is just as likely that those not categorized aren't special abilities at all.


That'd be the one. The thing of it is, it doesn't say there that you need explicit categorization as one of the three types to be a special ability. Abilities can lack explicit categorization, and yet still be special abilities, because they'll just naturally fall into one of those categories, even if it's not clear which one.No, the quote says that each special ability is in one of those categories, which means anything that is a special ability must be in one of those categories. If it is not, it cannot be a special ability.

[eggynack]

It is just as likely that those not categorized aren't special abilities at all.

No, the quote says that each special ability is in one of those categories, which means anything that is a special ability must be in one of those categories. If it is not, it cannot be a special ability.
My point is that, just because there isn't an explicit categorization, that doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying categorization that we are unaware of. And, more particularly, in this case it doesn't much matter what that category is.

[Andezzar]

What matters is that your whole argument is based on an assumption. Only if feats were special abilities, could you start reasoning that the MM takes precedence over the PHB concerning feats. The rules never say that feats generally are special abilities.

Furthermore monster entries have two sections that contain special abilities (Special Qualities, Special Attacks) and another section for feats. If feats were special abilities, wouldn't they be in the two existing sections instead of a separate section?

[eggynack]

What matters is that your whole argument is based on an assumption. Only if feats were special abilities, could you start reasoning that the MM takes precedence over the PHB concerning feats.
Oh, not at all. It would help a lot, and cement the position, but my argument is predicated on a number of different positions that don't depend on each other for their success. This is just another piece of supporting evidence for the overall idea that the monster manual wins the fight, particularly helping out the primacy end of things. Without it, there's still the argument that the PHB lacks primacy, and the argument from specific overriding general. This particular position, the one about feats as special abilities, definitely isn't a perfect one yet, but it makes a lot of sense, and bolsters one particular facet of the overall claim.

Edit:
Furthermore monster entries have two sections that contain special abilities (Special Qualities, Special Attacks) and another section for feats. If feats were special abilities, wouldn't they be in the two existing sections instead of a separate section?
Not necessarily. I suspect that they're positioned as they are because they are governed by some rules unique to them, because they tend to come from all HD rather than by the creature's own nature, and because there're so many of them that it's easier just putting them in a different spot. You could make the same argument about, say, flight speed. That ability is listed amongst movement modes, despite the fact that it's absolutely either extraordinary or supernatural in nature.

[Curmudgeon]

As I noted, the argument from MM primacy is probably the weakest one. However, the lack of MM primacy does not necessarily mean the existence of PHB primacy, and I can't find any reason for there to be PHB primacy, so we head into either ambiguous or general versus specific territory, and by those arguments you wind up with no perfect solution or monster manual victory respectively.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® 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.
The rules for feats are in the Player's Handbook (taking all of Chapter 5), which is stated to be the primary source for the rules for playing the game. How is that not then the primary source for rules for feats?

[Troacctid]

You're forgetting about natural abilities. An ability that's not spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary is considered a natural ability.

I'm pretty sure there's text in multiple places that says feats are extraordinary abilities though. I'd have to look for a citation.

In any case, the Monster Manual text is in reference to reading a creature's statblock, and refers only to bonus feats marked with a B in said statblock, not to bonus feats in general (as evidenced by the omission of the B from several entries that have bonus feats where prerequisites aren't supposed to be waived).

[eggynack]

The rules for feats are in the Player's Handbook (taking all of Chapter 5), which is stated to be the primary source for the rules for playing the game. How is that not then the primary source for rules for feats?
I've explained pretty much all of my position on this point before. Playing the game is an extraordinarily vague parameter, and feat selection rules are pretty far away from them. And then you also have the part about specific versus general, and the fact that the PHB just doesn't have an explicit rule about the nature of bonus feats in the specific sense.

You're forgetting about natural abilities. An ability that's not spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary is considered a natural ability.

True enough, that, though it's still a pretty good indicator, especially as feats are unlikely to be natural.


I'm pretty sure there's text in multiple places that says feats are extraordinary abilities though. I'd have to look for a citation.
Yeah, so am I, but I can't seem to find them.



In any case, the Monster Manual text is in reference to reading a creature's statblock, and refers only to bonus feats marked with a B in said statblock, not to bonus feats in general (as evidenced by the omission of the B from several entries that have bonus feats where prerequisites aren't supposed to be waived).
As I keep explaining, that's just not the case. The setup for the rule includes the B subscript, but the actual rule talks about all bonus feats.

[Grooke]

Given the title change of the topic, I hope the OP is still paying attention to the thread. If it is the case, may I please ask of you to tell your 8 year old player what his character has caused?

Its all his/her fault!

[JDL]

Gotta love these sorts of in-depth readings of the RAW. So many opinions, so strongly believed.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Troacctid]

As I keep explaining, that's just not the case. The setup for the rule includes the B subscript, but the actual rule talks about all bonus feats.

Context is important. If you take stuff like that out of context, you run into all sorts of contradictions. The "Reading the Entries" section of the Monster Manual is about reading monster entries; it's not necessarily applicable to PCs. Take this line, for example:


To determine any creature’s racial ability adjustments, subtract 10 from any even-numbered ability score and subtract 11 from any odd-numbered score. (Exceptions are noted in the Combat section of a creature’s descriptive text.)

That just plain doesn't work for a PC--or even for an NPC created from scratch. But it still says right there, "any creature's racial ability adjustments". That's because it's working from a clearly established context.

Or this line:


A creature’s armor proficiencies (if it has any) depend on its type, but in general a creature is automatically proficient with any kind of armor it is described as wearing (light, medium, or heavy), and with all lighter kinds of armor.

Are all characters automatically proficient with any kind of armor they wear? No. This rule is for characters who are described in their statblock as wearing armor.

[eggynack]

Context is important. If you take stuff like that out of context, you run into all sorts of contradictions. The "Reading the Entries" section of the Monster Manual is about reading monster entries; it's not necessarily applicable to PCs. Take this line, for example:



That just plain doesn't work for a PC--or even for an NPC created from scratch. But it still says right there, "any creature's racial ability adjustments". That's because it's working from a clearly established context.

Or this line:



Are all characters automatically proficient with any kind of armor they wear? No. This rule is for characters who are described in their statblock as wearing armor.
The issue is, I don't think the context of this particular text excludes its working on PC's like those do. Bonus feats aren't strictly a stat block object, where those both are. They exist elsewhere in the game, and baseline statblocks and creatures having descriptive armor do not. It's not so much a contradiction being produced as there just being no other basis for the rules in question to work off of.

[Troacctid]

The default rule for feats is that you must meet the prerequisites to select or use a feat. So, they'd go by that. This is the same deal as the "A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability" option for Rogues: you can't use it to select an Epic feat at level 10 just because it's a bonus feat--unless otherwise stated, bonus feats still follow all the normal rules for selecting feats.

The bonus feats in the MM context are strictly the ones in statblocks. The header refers to the "Feats" line in the statblock, and the paragraph is reinforcing the idea that a creature's statblock should be considered authoritative for that creature, even if it's contradicted by other rules elsewhere. Also, note that it actually does draw a distinction between "monsters" and "characters" ("A monster gains feats just as a character does"), for whatever that's worth.

[eggynack]

The default rule for feats is that you must meet the prerequisites to select or use a feat. So, they'd go by that. This is the same deal as the "A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability" option for Rogues: you can't use it to select an Epic feat at level 10 just because it's a bonus feat--unless otherwise stated, bonus feats still follow all the normal rules for selecting feats.
That's the case by default, but there are exceptions where you just pick up feats despite the fact that you lack the prerequisites. So, the rogue cannot pick epic feats, because they're just making a selection, and don't have leave to pick the feats with no basis. The issue at hand are cases like the monk, where you gain the feats without need of prerequisites, or domain granted bonus feats, where the granting is automatic and unlinked to selection. My assertion is that in cases like this, where you're just gaining a feat, you're able to use them because bonus feats have leave to sometimes be granted without prerequisites, and used from that point forward.


The bonus feats in the MM context are strictly the ones in statblocks. The header refers to the "Feats" line in the statblock, and the paragraph is reinforcing the idea that a creature's statblock should be considered authoritative for that creature, even if it's contradicted by other rules elsewhere. Also, note that it actually does draw a distinction between "monsters" and "characters" ("A monster gains feats just as a character does"), for whatever that's worth.
And I disagree. There's not much to indicate that the rule is strictly limited in that manner, and the context doesn't automatically create such a limitation. The thing is, the context does matter, and it matters in one way. Just as ability scores, and armor proficiencies, and whatever other examples there are are determined differently when established by a stat block than when established by class and such, so too are bonus feats on stat blocks established through little b's, and bonus feats on characters established through class features and racial traits. But just as armor on a PC works just like armor on a monster, so too do bonus feats work the same way in each case. You're still working with the same object, and they maintain the same rules in spite of the creature they're on.

[daremetoidareyo]

By this RAW reading, this means that you can select feats that aren't relevant to class features that you can use because they'll hang out in limbo until you can use them. Violate spell or diving charge can be taken by a human first level fighter at first level, because he can select it to modify spells that he doesn't has, which is nice for when he is doing flying charges without the ability to fly. Which is a bit silly, but whatever, we all know the system is poorly edited.


Right there at first level, the swashbuckler gets weapon finesse, but cant use it until his ability score is high enough. Sure he gained the bonus feat even though she doesn't qualify for it. But can she "use" it without the prerequisites are met?
"Weapon Finesse (Ex): A swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level even if she does not qualify for the feat."

or the lasher gets really boned, because he gains the feat, but doesn't get to use it before he purchases the prerequisite expertise feat:

"Improved Disarm: At 6th level, the lasher gains the Improved Disarm feat, if using a whip or whip dagger to perform the disarm action. She need not have taken the Expertise feat, normally a prerequisite, before this."

or the sohei gains deflect arrows feat but not the ability to use of it.
"Deflect Arrows: At 3rd level, a sohei gains the Deflect Arrows feat, even if she doesn't have the prerequisite feat and Dexterity score."

or the animal lord gets stuff he cant use until he meets the prereqs, and if he already has that (useless) feat, he can choose one that he does meet the prerequisites for:
"Second Totem: At 6th level, an animal lord gains a bonus feat related to his selected group, even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites. If the animal lord already has the feat, he can choose any other feat for which he meets the prerequisites."

or spellfire heirophant: This one is really weird in that the heirophant can ignore the prerequisite of unarmed strike to SELECT a bonus feat but must turn around and wait until they get unarmed strike to USE the feat.
"Bonus Feats: At 4th level and again at 8th level, the spellfire hierophant gains a bonus feat selected from the following list: a bunch of feats including Exceptional Deflection 1 and Reflect Arrows 1. She must meet all of a feat's prerequisites in order to select it, except as noted below.
1 The spellfire hierophant can ignore the prerequisite of Improved Unarmed Strike for these feats."

The artificer can't brew a potion until third level despite being granted it at level 2.
"BONUS FEAT: An artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters."
He can't craft a homoculus until level 5, despite getting it as a class ability at level four, which makes the statement below false: i.e. at 4th level, the artificer can wait a level to use this ability.
"Craft Homunculus (Ex): At 4th level, an artificer can create a homunculus as if he had the Craft Construct feat."

Samurai:
"He is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when wielding a katana and wakizashi, even if he does not meet the prerequisites for that feat."

Which means he "has" the feat, but he can't "use" the feat, because "having" is a state of ownership that doesn't necessarily allow for the "use" of something, but at some point, a selection process may have occured, and it would betray causality for the feat to have been selected after "having" the feat. Therefor, the samurai is treated as having selected the two weapon fighting feat, but he must fulfill the pre-requisites arrive to "use" it.

the ranger has been discussed, but it seems that the strict reading would follow the same trajectory as samurai. To rule otherwise invites inconsistency.


or any other class or domain that grants a bonus feat that has pre-reqs.


Its apparent that the words grant, gains, even 'selects' are meant to grant the use and selection of the feats as if they had no pre-reqs at all. To read it any other way ruins the capstone of stonelord. And no-one needs to knock that class down anymore.

The rule as intended, for all of the supplementary materials to make sense, is this: 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. If the pre-requisites are waved by gaining this feat through a class ability, ignore this. You can assume the prerequisites are waved whenever you gain, select, or are granted a feat, unless the feat granting conveyance specifically claims that you need to meet the prereqs. Feat Prerequisites, therefor are only a thing that you need to deal with when you level up or when you are specifically told to that you need to mind the prereqs.

[atemu1234]

Gotta love these sorts of in-depth readings of the RAW. So many opinions, so strongly believed.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I have issue with that particular comic.

For one, as we are a community, albeit one across several continents, following the same rules, a fundamental understanding and consensus is important. If no consensus can be reached, these in-depth conversations help others make in-depth, contextually based decisions.

It isn't just about disagreeing.

[Troacctid]

Right there at first level, the swashbuckler gets weapon finesse, but cant use it until his ability score is high enough. Sure he gained the bonus feat even though she doesn't qualify for it. But can she "use" it without the prerequisites are met?
"Weapon Finesse (Ex): A swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level even if she does not qualify for the feat."

or the lasher gets really boned, because he gains the feat, but doesn't get to use it before he purchases the prerequisite expertise feat:

"Improved Disarm: At 6th level, the lasher gains the Improved Disarm feat, if using a whip or whip dagger to perform the disarm action. She need not have taken the Expertise feat, normally a prerequisite, before this."

or the sohei gains deflect arrows feat but not the ability to use of it.
"Deflect Arrows: At 3rd level, a sohei gains the Deflect Arrows feat, even if she doesn't have the prerequisite feat and Dexterity score."

or the animal lord gets stuff he cant use until he meets the prereqs, and if he already has that (useless) feat, he can choose one that he does meet the prerequisites for:
"Second Totem: At 6th level, an animal lord gains a bonus feat related to his selected group, even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites. If the animal lord already has the feat, he can choose any other feat for which he meets the prerequisites."

or spellfire heirophant: This one is really weird in that the heirophant can ignore the prerequisite of unarmed strike to SELECT a bonus feat but must turn around and wait until they get unarmed strike to USE the feat.
"Bonus Feats: At 4th level and again at 8th level, the spellfire hierophant gains a bonus feat selected from the following list: a bunch of feats including Exceptional Deflection 1 and Reflect Arrows 1. She must meet all of a feat's prerequisites in order to select it, except as noted below.
1 The spellfire hierophant can ignore the prerequisite of Improved Unarmed Strike for these feats."

The artificer can't brew a potion until third level despite being granted it at level 2.
"BONUS FEAT: An artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters."
He can't craft a homoculus until level 5, despite getting it as a class ability at level four, which makes the statement below false: i.e. at 4th level, the artificer can wait a level to use this ability.
"Craft Homunculus (Ex): At 4th level, an artificer can create a homunculus as if he had the Craft Construct feat."

Samurai:
"He is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when wielding a katana and wakizashi, even if he does not meet the prerequisites for that feat."

Which means he "has" the feat, but he can't "use" the feat, because "having" is a state of ownership that doesn't necessarily allow for the "use" of something, but at some point, a selection process may have occured, and it would betray causality for the feat to have been selected after "having" the feat. Therefor, the samurai is treated as having selected the two weapon fighting feat, but he must fulfill the pre-requisites arrive to "use" it.

the ranger has been discussed, but it seems that the strict reading would follow the same trajectory as samurai. To rule otherwise invites inconsistency.


or any other class or domain that grants a bonus feat that has pre-reqs.


Most of these aren't really problematic. Since they specifically say you don't need the prerequisites, well, you don't need the prerequisites--they're a specific exception to the general rule.

[eggynack]

Most of these aren't really problematic. Since they specifically say you don't need the prerequisites, well, you don't need the prerequisites--they're a specific exception to the general rule.
No, they're still problematic. The core of the dispute is that Curmudgeon has asserted that, while you indisputably have the feat in question because an ability said you pick them up despite prerequisites, you can't actually make use of them without prerequisites because of the "Can't select or use" clause of the PHB. So, for example, the swashbuckler is said to gain weapon finesse even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites, but the ability does not say he can use it even if he doesn't meet the prerequisites, so he can't use it without the prerequisites. The improved disarm ability is more questionable, because the protection from prerequisites is implied to be complete (you don't need the prerequisites at all, not just before you can gain it), and the ones that talk about treating you as if you have the feat is iffy as well, but the majority of them, meaning weapon finesse, deflect arrows, second totem, and the spellfire hierophant, would act in the wonky fashion under Curmudgeon's claim, and many of the rest may or may not act in that manner.

[Andezzar]

Weapon Finesse on the Swashbuckler at least is not a problem, the waiving of prerequisites is superfluous in that case. The prerequisite for Weapon Finesse is BAB 1. A swashbuckler always has BAB 1 when he gains the bonus feat.
A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.

[Roga]

Weapon Finesse on the Swashbuckler at least is not a problem, the waiving of prerequisites is superfluous in that case. The prerequisite for Weapon Finesse is BAB 1. A swashbuckler always has BAB 1 when he gains the bonus feat.

There's still things like the level 1 cleric with the war domain who can't have the +1 BAB needed for Weapon Focus. I mentioned it in greater detail but it got lost in the discordant discourse.

@JDL Your post seems rather mean-spirited. You're on a D&D forum, in a post asking about rules, and rather than contributing, it feels like you're belittling the discussion as ironically amusing rabble-rousing. I get that there's the discussion has gotten heated, as a lot of people care about this game, but your post just feels like it's making fun of people for having the discussion. Maybe I'm reading too much into your words, and the accompanying comic. If that's the case I'm sorry.

[eggynack]

Yeah, and this argument isn't even that crazy. It's basically only one or two degrees removed from the thread topic, it's only gone on for five pages, and there hasn't even been a really weird and crazy derail predicated on a semi-insulting... wait, no, I guess we're doing that one now. But, y'know, definitely not on the level of one of those old school pickford thread derails that goes on for 50 pages with ridiculous arguments nested within each other and maybe an arena fight.

[bekeleven]

The artificer can't brew a potion until third level despite being granted it at level 2.
"BONUS FEAT: An artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters."
He can't craft a homoculus until level 5, despite getting it as a class ability at level four, which makes the statement below false: i.e. at 4th level, the artificer can wait a level to use this ability.
"Craft Homunculus (Ex): At 4th level, an artificer can create a homunculus as if he had the Craft Construct feat."
This might squeak by, actually. He never gains the feat, so does he need prerequisites? He can just perform actions as though he had it.

One or two of the others might use similar language.

[daremetoidareyo]

This might squeak by, actually. He never gains the feat, so does he need prerequisites? He can just perform actions as though he had it.

One or two of the others might use similar language.

Having the feat and using the feat are separated by the language being used to deny augment summoning to the person who gets it by having access to the dragon below domain. If the artificer can craft "AS IF" he had the craft construct feat, you have to look up the feat. Then you check the pre-reqs to see if he can "USE" the feat: at level four, he can't. Not till he is caster level 5 and has craft magic arms. If we're parsing language so obtusely in the former case, it's inconsistent to get all liberal about syntax when it affects other cases.

It's a "houserule" to operate in any other way, just as proficiency in monk natural attacks is assumed by "houserules" and not RAW.

I mean, the domain power literally reads: "You gain Augment Summoning as a bonus feat."

If that language doesn't clearly imply that you can use augment summoning as a person who has the feat, there is no reason to assume the RAW wouldn't affect the rest of classes and bonus feats regardless of RAI and the words they chose about pre-requisites.

The rational thing that everyone picked up on due to reliance on social savvy and context was that the RAW in the PHB pertains only to feats that you acquired by fulfilling the pre-requisites. Bonus feats that you "select", are "granted", "have", or "gain" are implied to suspend the limitations of the pre-requisites unless you are instructed not to ignore the pre-requisites.

Other than going full-painstaking or "houseruling", the only middle point is to parse out what the words "select", "grant", "have" and "gain" mean independent of each other in the RAW and then choosing where the boundaries of "use" vs. "select" are for each one.