Newest Official FAQ says PrC abilities are lost if prereqs are lost

[RedMage125]

So...I recently came across the current Wizards link with the most updated errata and official FAQs from the developers.

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2295/

Now, a lot of people on these boards like to insist that the ruling found in the Compete Warrior and Complete Arcane regarding loss of Prestige Class benefits when prerequisites change only applies to the prestige classes found in those books.

The FAQ, dated March 14 2008, says the following:
What happens when an assassin becomes non-evil?
A character who no longer meets the requirements of his
prestige class not only can’t advance any further in that class,
but he also “loses the benefit of any class features or other
special abilities granted by the class.” (Complete Warrior 16)
You retain Hit Dice (and the hit points derived from), base
attack bonus, and base save bonuses granted by the prestige
class.
The rules don’t specifically list skill points (and class
skills) as falling into either category; the Sage recommends that
the character retain these functions even if he no longer meets
the class requirements.
So your repentant assassin would lose his sneak attack,
death attack, poison use, save bonus against poison, uncanny
dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and hide in plain sight class
features, as well as his assassin spellcasting and any weapon
and armor proficiencies gained from the class. He’d keep the
skill ranks he bought with his assassin levels, as well as the hit
points, base attack, and base save bonuses gained from those
class levels. He also couldn’t gain any more assassin levels
until his alignment returned to evil (at which point he’d also
regain the various features he lost when his alignment changed
to non-evil).

Thoughts?

[Grod_The_Giant]

A lot of people on these boards deny that the FAQ has any actual rules authority.

[Ruethgar]

It should be noted that, especially in these forms, the FAQ answers are rarely considered actual rules and for most RAW discussions are inadmissible as evidence. They may have a RAI claim, but considering the increased rate of inconsistencies in the FAQ compared to elsewhere and that they have no actual rules bearing, apart from carrying the weight of how one WotC employee thinks the rules should work, or were meant to work, I would not put much weight in a FAQ answer.

However, that being said, and ninja'ed much more concisely, I would likely go with a FAQ-like ruling in my games. Something to the effect of "Until you qualify for X again it's abilities are unusable." Be it feat, class, item, or other option.

[Uncle Pine]

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/deadhorse_2182.jpg

[OldTrees1]

Thoughts:
From a game design perspective, I consider it inelegant to allow prerequisites to be lost without losing the benefits those prerequisites were granting. However to have elegant design, one needs to avoid self disqualifying prerequisites like Dragon Disciple's type requirement. So were I the DM or the game designer, I would rewrite in favor of the Complete Warrior ruling (by correcting self disqualifying prerequisites). However I recognize that all corrections of WotC's failings count as houserules rather than as RAW.

[Troacctid]

If you believe the Complete Warrior rules apply to every book, you also have to believe that they were superseded by the more recent rules in Complete Arcane.

[Willie the Duck]

I remember ~12 years ago on the Wizards boards watching a fecal hurricane of a thread about shield bashing as a primary attack (I don't remember about 3.5, but in 3.0, the rulebook only covered shield bashing as an off-hand twf action. WotC decided that that was just the assumed use, not the only way. Also that explaining that was a rules clarification, not a rules change, and addressed it in FAQ, not errata). One commenter lividly declared that WotC was abrogating their responsibility of honoring their declared intention of including rules changes in errata, not faq. He was roundly criticized as pretending to know more about WotC's intentions regarding their own product than they did.

Frankly, both sides were right. Occasionally, they have not been perfect about delineating rules and rules precedence. On the other hand, does that mean that following the logical conclusion of, say, what exists without the ruling, simply because it is in the wrong place is somehow a more "right" interpretation? That's really a value judgment, and one upon which reasonable people can disagree. I feel that it's an inherent limit on trying to define a single, perfectly reconciled "official" ruleset made by human (and thus imperfect) governing body, which quite frankly has different priorities than we do (I'm sure if they were still supporting 3.5, WotC's response would be something along the lines of, 'seriously? This is what you're exacerbating about?').

I guess I'm saying that, while attempting to define a RAW isn't a foolish ideal, it is an ideal, one that runs into contradiction and frailty at times.

I would use the CW and CA rulings, and call them RAI, but not pretend that I have a monopoly on the one true RAW interpretation.

[Fouredged Sword]

What is more interesting, and adds another wrinkle to this mess, is that the rules shift as your DM gains access to more books. You can play a game SRD only, but that will be a very different game than one you play with frostburn added in. The rules layer on top one another.

The end result is that your DM needs to be the one making the call about what rules take precedent over others because there ARE contradictions even within RAW. Adding in the FAQ piles even more complexity. The FAQ is a resource, not a reference. Consider it's statements, don't take them for gospel.

[John Longarrow]

Always remember Rule 0. Check with your DM.

Often the DM will make a decision based on how their world works. If an Assassin becomes good, what abilities would their changing alignment affect? Your DM may say that the sneak attack damaged is based on 'an inherently evil method their new alignment would preclude'. Or they could say 'Works just like a rogue, so you keep it'.

Even with the FAQ, DMs can and do make judgement calls based on how THEIR game world works.

[RedMage125]

I just wanted to see how people responded to an Official response from WotC that flouted their much-vaunted claim about how only CW and CAr PrCs need to hold onto the prereqs or lose the class.

What's also great is that so many of these Official Answers come from Dragon Magazine AFTER Andy Collins (who was a WotC employee, not a Paizo one, and creator of 3e) took over the Sage Advice. There was a period of time during the 3.5e era when Dragon/Dungeon magazine content was deemed "Official". I don't remember the issue number, but it was the same one where the font went from all fancy and swirly to block letters. From that point on, all the magazine content was "Official". I happened to be at GenCon when that was announced. The Paizo people were pretty excited. And after that point, the FAQs in Sage Advice became Official as well. A number of the questions in the FAQ which can be found in the link in the OP are from that time.

I think pretending that no book has the "authority" to override the PHB is disingenuous. If it's published by WotC under the D&D brand it has as much authority as any other product. Take, for example, Swift Actions and Quickened Spells. The PHB and its errata still call a Quickened Spell a Free Action. I'm not sure if the Premium Edition PHB (which was supposed to include all errata and updates) fixes that or not.

Some people cite the "Primary Source" ruling as justification that nothing can override the PHB. Which is in direct conflict with the "most recently published" rule, which states that the most recent publication of a conflicting rule is the correct one.

[Fouredged Sword]

Some people cite the "Primary Source" ruling as justification that nothing can override the PHB. Which is in direct conflict with the "most recently published" rule, which states that the most recent publication of a conflicting rule is the correct one.

The "most recently published" rule is about publications of a set book. A later run of the PHB has edited wording to alter some stuff to match errata. You are supposed to keep up with errata and go by the latest published version of each book.

[MilleniaAntares]

I would say that alignment-based changes tend to merely affect supernatural or (divine) spell(-like) abilities, as they tend to come with the approval of a particular deity/code/alignment.

Extraordinary abilities in my view would only be alignment-based when they're extreme (like if you have an evil-based super-torture extraordinary ability, which would not be something a neutral or good person would generally have the stomach for), or would be restricted based on certain particular requirements similar to "what happens if you have Power Attack and then your strength is brought below 13?".

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah... many people consider the FAQ to be one person's house rules. The bit about PrCs causes problems with the Dragon Disciple (requirement lists any nondragon, capstone... makes you a dragon), Ur-Priest (it's a divine casting PrC that requires you not have divine casting), and probably a few others.

It also causes some very strange things, like the Blackguard who gets hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement suddenly forgetting how to use poison safely (the required feats all require Str 13).

I find of particular note the difference in the DMG 3.0 PrC header and the DMG 3.5 PrC header. The 3.5 PrC header is almost word-for-word the same as the 3.0 PrC header... minus the bit about losing requirements. Compete Warrior and Complete Arcane put the 3.0 version back... practically word for word... but were also some of the earlier 3.5 books to come out, and both have a number of things that are clearly editing errors.

I'm personally of the opinion that the way it should work is as follows:
If you voluntarily relinquish a requirement (such as retraining a required feat or skill ranks) then you lose most the PrC benefits.
If it's forced from you (such as the blackguard and the Ray of Enfeeblement) then you don't, but can't progress in the class until you get it back.
In the case of PrCs where the natural progression of the PrC makes you lose the requirements do not make one lose PrC benefits (such as the Dragon Disciple's capstone).

[RedMage125]

The "most recently published" rule is about publications of a set book. A later run of the PHB has edited wording to alter some stuff to match errata. You are supposed to keep up with errata and go by the latest published version of each book.
No, it isn't.

It's also for any and all conflicting game elements.

If a spell appears in both the Complete Arcane (November 2004) and in the Spell Compendium (December 2005), the SC one is considered the "correct" version, if there are any discrepancies. This also hold true for the Forgotten Realms spells published in that book, albeit under slightly different names (page 5 tells you which names the spell used to be called).


Yeah... many people consider the FAQ to be one person's house rules. The bit about PrCs causes problems with the Dragon Disciple (requirement lists any nondragon, capstone... makes you a dragon), Ur-Priest (it's a divine casting PrC that requires you not have divine casting), and probably a few others.

Abilities GRANTED by a PrC that are required to not be possessed prior to taking it obviously must be an exception, otherwise, that logic gets ridiculous and leads you to things like a lich never being able to exist (since once a creature is made into an undead creature BY the template, they are no longer eligible FOR the template, which must be applied to "a living creature").


It also causes some very strange things, like the Blackguard who gets hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement suddenly forgetting how to use poison safely (the required feats all require Str 13).
As per the rules regarding feat prerequisites, a Blackguard who gets his STR reduced by RoE may no longer USE the Power Attack feat, but that doesn't mean he no longer HAS the feat (which would disqualify him for the PrC).

[Nifft]

loss of Prestige Class benefits when prerequisites change

I play that feat and PrC prereqs must remain for the benefits to remain, except where that would not make any sense (e.g. Dragon Disciple).

However, I play this way based on my judgement and authority as a DM, not because of anything to do with the FAQ.

[Blackhawk748]

I think its dumb. An Assassin becomes Good so he suddenly forgets how to Sneak Attack? Thats idiotic. Obvioulsy he can no longer advance but he shouldnt lose what he already got. Obviously exceptions to this apply.

Mostly thats my stance on losing Alignment pre reqs, everything else gets its own solution.

[Chronos]

While both Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane have rules to this effect, they have different rules. If those rules have any scope beyond their respective books, then we have to decide which of the two rules applies to any other prestige class, and, most unhelpfully, the Sage doesn't address this.

[RedMage125]

Having trouble finding what, in the Complete Arcane, is different from the Complete Warrior's blurb. Do you have a page number?

[Anlashok]

FAQ answers are often a pinch nonsensical or contradictory in what they end up declaring.

Plus if we take that FAQ as the rule, a bunch of PrCs just stop working properly.

And to top it all off, it doesn't make a lot of sense from a versimilitudinal perspective for a good number of PrCs.


So yeah, when we have a ruling from a source known to be unreliable that causes parts of the game to break and doesn't make much sense I'm pretty comfortable ignoring it.

[atemu1234]

FAQ answers are often a pinch nonsensical or contradictory in what they end up declaring.

Plus if we take that FAQ as the rule, a bunch of PrCs just stop working properly.

And to top it all off, it doesn't make a lot of sense from a versimilitudinal perspective for a good number of PrCs.


So yeah, when we have a ruling from a source known to be unreliable that causes parts of the game to break and doesn't make much sense I'm pretty comfortable ignoring it.

As DM, I ignore FAQ. As a player, I deal with the DM's choice on the matter. As a rules lawyer, I ignore it usually.

[mabriss lethe]

As a DM, I will consult the FAQ if I'm looking for an additional perspective on a given subject, but there isn't any iron clad reason to follow it blindly. As a player, I'll be looking to my DM to decide how he wants the game to go, so it's pretty useless to me on that regard. When building a thought exercise, I generally ignore it, because it's often inconsistent.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Abilities GRANTED by a PrC that are required to not be possessed prior to taking it obviously must be an exception, otherwise, that logic gets ridiculous and leads you to things like a lich never being able to exist (since once a creature is made into an undead creature BY the template, they are no longer eligible FOR the template, which must be applied to "a living creature").

Either the FAQ is official and these are not an exception and thus horridly dysfunctional or the FAQ is not official and we get to the rules that the DMG (and most other books) use.

Also the rules we have on rules never mention the FAQ. Can you find somewhere that mentions the FAQ as rules?