How many DM's Would allows the Mobility Enchant to qualify for feats?

[Masakan]

No debate or anything just need a clear answer of how common this is.

[TiaC]

Yes, Mobility is a terrible feat and the game would be better if it didn't exist.

[sirreality]

I would certainly allow it. A feat acquired through any means is valid fulfillment of a prerequisite. Now, they'd be stuck using a mobility enchant to make sure that feat didn't switch off, but that's probably accepted.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've never allowed characters to use items to qualify for a feat. But that would be to remain consistent to some of my other rulings about how items and enchantments work. I also would never use an item to qualify for a feat in someone else's campaign. I don't want to be the character who loses his feats during a critical battle due to an ill-timed dispel.

[OldTrees1]

Yes.

While I am adverse to allowing items to qualify for feats, Mobility is worth next to nothing.

I would prefer the player work with me to tack enough benefit onto Mobility for it to be worth taking as a feat, and then have them take it as a feat. Probably by taking a Real feat and adding Dodge and Mobility for free with that feat.

[Masakan]

I've never allowed characters to use items to qualify for a feat. But that would be to remain consistent to some of my other rulings about how items and enchantments work. I also would never use an item to qualify for a feat in someone else's campaign. I don't want to be the character who loses his feats during a critical battle due to an ill-timed dispel.

That's actually a good point

[FocusWolf413]

As others have said, Mobility is a horrible, horrible feat. In any future games, I'll combine it with Dodge (possibly even Grod's G&G version) in order to make it less painful.

I'll allow people to take it to qualify for anything, but when peopl use shenanigans to qualify for feats, I get to use shenanigans as a DM. Also, there's always the risk of having your items dispelled or disjuncted, which evens things out.

[Hal0Badger]

I've never allowed characters to use items to qualify for a feat. But that would be to remain consistent to some of my other rulings about how items and enchantments work. I also would never use an item to qualify for a feat in someone else's campaign. I don't want to be the character who loses his feats during a critical battle due to an ill-timed dispel.

+1 this.

On a side note, I would merge Dodge+Mobility into 1 feat, and making the dodge bonus +2. Both these feats (and Weapon focus) are terrible on their own, and only exist as "feat-tax", which I see as a major problem in 3.5 .

[GilesTheCleric]

Yes. I routinely use items and other methods of meeting prereqs when building NPCs, since combining the good features of many PrCs to make a mechanically interesting character can be difficult, and relying on Zodars for every single NPC would require reevaluating my setting. I find it most necessary when building NPCs below level 10, since ime most builds are actualized by level 12.

My latest build reaches actualization (casual immortality and unkillability) at character level 7, which is achieved by taking no flaws, no traits, no cap-breakers, and two PrCs, but does require the PC to amass 56k gp before level 6, which is easy since the PC is a caster. It could have been accomplished at 5th level with no wealth expenditure and the use of two flaws, but that was impractical for play.

Other times, it requires much more work -- eg. another NPC was actualized at level 7, but it required 5 base classes and an LA+2 template. Further, it required LA buyoff, fractional BAB, item creation feats to stay under WBL, and a whole lot of drag mag diving. All this just to be able to have a greater than +20 to-hit and damage with a mundane bow and no casting ability.

The only danger in players using the same method is when things get to the custom magic item stage. There's already a fair number of non-custom ways to obtain prereqs, many of which contain common feat taxes. If a build can't sustain itself under pre-built items, then either my player needs to up their op game and be more creative with the build, or perhaps rethink the scope and requirements of the build.

[Necroticplague]

I allow it. It's pretty clear RAW, Mobility is a f***ing horrible feat tax that only exists to punish a certain archetype of character, and it leaves the character with a weakness in their build I can exploit. it's not OP by any stretch of the word, nor is it against the rules. I see no reason to disallow it.

[icefractal]

I wouldn't allow it; items as prerequisites is a road better not gone down.

That said, Mobility is pretty bad, so I'd be willing to buff it if someone was going to take it. Combined with Dodge into one feat, it's still not that impressive, but might be worth it for the Spring Attack access.

[chaos_redefined]

I wouldn't allow it; items as prerequisites is a road better not gone down.

That said, Mobility is pretty bad, so I'd be willing to buff it if someone was going to take it. Combined with Dodge into one feat, it's still not that impressive, but might be worth it for the Spring Attack access.

Spring Attack still isn't that great... But Elusive Target is amazing. In fact, I'd say that it's worth the extra prerequisite...

[Twurps]

I'd allow it. RAW it's allowed and I see no reason to deviate.

But then, as bowstreetrunner mentioned: I would never use it myself, and have never had anybody in a game actually use it.