How often do DM's allow enchantments to qualify for feats?

[Masakan]

This is for anyone who Dm's often, I just want a fair idea of how globally accepted this stratagem is.

[noob]

I had one dm allowing that because it was coherent with raw but since it was in disjunction universe were the base attack was mordenkainen disjunction it mostly was not a problem because he ruled that you had the feat as long as you were filling the requirements.(and so relying on items at all was a bad tactic)

[Ravens_cry]

All the time?
It's bad enough to have MAD (Multiple Ability Dependency), but it would be even worse if the stats you rolled/point bought, plus the very occasional level up bonus, were all you got, shafting you of that feat you needed for your build, assuming I understand what you are asking right.

[Myou]

I don't allow it in anything I run, and I wouldn't expect other DMs I know to allow it either.

[OldTrees1]

If a feat is worth a feat slot then I would not allow it.

However all magic item based feats that I know of are not worth a feat slot. Thus I allow all the item based feats that I know of.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've stated previously that when running a game I do not allow temporary things like items or enchantments to qualify for a feat. If I did allow it however I doubt any of my players would ever take me up on it. They know that they would need to make significant efforts to protect their prerequisites so that they don't lose access to their feat. While I am not the sort of DM to repeatedly go after them like that, I'm not going to ignore it either. Caveat Ludior!

[iDesu]

I know the 3.5 FAQ (http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/mainfaq.pdf) allows it, however the FAQ is generally not considered RAW so take everything with a grain of salt.


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

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

[Masakan]

I knew it. In theory it sounds like a good idea, bu in actual practice a good DM wouldn't just ignore it.

[ComaVision]

I don't particularly like the idea but I'd allow it since any build that needs to pick up lackluster feats via magic items probably needs the help.

It has never come up in any game I've been a part of, though.

[Necroticplague]

Odd, I could have sworn there was a similar thread not too long ago....


Anyway, I do. It's not OP, and it's explicitly RAW, so I see no reason to disallow it. It may not be the best idea, given my love of Clockwork Horrors.

[Jowgen]

I allow it, as does any DM I personally know; although I do categorically enforce the CW rule of loosing PrC features when loosing prereques for PrCs across the board regardless of book. Also, if do not allow custom feat items.

My reasoning: With items, the risk of loosing access to other feats or class features is a serious draw-back. With grafts, they already represent a very permanent change to the character requiring serious investment. With magical locations, I require they meet the roleplay prerequesite associated with location activation, so they earned it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Jives fine by me.

There's a trade-off, ya see.

On the one hand, feats from gear are a -much- lower opportunity cost than actually taking the feat; a few thousand gp when you get thousands of gold each level from mid-ish level onward vs one of only 7 feats you get, barring class granted bonus feats.

On the other, feats from items are much more vulnerable to being lost. Dispelling, sundering, and theft are all added to the table alongside disabling prerequisites in one way or another, should the item still require them.

I'm, personally, of the opinion that each player should make that risk/reward estimate for himself.

From a verisimilitude perspective, there's precedent for magic being able to muck about with people's feats (and every other aspect of their build for that matter) and spending a few levels fighting and training with the item should be more than sufficient to build greater, related skills and techniques based on it.

A feat's a feat. I don't care how you got it as long as you've got it when you need it to be a prerequisite. If you're willing to take the risk, I won't promise not to exploit it; just not to exploit it too regularly.


I knew it. In theory it sounds like a good idea, bu in actual practice a good DM wouldn't just ignore it.

A good DM ignores -nothing- the PC's do; good or bad, smart or dumb.

If you're not willing to take the risk of associating a feat with an item, don't. No one is going to force you.

[Uncle Pine]

I allow it.

[Masakan]

Jives fine by me.

There's a trade-off, ya see.

On the one hand, feats from gear are a -much- lower opportunity cost than actually taking the feat; a few thousand gp when you get thousands of gold each level from mid-ish level onward vs one of only 7 feats you get, barring class granted bonus feats.

On the other, feats from items are much more vulnerable to being lost. Dispelling, sundering, and theft are all added to the table alongside disabling prerequisites in one way or another, should the item still require them.

I'm, personally, of the opinion that each player should make that risk/reward estimate for himself.

From a verisimilitude perspective, there's precedent for magic being able to muck about with people's feats (and every other aspect of their build for that matter) and spending a few levels fighting and training with the item should be more than sufficient to build greater, related skills and techniques based on it.

A feat's a feat. I don't care how you got it as long as you've got it when you need it to be a prerequisite. If you're willing to take the risk, I won't promise not to exploit it; just not to exploit it too regularly.



A good DM ignores -nothing- the PC's do; good or bad, smart or dumb.

If you're not willing to take the risk of associating a feat with an item, don't. No one is going to force you.

So end of the day it really all comes down to whether or not your willing to take the gamble....which I am not.

[Deophaun]

{scrubbed}

[Masakan]

{scrubbed}

[Kantolin]

I generally don't mind letting it happen.

In the conceptual situation that a player wanted to take [x] which would make them overpowered, regardless if x is a spell, feat, armour property, magic item, race, or whatever, I'm more inclined to say no and explain why.

I've yet to see someone say 'Ooh, I must have (say) mobility on my armour so I can get into this prestige class that will result in my being broken! Mwahaha!' and have the broken step be 'mobility on their armour'.

So I'm generally okay with it, and I'm 90% of the time a DM. I'm sure there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to everything.

[Deophaun]

{scrubbed}

[Quertus]

I've never seen a DM not allow it. As pointed out, it is RAW, and completely reasonable.

An important thing to remember - even if you have the natural stat to qualify for a feat, if you lose said stat (to poison, stat drain, being polymorphed, etc), you lose access to the feat (and, subsequently, to any feats that have that feat as a prerequisite).

Now, a more interesting question is, if you lose access to a feat that is a prerequisite to a prestige class, do you lose access to the abilities of the prestige class? I've never seen it come up, but I suspect the answer is "yes", a) for consistency, and b) to prevent retraining shenanigans.

[Masakan]

{scrubbed}

[Deophaun]

{scrubbed}

[Masakan]

{scrubbed}

[137beth]

{scrubbed}

I laughed out loud in a public bathroom stall and got weird looks. Could I extended dig this exchange?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Now, a more interesting question is, if you lose access to a feat that is a prerequisite to a prestige class, do you lose access to the abilities of the prestige class? I've never seen it come up, but I suspect the answer is "yes", a) for consistency, and b) to prevent retraining shenanigans.

Interesting and devisive.

There a two larger camps on this issue on either side of the yes/no divide. A consensus is unlikely to be reached in the forseeable future. Ask your DM.

[DarkSonic1337]

In every game I've played in the DM has allowed this (because...well it's how it works by default), and I've likewise used it.

A prepriat of wisdom to qualify for combat expertise here, a fanged ring to get improved unarmed strike there, gloves of the balanced hand to grab greater two weapon fighting (this one's not actually raw and I asked the DM for this specifically. He was cool with it).

For the most part the feats granted by magic items are not that powerful, nor are they interesting. Likewise there are somewhat arbitrary minimum stat prereqs on certain feats and it really helps the MAD classes (the ones that actually do need more help) to let them use an item to meet those ability score prereqs.

Dispelling and sundering aren't typically issues for the sole reason that targeting someone's equipment with dispel magic rather than the person is generally a bad strategy, and most enemies we face don't happen to have chained dispel magic prepared. But even if I DO lose the feats temporarily, it doesn't break my builds...because once again the feats weren't really game changers.


I'm currently playing a swiftblade who qualified via mobility enchantment. If that gets dispelled I'll lose my abilities for...one round (DM is on that side). Then I'll just activate my glyph seal which has heroics stored in it and everything will turn back on. Don't overestimate the risks involved. If you're prepared losing access to your item for a while should be a mild inconvenience at worst.

[iDesu]

Interesting and devisive.

There a two larger camps on this issue on either side of the yes/no divide. A consensus is unlikely to be reached in the forseeable future. Ask your DM.

It is a rule for complete arcane and complete warrior, but but in any other books I believe. However if it is a rule being used in your game point out that Dragon disciples can't take their capstone without losing all their class levels. There are other classes that suffer from this as well, but none are coming to mind currently.

[Masakan]

In every game I've played in the DM has allowed this (because...well it's how it works by default), and I've likewise used it.

A prepriat of wisdom to qualify for combat expertise here, a fanged ring to get improved unarmed strike there, gloves of the balanced hand to grab greater two weapon fighting (this one's not actually raw and I asked the DM for this specifically. He was cool with it).

For the most part the feats granted by magic items are not that powerful, nor are they interesting. Likewise there are somewhat arbitrary minimum stat prereqs on certain feats and it really helps the MAD classes (the ones that actually do need more help) to let them use an item to meet those ability score prereqs.

Dispelling and sundering aren't typically issues for the sole reason that targeting someone's equipment with dispel magic rather than the person is generally a bad strategy, and most enemies we face don't happen to have chained dispel magic prepared. But even if I DO lose the feats temporarily, it doesn't break my builds...because once again the feats weren't really game changers.


I'm currently playing a swiftblade who qualified via mobility enchantment. If that gets dispelled I'll lose my abilities for...one round (DM is on that side). Then I'll just activate my glyph seal which has heroics stored in it and everything will turn back on. Don't overestimate the risks involved. If you're prepared losing access to your item for a while should be a mild inconvenience at worst.

Glyph Seals? what the hell is that?

[Necroticplague]

Glyph Seals? what the hell is that?

There an item from the MIC that you can have store low-level spells to activate later. Great if you have spare slots at the end of a day.

[Masakan]

There an item from the MIC that you can have store low-level spells to activate later. Great if you have spare slots at the end of a day.
And only 1k gold too.....Yeah 2k for the feat and 1k for an emergency backup.....Still annoys me on principle. But now there is effectively no excuse.
Hmm

[Curmudgeon]

At the moment they get enough XP to level up, the character either has a requirement for a feat or they don't. I see no good from creating a house rule here whereby you need additional qualifications. I don't even think it's worthwhile if there's a similar rule forbidding spellcasters from making use of temporary boosts for their spells. Following the RAW here already has the downside mentioned: the risk of losing use of the feat if their nonpermanent qualification goes away.

[Masakan]

At the moment they get enough XP to level up, the character either has a requirement for a feat or they don't. I see no good from creating a house rule here whereby you need additional qualifications. I don't even think it's worthwhile if there's a similar rule forbidding spellcasters from making use of temporary boosts for their spells. Following the RAW here already has the downside mentioned: the risk of losing use of the feat if their nonpermanent qualification goes away.
I would probbaly just suck it up and get the feat, the more I read the more i feel like it would just be too much of a headache.

[Necroticplague]

And only 1k gold too.....Yeah 2k for the feat and 1k for an emergency backup.....Still annoys me on principle. But now there is effectively no excuse.
Hmm

What principle?

[Totema]

I think it's pretty sensible to allow it, but if the item granting the bonus is lost, then the player no longer qualifies for the feat and can't benefit from it. At least until they qualify for it again.

[OldTrees1]

What principle?

Probably: Having someone that knows Pre Calculus and Calculus II but not Calculus I would be weird(keyword referencing stain on a suspension of disbelief).

[ZamielVanWeber]

I would allow it. Not allowing it tends to hurt mundanes and people who take Vow of Poverty and not affect SAD casters as much. I see no reason to punish the weak.

[Curmudgeon]

Probably: Having someone that knows Pre Calculus and Calculus II but not Calculus I would be weird(keyword referencing stain on a suspension of disbelief).
Sometimes things work out that way. In my high school the "honors" math courses over 4 years were Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II with Trigonometry, and Calculus I. I skipped Algebra II, learned Trigonometry the summer after my Sophomore year, and went into Calculus I as a Junior. (In Senior year I took Calculus II at the local university.) When I got around to taking the SATs I didn't get the perfect 800 math score I was hoping for, largely because I'd skipped that Algebra II course.

[Kantolin]

Hey, if I could have worn magic armour that magically gives me knowledge of Calculus 1, and then used it to take and learn and understand Calculus 2, I'd be hard pressed to argue that my doing that didn't help me /incidentally/ pick up Calc 1. :P

Especially in Math, which tends to build on itself

[OldTrees1]

Sometimes things work out that way. In my high school the "honors" math courses over 4 years were Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II with Trigonometry, and Calculus I. I skipped Algebra II, learned Trigonometry the summer after my Sophomore year, and went into Calculus I as a Junior. (In Senior year I took Calculus II at the local university.) When I got around to taking the SATs I didn't get the perfect 800 math score I was hoping for, largely because I'd skipped that Algebra II course.

My example was more carefully picked than your counter example (since Calc II relies on information from Calc I) but your point about exceptions is valid. The result is still weird(as you suffered yourself) and thus some will prohibit it based on this principle.



Hey, if I could have worn magic armour that magically gives me knowledge of Calculus 1, and then used it to take and learn and understand Calculus 2, I'd be hard pressed to argue that my doing that didn't help me /incidentally/ pick up Calc 1. :P

Especially in Math, which tends to build on itself
Great supporting argument for the principle. By wearing the armor of Calc I while learning Calc II, you would become independent of the armor(still know Calc I even after removing the armor).

So if you were using Training rules or Quest based Feats rules then learning from your armor would be a suitable fit.

[Masakan]

What principle?
Idk it's just...wouldn't it just be easier to let people take flaws in this case?

[Kantolin]

So if you were using Training rules or Quest based Feats rules then learning from your armor would be a suitable fit.

It sounds more like 'Wearing the armour should autoteach you the skill'. Which certainly would make sense in this example case - if wearing the armour gave me a firm comprehension of Calc 2, then I should end up retaining that - and the underlying building blocks of the armour wouldn't be necessary as I'd just kind of /have/ it.

...but that would be notably more powerful (Hey Mr. Armoursmith, can I /borrow/ your armour for a couple weeks? I'll give it back I swear, I'm a Paladin and trustworthy and will give you 'the price of the armour' as collateral, you can keep 1/4 of it when I return it) to the point where it's probably imbalancing, heh. So I dunno if that example is too helpful! :smallsmile:

[elonin]

At the moment they get enough XP to level up, the character either has a requirement for a feat or they don't. I see no good from creating a house rule here whereby you need additional qualifications. I don't even think it's worthwhile if there's a similar rule forbidding spellcasters from making use of temporary boosts for their spells. Following the RAW here already has the downside mentioned: the risk of losing use of the feat if their nonpermanent qualification goes away.

Wouldn't the better analog be using your stat boost item to figure how many bonus spells you get to prep? And if that item is lost or the magic is suspended you loose those slots? I don't really see the harm as long as the player knows the risk and factors in the change when they loose access to the requirement. Personally i've used an item based feat once and that was to qualify for a prestige class that was sub par anyway.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't the better analog be using your stat boost item to figure how many bonus spells you get to prep?
That was what I referred to (in part); that's one of the things a temporary boost to an ability score will do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Idk it's just...wouldn't it just be easier to let people take flaws in this case?

Flaws have almost no opportunity cost. Unless you carefully monitor the use of flaws, players will take flaws whose penalties are completely inconsequential to the character and get what amounts to free feats.

This is why DM's who allow flaws typically limit the number allowed. They're a way of giving free feats without giving away free feats unless you force the player to choose a flaw that actually matters to the character.

If I was choosing between gear granted feats allow qualifying and flaws, I'd choose the former every time, from either side of the screen.

Something for nothing just rubs me the wrong way and flaws feel like something for nothing.

[Masakan]

Flaws have almost no opportunity cost. Unless you carefully monitor the use of flaws, players will take flaws whose penalties are completely inconsequential to the character and get what amounts to free feats.

This is why DM's who allow flaws typically limit the number allowed. They're a way of giving free feats without giving away free feats unless you force the player to choose a flaw that actually matters to the character.

If I was choosing between gear granted feats allow qualifying and flaws, I'd choose the former every time, from either side of the screen.

Something for nothing just rubs me the wrong way and flaws feel like something for nothing.
I tend to only take flaws from unearthed arcana, and even then when I do I take those I know I'll have to fight against.

[Curmudgeon]

This is why DM's who allow flaws typically limit the number allowed. They're a way of giving free feats without giving away free feats unless you force the player to choose a flaw that actually matters to the character.
...
Something for nothing just rubs me the wrong way and flaws feel like something for nothing.
The rules limit you to a maximum of 2 flaws already. As a DM, I'll make sure that at least some encounters address the vulnerabilities that flaws create. A spellcaster who chooses Noncombatant may end up in narrow tunnels facing enemies with high touch AC due to casting Scintillating Scales. A melee specialist with Shaky will find themselves subject to ranged attacks at considerable distance. I'm not a big fan of something for nothing.

On the other hand, D&D has literally thousands of feats to pick from yet only a handful of feats can be chosen over the life of a character. Being able to select more feats gives greater individuality to a character, so they're not just a Swift Hunter. This makes me a proponent of flaws. So I guess I'm a fan of something not for nothing, but for fairly low cost. Given that most feats are underwhelming (with half of them being required prerequisites rather than anything a reasonable player would choose), I think that's equitable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I tend to only take flaws from unearthed arcana, and even then when I do I take those I know I'll have to fight against.

So far as I know, the only other sources of flaws are a couple issues of dragon and dragon magazine items are generally only allowed on a case by case at most tables, as I understand it.

It's nice that you choose to handicap yourself for the extra feat but unless your DM makes you, you don't have to and not many do. To borrow Curmudgeon's example, how much drawback is non-combatant to a wizard who need never roll an attack roll after level 5.


The rules limit you to a maximum of 2 flaws already. As a DM, I'll make sure that at least some encounters address the vulnerabilities that flaws create. A spellcaster who chooses Noncombatant may end up in narrow tunnels facing enemies with high touch AC due to casting Scintillating Scales. A melee specialist with Shaky will find themselves subject to ranged attacks at considerable distance. I'm not a big fan of something for nothing.

On the other hand, D&D has literally thousands of feats to pick from yet only a handful of feats can be chosen over the life of a character. Being able to select more feats gives greater individuality to a character, so they're not just a Swift Hunter. This makes me a proponent of flaws. So I guess I'm a fan of something not for nothing, but for fairly low cost. Given that most feats are underwhelming (with half of them being required prerequisites rather than anything a reasonable player would choose), I think that's equitable.

Given that there are -thousands- of feats and that they are not equal, it's only natural that the vast majority of them will never see use at any given table. You can force flaws to matter every once in a while but most of the time it's just free feats.

I did forget about two being the suggested limit though.

Personally, I don't really see two feats making a huge difference in a fully realized character and they're an influence that rapidly diminishes unless you just blow them on more prerequisite feats.

I just don't like 'em. Even just changing the feat progression to one at every odd level strikes me as a better option than including flaws and it get's a slightly more powerful net effect ultimately.

[DarkSonic1337]

The real thing that makes flaws great is not just that they give 2 free feats though. Pathfinder already gives you 10 feats over 3.5's 7 and I would STILL prefer flaws.

What makes flaws so valuable is that they give you 2 feats AT LEVEL 1. For some builds this means coming online as much as 6 levels earlier. That's HUGE.

I think it would be great if all characters just got 3 feats at level 1 in pathfinder instead of spreading them out for 20 levels. 3 extra feats SOUNDS like a large increase, until you take snapshots at various levels and find yourself only 1 feat ahead at level 7.

[Curmudgeon]

What makes flaws so valuable is that they give you 2 feats AT LEVEL 1. For some builds this means coming online as much as 6 levels earlier. That's HUGE.
Without flaws some builds are simply impossible. There are lots of feats that can only be selected at character level 1. Wanting more than one of those, with one being a race-specific [Regional] feat that precludes Human and Strongheart Halfling, just doesn't work without an extra level 1 feat.

[Solaris]

I knew it. In theory it sounds like a good idea, bu in actual practice a good DM wouldn't just ignore it.

That depends on your definition of a 'Good DM'.
I'm not in the habit of going out of my way to take advantage of a PC's design when I can get so much more mileage out of playing to their strengths and still force them to bring their A game to survive by virtue of greater system mastery and the DM's innate advantages. I mean, really, how often do you find yourself disabling or destroying someone's equipment? I've never done it in seventeen years of gaming. It's the sort of thing that could very easily ruin a game (especially if the destruction is permanent) and lacks the satisfaction of a hard-fought victory.

[Ravens_cry]

It's balance to be sure. On one hand, yes, it's good to invoke those flaws at least occasionally, otherwise they might as well be free feats, but constantly needling on them is just mean spirited. It's really just not fun to never play to your strengths. One can be forgiven for asking "What's the point in making a character a certain way, if the DM is going to twist the world so I can never play it how I intended?"

[The Insanity]

I'm planning on allowing my players to take as many flaws as they like, but first I need to find a good source for flaws that actually matter and are flavorful.

[noob]

I would allow for enchantments to take feats if they are sentient and gain levels(the wrongest possible interpretation of the title).

[Deadline]

I allow it. I also follow the CW rules on losing a prerequisite.

And before anyone asks, custom magic items are approved on a case by case basis.

To date, I've never had a player decide to take advantage of it, even though I clearly have better things to do than try and deprive PCs of their items/abilities. Dispel Magic to remove buffs is a common tactic of smart NPCs in my games, but that's about the extent of it.

[Sagetim]

Flaws have almost no opportunity cost. Unless you carefully monitor the use of flaws, players will take flaws whose penalties are completely inconsequential to the character and get what amounts to free feats.

This is why DM's who allow flaws typically limit the number allowed. They're a way of giving free feats without giving away free feats unless you force the player to choose a flaw that actually matters to the character.

If I was choosing between gear granted feats allow qualifying and flaws, I'd choose the former every time, from either side of the screen.

Something for nothing just rubs me the wrong way and flaws feel like something for nothing.

Well, sometimes. And then sometimes there's those people who take flaws for the entire purpose of building a combat focused super murder hobo. And then when they repeatedly fail at non combat encounters or are forced to do anything other then combat they start having problems. Not helped by dumping their charisma and usually other mental stats for More Dakka.

And if you think a wizard never needs to roll an attack roll after level 5, then I have to counter with: what, are your wizards cats? sleep for 23 hours a day, eat and cast spells for the remaining one? Though that does sound like an ideal for the wizards at the Unseen University...

Anyway, I would let enchantments qualify for feats, but would also give players a heads up that I generally consider an area dispel to affect their combat gear too (not bags of holding, because nobody needs that kind of mess, and I figure players would find ways to exploit that. Like filling bags of holding with cats and using the rogue to sneak them up to the BBEG, then dropping an area dispel on them to make exploding bags of angry cats to maul the poor bastard to death). So, you know, if someone drops an area dispel on them, their gear could wind up supressed for 1d4 rounds too. And if that could mean losing their feat for that time.

I would probably also allow players who have regular access to buff effects to use those to qualify as well. The player would need to realize that if they use their rage strength to qualify for awesome blow they still need to rage to use it, but I don't see that as being a big problem. At least not a 'we killed the evilest man in the world by crushing him under a pile of kittens' problem.

In the same vein, if players have item based capabilities the first guys they face aren't going to know that by looking at them. Most probably won't, even. But when the players make a big enough ass out of themselves, Someone is bound to take the time and effort to study them and their capabilities and plan to counter that. They might even guess wrong at the source of player abilities, depending on said nemesis' own capabilities. But that gets into 'how rare are the abilities the players are employing' and a whole rambling ramble of rambling that I don't think I need to drop on this thread.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm planning on allowing my players to take as many flaws as they like, but first I need to find a good source for flaws that actually matter and are flavorful.
There are plenty of flaws in Dragon magazine issues #324-#329 & #333. I like Divine Gesture from Dragon #326, to give your divine spellcasters the equivalent of ASF. Also No Time For Book Learning from Dragon #324, which makes the character forever illiterate. These are flaws with real consequences.

[squiggit]

I allow it and I've never seen a DM not allow this. I didn't even know it was even remotely controversial.

[cfalcon]

I generally wouldn't allow it. The combinations with this seem very hard to predict, and I don't like that, and the other big deal is that item destruction or theft now is taking away feats. I would make exceptions if the feat in question relies on something that is feasibly "practice required"- for instance, if a feat requires a fly speed, but doesn't specify that practicing with overland flight or some flight item, I would definitely reconsider. It just seems even more rule to remember for no amount of normal gain.

In practice, this hasn't come up at my table.

[Solaris]

There are plenty of flaws in Dragon magazine issues #324-#329 & #333. I like Divine Gesture from Dragon #326, to give your divine spellcasters the equivalent of ASF. Also No Time For Book Learning from Dragon #324, which makes the character forever illiterate. These are flaws with real consequences.

I also rather like some of the paladin flaws (which aren't just for paladins, mind) presented in Dragon 324 when I'm making a fighty-type character.

I took Chivalrous Courtesy on a recent (male) character I made. Turns out, first adventure is us heading into a drow city to cause mayhem avert a war. The results have been... interesting.

[Seto]

I allow it. What's more dubious is "can I take Combat Expertise if someone casts Fox's Cunning on me when I go up a level ?". Because you can't expect it to have any sort of permanency. But even then I'd probably allow it. First because I'm a DM who likes to give players easy access to the mechanical things they want (sometimes too easily maybe), and second because I think an approach like "you can take any feat, but you only gain the benefits when you qualify for it" generally makes sense.

[Curmudgeon]

What's more dubious is "can I take Combat Expertise if someone casts Fox's Cunning on me when I go up a level ?".
The most "dubious" part about this is that it requires advance warning from the DM that they're going to award enough XP to bump you a level. Because without that warning, there's no possibility of prep time (getting someone to cast Fox's Cunning on you); level advancement happens immediately when the XP is received.

[ericgrau]

The DM's I've played with I think allow permanent magic items to qualify but not buffs. I just assumed this was the natural way to do it.

If you want to be strict RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites) you could get a feat as long as you have a buff up the same round that you level and take the feat. But since leveling up and gaining a feat may actually involve training, experience (in terms of the non-game definition) and so forth per the DMG, you could argue that you must have the prerequisite for the entire time that the training method takes place, whatever that might be.

This is why you should go with the FAQ answer that says items let you qualify. The FAQ is written by the game designers and while FAQ isn't RAW and at rare times the designers even forget their own rules, you aren't RAW either, you are usually a worse source than them, and no your interpretation of RAW isn't RAW either. Because for any statement beyond having the pre-req at the time you take the feat (by whatever means that might be), all of that is interpretation of RAW not RAW.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, sometimes. And then sometimes there's those people who take flaws for the entire purpose of building a combat focused super murder hobo. And then when they repeatedly fail at non combat encounters or are forced to do anything other then combat they start having problems. Not helped by dumping their charisma and usually other mental stats for More Dakka.

Some do go to extremes but that doesn't really change the fact that flaws can, and often do, have negligible opportunity costs.


And if you think a wizard never needs to roll an attack roll after level 5, then I have to counter with: what, are your wizards cats? sleep for 23 hours a day, eat and cast spells for the remaining one? Though that does sound like an ideal for the wizards at the Unseen University...

Hardly, but between AoE's, targeted spells, ally buffing, and battlefield control; they've got better things to do than roll a piddly attack roll against a single enemy, whether it be plinking from his crossbow, firing off a ray or *shudder* trying to deliver a melee touch spell (gods only know where that grimy blackguard has been :smallyuk:).

[cfalcon]

level advancement happens immediately when the XP is received.

Pretty sure nothing mandates that. XP is often delivered at the end of a session or when the characters have downtime to train. Page 197 of the 3.5 DMG gives guidelines for how to level, how long it might take, etc. How level advancement happens is up to the DM, above and beyond the fact that everything is up to the DM. Assuredly, no rule ever states that it's BAMF-DING like WoW, and no game I've played in or run has had that.

[Selion]

My point is: you can take whatever feat you like, but you are not using it unless you meet the prerequisites.

EXAMPLE:
You want to take awesome blow (pathfinder, monster feat), which requires size large and str 25. You can use it under an enlarge person spell (if tou reach 25 strenght).

Obviously if i like the feat and it fits perfectly with the character concept i allow it without requirements

[Curmudgeon]

Pretty sure nothing mandates that.
And I'm absolutely sure the rules do mandate it, because I'll cite them for you. The DM decides when they award XP, but when that happens there's no time for the PC to do anything else before they put the XP to use.

When your character’s XP total reaches at least the minimum XP needed for a new character level (see Table 3–2), he or she “goes up a level.”
There are 3 alternatives to going up a level. The requirement in every case is that you have to do so immediately.
A character cannot spend so much XP on an item that he or she loses a level. However, upon gaining enough XP to attain a new level, he or she can immediately expend XP on creating an item rather than keeping the XP to advance a level.

You cannot spend so much XP that you lose a level, so you cannot cast the spell unless you have enough XP to spare. However, you may, on gaining enough XP to achieve a new level, immediately spend the XP on casting the spell rather than keeping it to advance a level.
Each time a character's level adjustment is eligible to be reduced, the character may pay an XP cost to take advantage of the reduction. The character must pay an amount of XP equal to (his current ECL -1) × 1,000. This amount is immediately deducted from the character's XP total. There's just no way to actually delay using that XP when you're above the minimum required to advance to the next level. You either immediately spend the XP in one of the above three ways, or you go up a level right then.

[cfalcon]

The bottom three are rules for spending XP. "Immediately" there means, you decide when the XP is awarded as to whether you will level or spend the XP. It doesn't say you cast the spell right away- it says you spend the XP right away.

The top quote is often misunderstood, likely because it's snipped away from all clarifying statements.

Here's the text:


Your character earns XP by defeating monsters and other opponents. The DM assigns XP to the characters at the end of each adventure based on what they have accomplished. Characters accumulate XP from one adventure to another. When a character earns enough XP, he or she attains a new character level (see Table: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits).

And the DMG clarifies how to handle leveling, with various training rules available as I stated before. It's clear that these these actions are campaign events, and arguing that they should be subject to round/level type buffs is on thin ice. The character doesn't know when he has earned enough XP- the modeling is never meant to be that precise.

Directly underneath:

Advancing a Level: When your character's XP total reaches at least the minimum XP needed for a new character level (see Table: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits), he or she "goes up a level." (ed: snipping Tordek example and statement that you can't go up two levels at once)

Training and Practice: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can't practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points.

The training rules aren't hardcoded into the game, but they are present at all points. The moment when a character receives XP is some nebulous point at the end of an adventure, and not some explicit moment in time that could be capitalized on by a character who has somehow read the PHB :P