Subjective answers only please: how do PrC requirements work?

[rrwoods]

RAW need not apply.

I've heard all the arguments for all the different variations on this from a RAW perspective multiple times. I'll say it again: RAW need not apply.

In case it wasn't clear enough already: I am looking for answers about how actual DMs run their games.

How do you guys handle prestige class requirements after the first level of the prestige class?
A) doesn't matter after 1st
B) must meet requirements for taking levels
C) must meet requirements to keep abilities
D) b and c
E) some other strange thing I haven't listed here

[avr]

B) would be my assumption, though I wouldn't rule out that some PrCs are exceptions.

[Jormengand]

You need to keep passing any prerequisites that are continuous (For example, killing someone with the sole intention of joining the assassins is something you only really do once, or a set number of times at least, rather than being in a constant state of doing, so you just have to do it once), but abilities that you get from the class that would negate your features don't. Dragon disciples are off the hook, for example.

[Ashtagon]

The way I play it...

You must continuously meet any PrC requirements to maintain the PrC abilities. Failure to do so means that you lose all spellcasting granted by the class, and all abilities listed in the Special column of the class table, until such a time as you once more meet the requirements for a continuous 24-hour period. You retain HD, hp, and save bonuses only.

I also rule that in order to meet the requirements (either to qualify initially or to regain the abilities after a 'fall'), you must be able to satisfy them continuously for 24 hours. I do not require atonement after this kind of fall.

Special exception: Class features (most usually capstone abilities) that would cause the character fail to meet the prerequisites grant all their usual benefits and penalties, except that they do not cause the character to 'fall'. However, if that ability was also granted by something other than that specific PrC's class feature, it would cause a fall. (tldr version: You can't lose your class features as a result of the features of the class itself.)

I guess this counts as D in your list, but with a 24-hour limiter.

Edit: I tend to house rule alignments heavily, to the extent that they are more "deity X's gang" rather than "people with a certain mindset". As such, alignment-based PrC prerequisites tend to fall by the wayside, and vary a lot in how they are handled depending on the specifics of the PrC.

[nedz]

D, with the following additional house-rule
PrCs never self disqualify you from that specific PrC.

[Spore]

F) It depends. No really.

A prestige class is a very personal thing (in the game world at last) and the general fluff ranges from "member of elite organization" to "just another class to portray the abilities of said character better". Two examples: A fallen Cleric/Wizard taking Mystic Theurge is barred from taking other levels of MT until he regains his divine casting ability. (He would be allowed to delay his levelup or take a level of wizard that he later retrains as MT however as I don't want ingame occurences to make certain builds infeasible). An Assassin that ceases to be evil doesnt automatically loose all of its abilities. They still KNOW how to kill. And they can still levelup as an Assassin in my eyes. They just have to accept that they simply cannot kill everyone on sight just because we just start initiative.

That being said, I'd allow good or neutral assassins as well because allowing good rogues to kill goblins by the dozen but disallowing someone go actually get good in infiltration and taking out the general of an opposing nation is somehow evil (even though it could save the lives of thousands of soldiers). They'd much rather be neutral because it is a certain kind of remorselessness needed (you could actually diplomance the general, albeit that would be a very ... difficult task).

[Quertus]

I use option D. The reason doubtless being blind adherence to RAW. The reason for that is a belief that the elegance of a game (rules set) is in how few house rules it requires.

Yes, you presumably have to house rule that prestige classes don't self disqualify, but there is a qualitative difference between a house rule that creates / modifies / destroys content, and one that only corrects errors / dysfunctions in the rules. Saying wizards get full BAB but have to roll to hit with all their spells, or going core only, is a different class of house rule than a ruling on self disqualifying prestige classes, or saying an expanding Daern's instant fortress does not deal 10d10 points of dawizard, whatever that might mean.

That having been said, I see no reason why you should have to continue to qualify for most prestige classes to continue to advance in them. After all, you are not required to have access to magic / the weave to advance as a wizard, nor are you required to have a magic item to practice with in order to advance UMD, so why should prestige classes be any different?

[Necroticplague]

D, houseruling the small handful of self-disqualifying classes. I prefer to make as minor houserules as possible, and try to go by the rules, so that it's fairer to all the players. Houserules are for fixing things that, in a computer, would cause compilation errors.

[Cosi]

A. The DMG defines PrCs as requiring you to meet the prerequisites to take the first level, with zero mention about other levels. I could see houseruling the CWar PrCs to follow D, but I value overall consistency more than the argument that things actually work the way CWar says they do.

[Beheld]

A) You have to meet pre-reqs to take level 1 in the class. Once you are a level 1 X, you can take levels 2-14 (I think I recall a PrC with 14 levels?) without caring, because you are already and X. In either case you retain all abilities of the PrC whether you take more levels or don't, and whether you meet requirements or don't.

Technically, that might not apply to organizational PrCs like Mage of the Arcane Order, where one of your major abilities is access to the Order Wide spellpool, if you abandon the organization, it might effect your abilities.

But then again, I'm also willing to grant almost any PrC at whatever level it becomes acceptable to have (which can mean long after you meet the pre-reqs, if you are using early entry Rainbow Servant, or well before, if it's a PrC that requires level 10 to start taking levels, chances are it won't be a problem if you start taking them at 6 instead) ignoring a bunch of pre-reqs, especially feat pre-reqs, which almost always are completely bull**** tacked on nonsense.

EDIT: I do so love that people take the opportunity of a thread that specifically asked them not to talk about RAW to blatantly try to restate their opinions about the RAW as fact.

[Alex12]

D, with shades of E
Most obvious change is that a PrC cannot disqualify you from itself, no matter what.
In terms of organizations and alignment requirements, that's flexible, on a "talk to me" basis. If you want to be a lawful good Assassin, I'm okay with that. If you want a PrC that requires some kind of organization, I'll work with you on that. In fact, that "talk to me" basis applies to really anything. If you've got a really cool combination, talk with me and we'll see what we can come up with.
I also generally don't allow items to qualify you for PrCs (unless the PrC specifies that you need X item as opposed to X ability, or is built around having X item). Most notable offender is the Ring of Evasion- that by itself doesn't allow you entry into PrCs that require you to have evasion.

[Amphetryon]

I generally run B, with the houserule that a PrC can't disqualify itself.

I'm looking through the responses and trying to see which ones were presented as 'this is the RAW' rather than 'this is how it goes at my gaming table.'

[Cosi]

EDIT: I do so love that people take the opportunity of a thread that specifically asked them not to talk about RAW to blatantly try to restate their opinions about the RAW as fact.

I'm looking through the responses and trying to see which ones were presented as 'this is the RAW' rather than 'this is how it goes at my gaming table.'

I don't know that this is a legitimate complaint. Most people probably rule this based on what they think is RAW, so you're going to see a lot of answers in the form of "I do X, because X is RAW".

[Beheld]

I don't know that this is a legitimate complaint. Most people probably rule this based on what they think is RAW, so you're going to see a lot of answers in the form of "I do X, because X is RAW".

I'm not sure it's a complaint, but since the thread doesn't even ask why people do it the way they do it, and is specifically says RAW need not apply, to see the exact same people from the RAW thread show up and immediately tell everyone what the RAW is highly entertaining to me.


I'm looking through the responses and trying to see which ones were presented as 'this is the RAW' rather than 'this is how it goes at my gaming table.'

Yeah, these don't look anything like people making allegations about RAW at all:


I use option D. The reason doubtless being blind adherence to RAW.

D. I prefer to make as minor houserules as possible, and try to go by the rules, so that it's fairer to all the players.

A. The DMG defines PrCs as requiring you to meet the prerequisites to take the first level, with zero mention about other levels. I could see houseruling the CWar PrCs to follow D.

[Necroticplague]

I'm not sure it's a complaint, but since the thread doesn't even ask why people do it the way they do it, and is specifically says RAW need not apply, to see the exact same people from the RAW thread show up and immediately tell everyone what the RAW is highly entertaining to me.



Yeah, these don't look anything like people making allegations about RAW at all:

To be fair, for the question "how do you run this in your games", "as I believe the rules to be" is a pretty valid answer.

[Kish]

D, with a note that no prestige class is self-disqualifying.

[Hiro Quester]

Fluff and fun matter a lot. If the Player can come up with a good story-based reason why a requirement needs an exception, and the RAW requirement would be overly onerous or make the PrC unplayable (and it seems like it would be fun for everyone to have the player take the PrC), then sure.

It seems reasonable to allow an exception, either for entry, or for keeping the PrC when the requirements are no longer met, if the exception isn't huge, fits the story, and would be fun.

E.g. if a wildshaping PC (Druid, Ranger, MMF) wanted to take a PrC that required large size, and they spent most of their time in wildshape as large size, this would be fine. They are not officially a large creature, but they effectively always play as one. I would treat it like a Feat for which they only sometimes meet the prerequisites. So, if they used up all their wildshape uses for the day and had to spend the rest of the day as medium creature, they would also lose the benefits of that PrC until they were large again. I would not require being large for 24 hours before they got the PrC back.


2nd Edit: And I'd say they could continue taking levels, as long as they usually spend most of the day in large size wildshape form.

And sometimes following the requirements RAW for the first level of the PrC would fail this criterion. Eg: a bard10/sublime chord2/Bardy Prc5 wants to add a level of Abjurant Champion. AC requires combat casting, but the Bard has taken melodic casting, which does effectively the same basic thing (but better: rarther than +4 to concentration when casting in combat, you get to make a perform check instead, which most bards can seriously optimize better than a wizard optimizes concentration). Forcing the PC to take or retrain the feat for combat casting, rather than recognizing that melodic casting is equivalent, would be overly onerous.

Edite: I guess this means I'd take E.

[OldTrees1]

I've heard all the arguments for all the different variations on this from a RAW perspective multiple times. I'll say it again: RAW need not apply.

In case it wasn't clear enough already: I am looking for answers about how actual DMs run their games.

How do you guys handle prestige class requirements after the first level of the prestige class?

My default position is: E
Character builds cannot have screwy causality. You cannot remove a prerequisite (this extends to and covers retraining cheese). This of course causes me to rewrite some prerequisites (like Dragon Disciple's type requirement).

However I also strongly believe in the DM working with the player. If someone wanted to use Warhulk to create the Hulk(apply to toggle the PrC) rather than to create a brute, then I think about it and usually allow it.

[Quertus]

EDIT: I do so love that people take the opportunity of a thread that specifically asked them not to talk about RAW to blatantly try to restate their opinions about the RAW as fact.


In case it wasn't clear enough already: I am looking for answers about how actual DMs run their games.

Sure, "I do X" is the most literal answer to the OP's question; "I do X because Y; if not for Y, Z seems valid" seems as valid a response as, "I used to do X, then Y; now I do Z".

Speaking of which... Many stories involve meteoric jumps in the characters' station. As such, I see little reason to prohibit someone from taking levels in an organization specific prestige class for an organization to which they do not belong.

Looked at from another angle, why should a character's build suffer just because the narrative demands that they have not encountered the organization they desire to join yet?

[Nifft]

E)

Retraining exists. Many types of things may be retrained. However, if you have used a thing for the purpose of qualifying for another thing, you may NOT retrain away the foundation. That goes for all the things: PrCs, feats, spells, whatever. You may not remove foundational prerequisites unless you also remove the thing that needed the prereqs.

BUT. Through the course of your adventures, you may be mutated / augmented / transformed / enhanced in one or more unspecified way(s). These change(s) -- which may have resulted from circumstances beyond your control -- may technically invalidate your PrC (or other thing), but they will be handled on a case-by-case basis such that the spirit of your choices remain consistent. The player needs to approve this sort of thing (not the PC).

Self-disqualifying PrCs are clearly intended to work, and the player who takes one wants it to work, so they fall under the second paragraph: your character is not disqualified.

[Cosi]

If we're talking about how we think it should be, rather than how we'd actually rule it (which is probably a more productive use of this thread), I would actually go E and drop any prerequisites short of level. The vast majority of prerequisites are either things you are going to get anyway (i.e. the Incantatrix requiring a metamagic feat), or random stupid stuff that WotC threw in just because (i.e. every organization or race prerequisite ever). Also, there are some PrCs that randomly screw people for normally optimal build choices (i.e. Malconvoker requires Spell Focus (conjuration) and Augment Summoning, which serves only to bone people who got Augment Summoning for free somewhere).

[HammeredWharf]

D and E) I look through each PRC and try to think of the RAI way of how it works. Generally speaking, I don't allow for qualification based on items or other temporary benefits, while the fluff can be shaped to fit the campaign or character. For example, a PRC that is fluffed as a member of Harpers might belong to another similar organization or be an agent gone rogue, betrayed by another member of their organization. I also frown upon various early entry tricks and other gimmicky ways to enter PRCs.

[MisterKaws]

I just do things like this:


Alignment doesn't matter unless in exceptional cases(paladin et al). Same for races.
Failure to meet the pre-requisites for a class you have takes all special abilities away until you have the necessary pre-requisites once again.
A feature that is prohibited by a class but at the same time granted by it doesn't make you lose any ability(Dragon Adept).

[Beheld]

Failure to meet the pre-requisites for a class you have takes all special abilities away until you have the necessary pre-requisites once again.

I just want one person to tell me what actual goal they are accomplishing with this? Like, who actually thinks "Niener Neiner your god hates you now, you can't cast spells" is a good mechanic?

Why add that mechanic to Wizards and Rogues and Barbarians, and broaden it for Clerics by also saying that you lose class features for those classes too?

I mean, we know the downside, it literally renders some classes non-functional and drastically restricts otherwise perfectly acceptable multiclassing. What possible benefit do you think you are gaining from this?

[Necroticplague]

I just want one person to tell me what actual goal they are accomplishing with this? Like, who actually thinks "Niener Neiner your god hates you now, you can't cast spells" is a good mechanic?

Do you think you should be able to keep Beholder Mage abilities if you stop being a beholder? Illithid Savant abilities if you're no longer an illithid? Because that's the alternative if you let people keep abilities they don't qualify for anymore: temporarily qualifying for something, then ditching it, avoiding the loss of rescources that's supposed to balance the material.

Meanwhile, it also creates some interesting interactions, since you can control when you qualify, such as using this rule in conjuction with Warhulk. It creates a choice where you have to weigh the advantages of something against the cost of losing out on PRC abilities.

[Quertus]

I just want one person to tell me what actual goal they are accomplishing with this? Like, who actually thinks "Niener Neiner your god hates you now, you can't cast spells" is a good mechanic?

Why add that mechanic to Wizards and Rogues and Barbarians, and broaden it for Clerics by also saying that you lose class features for those classes too?

I mean, we know the downside, it literally renders some classes non-functional and drastically restricts otherwise perfectly acceptable multiclassing. What possible benefit do you think you are gaining from this?

IMO, the problem is with the prerequisites. If they made as much sense as, you need a battery in your remote in order to control your remote control car, we probably wouldn't be having these discussions - nobody would ever rule that the remote should work without the battery, and everyone would easily see that if you took the battery out, the remote would stop working.

Instead, we have disjointed feat / skill / alignment / BAB / casting / etc requirements, some of which themselves have irrational requirements.

So, one possible answer is, that it is done to maintain the illusion that D&D prerequisites make any sense, to retain that consistency / suspension of disbelief.

[Ashtagon]

I just want one person to tell me what actual goal they are accomplishing with this? Like, who actually thinks "Niener Neiner your god hates you now, you can't cast spells" is a good mechanic?

Why add that mechanic to Wizards and Rogues and Barbarians, and broaden it for Clerics by also saying that you lose class features for those classes too?

I mean, we know the downside, it literally renders some classes non-functional and drastically restricts otherwise perfectly acceptable multiclassing. What possible benefit do you think you are gaining from this?

For me, this serves two functions:

1 - it stops players from "qualifying" for a prestige class by borrowing a wand of I can cast prerequisite spell or having a friendly mage cast enlarge at level-up time. Basically, to avoid cheesy ways of qualifying.

2 - It makes sure players don't retrain in such a way that their character build no longer makes sense.

You pretty much have to go out of your way to make a character who would ever actually lose PrC features with my house rules.

[Beheld]

For me, this serves two functions:

1 - it stops players from "qualifying" for a prestige class by borrowing a wand of I can cast prerequisite spell or having a friendly mage cast enlarge at level-up time. Basically, to avoid cheesy ways of qualifying.

2 - It makes sure players don't retrain in such a way that their character build no longer makes sense.

You pretty much have to go out of your way to make a character who would ever actually lose PrC features with my house rules.

1) Since wands don't allow you to cast spells, and I've never seen a size based pre-req that I would keep, this seems extremely unhelpful to me.
2) Except you know, if they change alignment at all at any point. I mean yeah, technically that's "going out of your way" but it's also important to many characters and stories.


So, one possible answer is, that it is done to maintain the illusion that D&D prerequisites make any sense, to retain that consistency / suspension of disbelief.

While I agree with you that one possible answer is "we do it to lie to players" that seems like a singularly bad reason. How about just start not lying to players and tossing aside nonsense-prereqs?


Do you think you should be able to keep Beholder Mage abilities if you stop being a beholder? Illithid Savant abilities if you're no longer an illithid? Because that's the alternative if you let people keep abilities they don't qualify for anymore: temporarily qualifying for something, then ditching it, avoiding the loss of rescources that's supposed to balance the material.

Yes, I think that Beholders that cast Polymorph should not instantly lose all the levels they took in a spellcasting class. Same for Illithids.

Did you mean "What about people who polymorph into Beholders!" Great, Polymorph Any Object Cast Twice still exists, so you can still just not take any of the XP penalties from being a Beholder, and still have your level 1 Elan Rogue polymorph into a Beholder and take 10 levels in Beholder Mage by level 11. Which is still broken.

So yeah, your not preventing anyone from taking monster PrCs at lower levels than the PrCs are balanced for, and you are also making it so that Beholder Mages can't use Polymorph to disguise themselves, or Illithid Savants use Change Shape to disguise themself.

Again, what do you think you are actually accomplishing?

[Necroticplague]

Again, what do you think you are actually accomplishing?

I answered this in the second part of my post you so wonderfully ignored: making the game more involved by increasing choices. It means you now have to weigh options against each other: now whowever's playing that Illithid Savant has to weigh the protection from transforming against the usefulness of their class features. That warhulk has to contemplate the extra STR vs. skills at time other than character creation. That beholder has to consider whether the stronger form is worth losing their spell-slinging abilities.

[Ashtagon]

1) Since wands don't allow you to cast spells, and I've never seen a size based pre-req that I would keep, this seems extremely unhelpful to me.

Wands are just one item among many that grant a character an ability. Quite aside from the fact that there are many people who would say if you can UMD hard enough you can gain the ability to cast the spell, many other items exist that grant an ability that is a PrC prerequisite. Forcing a 24-hour continuous ownership of the ability just ensures you don't end up with item shenanigans.


2) Except you know, if they change alignment at all at any point. I mean yeah, technically that's "going out of your way" but it's also important to many characters and stories.

Alignments, as I noted in my post upthread, are an area that I have house-ruled to oblivion in any case. About the only way that alignments continue to make sense at all is as markers of which deity you follow. Most alignment-based prestige class restrictions restriction that are not based on an in-world religion have gone away. And if your character build involves renouncing your deity, I think I'm okay with having any special abilities granted by that deity going away.

[Beheld]

Wands are just one item among many that grant a character an ability. Quite aside from the fact that there are many people who would say if you can UMD hard enough you can gain the ability to cast the spell, many other items exist that grant an ability that is a PrC prerequisite. Forcing a 24-hour continuous ownership of the ability just ensures you don't end up with item shenanigans.

Yeah... Wands don't allow you to cast spells, no matter how hard you UMD. Rings give you evasion though. So I guess, in summary "I hate Fochlucan Lyricists." Fair enough, if you hate Fochlucan Lyricists, and that's the only reason you have that rule, more power to you.


Alignments, as I noted in my post upthread, are an area that I have house-ruled to oblivion in any case. About the only way that alignments continue to make sense at all is as markers of which deity you follow. Most alignment-based prestige class restrictions restriction that are not based on an in-world religion have gone away. And if your character build involves renouncing your deity, I think I'm okay with having any special abilities granted by that deity going away.

As you didn't note upthread. I'm not sorry that I don't go back and read 5 hour old posts every time someone posts a new thing in case they wanted to edit their 5 hour old post to address a point that was made 20 minutes ago.


I answered this in the second part of my post you so wonderfully ignored: making the game more involved by increasing choices. It means you now have to weigh options against each other: now whowever's playing that Illithid Savant has to weigh the protection from transforming against the usefulness of their class features. That warhulk has to contemplate the extra STR vs. skills at time other than character creation. That beholder has to consider whether the stronger form is worth losing their spell-slinging abilities.

So Beholder and Illithids never change form and no one ever takes War Hulk levels if they care about skills? Yeah... pretending that people are going to turn their levels into humanoid levels or worse is a joke, no one will ever do that. That's not an interesting choice any more than it's an interesting choice to be able to lower your immunity to death effects when someone casts Finger of Death.

You are literally positing that the Beholder loses the spellcasting that cast the spell that caused him to lose the spellcasting, and that the Illithid loses the ability to change shape that allowed him to change shape to lose his ability to change shape.

That first one is just dumb and so it will never happen, but that second one is literally just you creating another Dragon Disciple.

[Ashtagon]

As you didn't note upthread. I'm not sorry that I don't go back and read 5 hour old posts every time someone posts a new thing in case they wanted to edit their 5 hour old post to address a point that was made 20 minutes ago.

The edit to add alignments was made about 20 minutes after the original post. The most recent edit was a spelling correction. Sorry you were confused by that.

[Kantolin]

I go for A, with a heavy asterisk that the goal of my game is entertainment in general. (So A with a hint of E?)

So if a PC wants to do something, I'm most likely to ask 'why', and if the result would increase entertainment without putting them way out of line of the other PCs, I'll probably say sure. And maybe hash out some more details - I rather like 'Dwarven defender is for dwarves only', but if you want to get in as a half-orc there's a lot of ways that could go! (Raised by dwarves, stole the techniques, maybe it's not as special as the dwarves thought, divine intervention, yadda).

So meh. I've had people be in classes where 'you must be large in order to yadda' that at first only worked when they temporarily enlarged themselves (and then eventually they could just do it regardless), and I've had people tweak around the entry requirements as appropriate.

I've also had people break rules, though, in which I sit down with the player and try to ask what they want. (Sometimes what they want is 'to break the game', sadly, but other times we can work something out!)

[Necroticplague]

So Beholder and Illithids never change form and no one ever takes War Hulk levels if they care about skills?

Evil, ego-filled creatures convinced of their own superiority only take on the shapes of others in the most dire of circumstances? That sounds about right.
As for Illithid Savants: An Illithid Savant's class features are only in effect when he has brains to eat, at other times, he's free to take on forms when he's not chowing down (since all their abilities are about acquiring things by eating brains).
Although, I'm note sure where the Warhulk comment comes from. This ruling allows for characters who care about skills to take Warhulk levels without tanking them, since they can turn it off by simply shrinking (thus losing No Time to Think). This is to contrary with "if you ever qualified, always have it" rule, which would permenently bone your skills if you even dipped warhulk.


Yeah... pretending that people are going to turn their levels into humanoid levels or worse is a joke, no one will ever do that. That's not an interesting choice any more than it's an interesting choice to be able to lower your immunity to death effects when someone casts Finger of Death. They will if the alternative is enticing. A Warhulk might be willing to give up some STR to be able to use most of its skills againl. A Beholder might be willing to sacrifice it's spellcasting to wade into melee or acquire a useful immunity (say, plane shifted into NEP).


You are literally positing that the Beholder loses the spellcasting that cast the spell that caused him to lose the spellcasting, and that the Illithid loses the ability to change shape that allowed him to change shape to lose his ability to change shape.

That first one is just dumb and so it will never happen, but that second one is literally just you creating another Dragon Disciple.
So, power that you derive, at least in part, from converting your natural supernatural abilities into raw arcane power (converting to spellstocks, gauging antimagic eye out), is cut off when you no longer have access to said supernatural abilities (losing eyestalks and AM eye via polymorph)? That sounds pretty reasonable.
Likewise, your part about Illithid Savant is just false. The Illithid Savant class features are simply the ability to acquire things by eating brains. That's what you lose access to. You don't lose access to the things you already gained (because those aren't illithid savant class features).

[Kraken]

E

I generally just ignore requirements altogether. If this will result in a character gaining abilities that make me uncomfortable as a DM, whether because of their relative power in the party or my ability to create encounters, I'll just tell them they can't do something.

[BWR]

B.
Theoretically D but keeping track of what things you are qualified for and what abilities you lose with what debuffs is a recordkeeping headache, so we just ignore it. Long term alterations that are not taken care of ASAP are a different story.

[dhasenan]

Do you think you should be able to keep Beholder Mage abilities if you stop being a beholder?

Actually, I've been thinking about beholder mages recently.

Beholder mages sacrifice their central eye in a ritual. This gives them a huge boost to learning magic. It also removes the antimagic field ability.

From a narrative perspective, I could go either way on whether the fast learning part would still apply to a beholder mage polymorphed into a human. From a balance perspective, if a Beholder Mage was balanced for a campaign, I'd probably say that the boost to learning magic was adhered to their soul, not to their body. Otherwise they'd be so far behind their companions in a few levels that they'd be useless.

Beholder Mages also cast spells from their eyestalks directly, and they cast as sorcerers. Each eyestalk is dedicated to spells of one level. If you're polymorphed into a human, you don't have eyestalks. I'd say you have to prepare spells, and that that requires a Knowledge (Arcana) check each time -- possibly each spell, depending on how advantageous it is to be human.

Now, if someone finagled their way into Beholder Mage via Polymorph or the like, and they tried to grab a level in it, then polymorph back and continue the campaign in human form, I'd probably disallow it entirely. Something like: you don't know the ritual yet, and it requires your form to be settled, so spend a solid year as a beholder and go on a quest to learn the ritual first.

[Deadline]

D, with the following additional house-rule
PrCs never self disqualify you from that specific PrC.

This is how I run my games.

[Hecuba]

In general, either b or c or both.

There are some things, like Mage of the Arcane Order's spellpool, that should blatantly go away if you can't continue qualifying. This ability represents an ongoing relationship with a specific group.

For other membership based prerecs, however, I might be more inclined to simply limit further advancement: losing membership in the Paragnostic Assembly, for example, does not make you forget what they taught you.

There are also some prerec feats that would seem to be necessary steppingstones to some class abilities: a Blade Bravo losing weapon finesse seems like it should be a big deal to me.

[Deophaun]

F) It depends. No really.
^^ This.

It also depends on what the player wants the character to do, and the power of the prestige class. Rule of Cool can completely negate prereqs, and a lower tier class has a greater chance of ignoring feat tax requirements than a higher tier.

[Quertus]

So Beholder and Illithids never change form and no one ever takes War Hulk levels if they care about skills? Yeah... pretending that people are going to turn their levels into humanoid levels or worse is a joke, no one will ever do that. That's not an interesting choice any more than it's an interesting choice to be able to lower your immunity to death effects when someone casts Finger of Death.

You are literally positing that the Beholder loses the spellcasting that cast the spell that caused him to lose the spellcasting, and that the Illithid loses the ability to change shape that allowed him to change shape to lose his ability to change shape.

That first one is just dumb and so it will never happen, but that second one is literally just you creating another Dragon Disciple.

While a beholder mage is Polymorphed, it is unable to cast spells through its eye stalks? Sounds reasonable. Sorcerers who Polymorph into worms cannot cast with their hands or voices - why should beholder mages be special in that regard? Yes, spell casting can take away your spell casting - this is nothing new.

An Illithid savant who steals a druid's animal form class feature... creates a dysfunction, just like Dragon disciple. Agreed. Perhaps one house rule covers them both: a prestige class's class feature cannot disqualify you from that prestige class. Since "spellcasting" is a class feature, you may need to specify a non-spellcasting class feature.

[Troacctid]

This issue has never come up in any game I've run or played in. I've seen prerequisites waived, but I've never seen a player disqualify themselves from a prestige class after taking levels in it.

[Beheld]

While a beholder mage is Polymorphed, it is unable to cast spells through its eye stalks? Sounds reasonable. Sorcerers who Polymorph into worms cannot cast with their hands or voices - why should beholder mages be special in that regard? Yes, spell casting can take away your spell casting - this is nothing new.

Except that's not losing class features, that's losing from your changed form, in both cases. I still see zero benefit to this idea that people should be denied PrCs for not meeting arbitrary pre-reqs.


An Illithid savant who steals a druid's animal form class feature... creates a dysfunction, just like Dragon disciple. Agreed. Perhaps one house rule covers them both: a prestige class's class feature cannot disqualify you from that prestige class. Since "spellcasting" is a class feature, you may need to specify a non-spellcasting class feature.

Why make a houserule to deprive class features and then make another houserule to give them back when there is no good reason to ever take features away?

[Telok]

I ended up having an 'official' document about PrCs for my games.

PrC Theory
Many PrCs are linked to various organizations in fluff or in the "Special" line of the class requirements. Indeed the original concept of prestige classes was as a set of special skills taught to the character by a mentor or organization. Characters with one and two level dips in multiple prestige classes annoy me, but I'm not going to ban them. There are, sometimes, instances where having only a level or two in a prestige class is appropriate and flavorful to the character. I have no problem with that. Most of the time dipping prestige classes is a blatant power grab, yet I will still allow it. It's just that if you join the army in order to learn how to drive tanks and then go AWOL, the army is going to be a bit annoyed with you.

Structured hierarchies: These PrC organizations work like the military or a corporate company. The higher ups give orders, the lower ranks obey. You get to go from lower to higher ranks by being a good trooper, working for the organization, and sometimes butt-kissing or special privileges. Dipping: When you join a company to learn it's trade secrets and then go off a use those secrets for your own profit then they do not like you. If you stay far away and hide yourself then you'll probably get away with it, otherwise expect them to harass or hunt you.

Cults and gangs: I could have called this something like 'loosely structured groups with thematic links' but cults and gangs works. These are groups that are organized like cults and gangs, each set is focused around a single charismatic individual or a small group of such people and they rule over an informal organization of small to moderate size. The leaders usually directly participate in group activities and train their favorites while older, veteran, members recruit and train new members. Each group generally has relations with similar or competing groups in the local area. Through these links, alliances, and rivalries they can communicate and learn with other similar groups further away. Dipping: The reaction to being abandoned by the PC will vary from group to group depending on circumstances. But remember, these groups are typically led by charismatic people with great drive and ambition (and megalomania too, in the best cases). The character came in, did the initiation and learned the secret handshake, and then dumped them. Leaders like that tend to take such actions as a personal insult. The cult/gang may be limited in reach or have difficulty tracking the PC outside their home territory, but you can be sure that they'll remember your name if they ever hear it again.

Individuals of excellence: This isn't really an organization, it is more a description of the interpersonal links among an elite group. One way to think about this is the non-team international competitive sports. Training is typically one-on-one with a mentor who is a veteran of the sport. People who are active in high-level sport generally know who is on top, who is new and promising, what the rivalries and friendships are, and how to (generally) get in contact with other high-level members. If nothing else they are likely to meet each other at those events that are important to members. Dipping: Mentoring someone is a personal relationship that usually involves a good deal of trust. Ditching your mentor, or dissing him when he asks if you want to continue your training, is a really good way to make an enemy. A powerful and deeply personal sort of enemy. An enemy with friends, and enemies.

Some prestige classes don't lend themselves to organizations, or even even student/mentor relationships *cough* Frenzied Berserker *cough*.

What follows is a very small list of examples.

Structured hierarchies: Ruby Knight Vindicator, Paragnostic Apostle, Blackguard.

Cults and gangs: Eternal Blade, Assassin, Halfling Outrider.

Individuals of excellence: BloodStorm Blade, Jade Phoenix Mage, War Mind.

Disorganized: Bloodclaw Master, Pyrokineticist, Dragon Disciple.

Also of note is the following official rule in my games:
Dodge, Endurance, Toughness, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, Point Blank Shot, Skill Focus, and Run are no longer prerequsites for anything.

Combat Expertise is not limited to +/-5, it is limited to the character's base attack bonus.

Some feats may stack even if the description does not specify that they do (DM discretion). Examples include Greater Heavy Armor Optimization, Second Wind, Tomb Born Fortitude, Improved Initative, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Sudden Silent Spell, Greater Resiliency, Deflect Arrows, Improved Favored Enemy, Dodge, Endurance, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude.

[DarkSonic1337]

You know what bothers me? That people keep defaulting to the Complete Warrior rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs, and not looking at the Complete Arcane rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs. The latter at least lets you keep your spellcasting, which may be HOW you met the prereqs and is something I find perfectly acceptable.

[Psyren]

D, with the following additional house-rule
PrCs never self disqualify you from that specific PrC.


D, houseruling the small handful of self-disqualifying classes. I prefer to make as minor houserules as possible, and try to go by the rules, so that it's fairer to all the players. Houserules are for fixing things that, in a computer, would cause compilation errors.


D, with a note that no prestige class is self-disqualifying.


This is how I run my games.

Adding another vote to D + self-disqualifying houserule.

[OldTrees1]

I just want one person to tell me what actual goal they are accomplishing with this? Like, who actually thinks "Niener Neiner your god hates you now, you can't cast spells" is a good mechanic?

Why add that mechanic to Wizards and Rogues and Barbarians, and broaden it for Clerics by also saying that you lose class features for those classes too?

I mean, we know the downside, it literally renders some classes non-functional and drastically restricts otherwise perfectly acceptable multiclassing. What possible benefit do you think you are gaining from this?

"Niener Neiner" is not a good mechanic regardless of follows. I presume your question extends beyond that strawman.

"I my power is granted by Being X" is a theme that many have/do/will desire when making their characters. This necessitates Being X existing as a being. A consequence of existing with the ability to grant is the ability to cease granting.

So yes, I want my cleric's divinely granted power to come with all the benefits and consequences of the cleric/granted-deity/granter relationship.

Obviously this only makes sense for granted/granter classes. Learned classes like Weapon Master should not be able to lose their prerequisites or their class features.


You know what bothers me? That people keep defaulting to the Complete Warrior rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs, and not looking at the Complete Arcane rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs. The latter at least lets you keep your spellcasting, which may be HOW you met the prereqs and is something I find perfectly acceptable.

Personally I don't like the warped causality of entering a casting required & casting granting class and then retraining away the casting you used to enter the class. Is this warped causality what you were referring to in your last sentence?

[Ashtagon]

You know what bothers me? That people keep defaulting to the Complete Warrior rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs, and not looking at the Complete Arcane rules for making people lose abilities when they don't meet PrC prereqs.

I'm kinda okay with saying if warriors can't have nice things, wizards can't either.


The latter at least lets you keep your spellcasting, which may be HOW you met the prereqs and is something I find perfectly acceptable.

If you're meeting a PrC prerequisite because of something the PrC itself is granting you, to me that's cheese.

If you're meeting a PrC prerequisite by casting a spell, to me that's cheese.

[Cosi]

What exactly is the point of overriding the DMG rules on prerequisites (which are functional) to the Complete Warrior rules on prerequisites (which are not), only to houserule away the case that come up 99% of the time? If you wanted people to not lose class features because the PrC disqualifies them, you should have just used the rules where that is true.

This is the dumbest dysfunction in the history of dumb dysfunctions.

[Ashtagon]

What exactly is the point of overriding the DMG rules on prerequisites (which are functional) to the Complete Warrior rules on prerequisites (which are not), only to houserule away the case that come up 99% of the time? If you wanted people to not lose class features because the PrC disqualifies them, you should have just used the rules where that is true.

This is the dumbest dysfunction in the history of dumb dysfunctions.

The DMG wasn't written to take into account that people tend to aim for maximum cheese. That's reason enough to houserule them.

fwiw, my houserules on this issue don't match up with CW or CAr. ymmv.

[Cosi]

The DMG wasn't written to take into account that people tend to aim for maximum cheese. That's reason enough to houserule them.

Using PrC disqualification tricks is almost literally the smallest cheese in the game. What is any player ever going to get out of that which is even half as dangerous as simply casting planar binding or dominate monster? Not looping orr stacking them, just casting them once to get a single minion.

[Necroticplague]

What exactly is the point of overriding the DMG rules on prerequisites (which are functional) to the Complete Warrior rules on prerequisites (which are not), only to houserule away the case that come up 99% of the time? If you wanted people to not lose class features because the PrC disqualifies them, you should have just used the rules where that is true.

To cover a hole in the rules. the DMG is silent on what happens if you fail to qualify. CWar and CArc don't. To say more would be to violate the OP's request to not get into RAW arguments here.

Also, I don't think self-disqualifying PRCs come up that frequently, definitely not 99% of the time. And I actually want people to lose the class features they don't qualify for (for reasons stated previously). The houserule is used when we get schrodinger 'this class disqualifies you for itself' cases, most notably, the Dragon Disciple. I don't houserule against other cases of losing your class features.

[Psyren]

What exactly is the point of overriding the DMG rules on prerequisites (which are functional) to the Complete Warrior rules on prerequisites (which are not), only to houserule away the case that come up 99% of the time? If you wanted people to not lose class features because the PrC disqualifies them, you should have just used the rules where that is true.

This is the dumbest dysfunction in the history of dumb dysfunctions.

99% of the time, to use your percentage, the player who achieves X to enter the PrC is going to keep X. A Thaumaturgist for instance is probably going to keep Spell Focus (Conjuration) - for Augment Summoning if nothing else - and is probably going to be able to cast Planar Ally throughout their career.

This will only interfere with the ones that achieve X just to qualify and then toss it, and I'm okay with disenfranchising those folks.

[Hecuba]

Using PrC disqualification tricks is almost literally the smallest cheese in the game. What is any player ever going to get out of that which is even half as dangerous as simply casting planar binding or dominate monster? Not looping orr stacking them, just casting them once to get a single minion.

Cheesy-ness and broken-ness are not the same thing. Something can be broken and still follow the letter and spirit of the rules.

Cheese, as I generally understand it, involves meeting the letter of the rules but ignoring the understood spirit behind them. It has the same general tone as disfunctional RAW adherence: appropriate as a deliberate mental exercise in specific forums, but generally crass in actual play.

[Cosi]

Also, I don't think self-disqualifying PRCs come up that frequently, definitely not 99% of the time.

I meant that as 99% of the time people lose the prerequisites for a PrC they have, it's because the PrC is self-disqualifying.


This will only interfere with the ones that achieve X just to qualify and then toss it, and I'm okay with disenfranchising those folks.

You mean like the Gnome Shadowcraft Mage who dies, then gets brought back with reincarnate and turns into an Elf? Because yah, screw that guy. Seriously, if you don't want people to do something, just talk with your group about not doing that. Don't pick increasingly bizarre combinations of RAW and houserules that result in what you want being the one true way.

Also, it's not about being okay with disenfranchising X group, it's about ruling against one part of RAW and then immediately houseruling in favor of that issue. That only makes things more confusing for no gain.


Cheesy-ness and broken-ness are not the same thing. Something can be broken and still follow the letter and spirit of the rules.

In every conversation I have had about D&D, cheesy has be used interchangeably with broken. The phrase you're thinking of is "rules lawyer", or more provocatively "RAWtard".

[Psyren]

You mean like the Gnome Shadowcraft Mage who dies, then gets brought back with reincarnate and turns into an Elf? Because yah, screw that guy.

Please, there's no need for melodrama. Races of Stone pg. 121 provides an adaptation for non-gnomes to take it just fine - and besides, how common is reincarnation in most games anyway?



Also, it's not about being okay with disenfranchising X group, it's about ruling against one part of RAW and then immediately houseruling in favor of that issue. That only makes things more confusing for no gain.

It's not confusing at all, requirements are requirements. It's very straightforward. The PrCs that self-disqualify are a minority and easily handled ad-hoc.

[Beheld]

To cover a hole in the rules. the DMG is silent on what happens if you fail to qualify. CWar and CArc don't. To say more would be to violate the OP's request to not get into RAW arguments here.

He specifically asked what the point of it is, not for you to restate your RAW arguments.


Also, I don't think self-disqualifying PRCs come up that frequently, definitely not 99% of the time. And I actually want people to lose the class features they don't qualify for (for reasons stated previously). The houserule is used when we get schrodinger 'this class disqualifies you for itself' cases, most notably, the Dragon Disciple. I don't houserule against other cases of losing your class features.

Name three classes you will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels because they fail to meet the pre-reqs. Because right off the top of my head, I think 99.999999% that not meeting the pre-reqs ever comes up is Ur-Priests, since Dragon Disciples are unplayable garbage and 99.999999999999999% of PCs can't possibly lose their pre-reqs.

I want to know what classes you are taking away class features from that you think is actually good for the game.

[Cosi]

Please, there's no need for melodrama. Races of Stone pg. 121 provides an adaptation for non-gnomes to take it just fine - and besides, how common is reincarnation in most games anyway?

I've never seen adaptations of various PrCs in any light other than "maybe you could houserule it this way if you wanted". If you really care, pick a PrC like Dwarven Defender that does not present such an alternative.

I can't speak to how common reincarnation is, but it does have unique uses. It is the lowest level resurrection spell in core, and it doesn't require a (whole) body.


It's not confusing at all, requirements are requirements.

It's confusing because there is a source, of arguably greater weight, which describes requirements as being needed only for the first level.

[Psyren]

I've never seen adaptations of various PrCs in any light other than "maybe you could houserule it this way if you wanted". If you really care, pick a PrC like Dwarven Defender that does not present such an alternative.

I can't speak to how common reincarnation is, but it does have unique uses. It is the lowest level resurrection spell in core, and it doesn't require a (whole) body.

"If you're not a dwarf you can't be a Dwarven Defender" doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. If it matters that much to you and the GM is enforcing that requirement, just keep reincarnating until you're a Dwarf again, or better yet don't use Reincarnate at all - it's only two levels below Raise Dead anyway.


It's confusing because there is a source, of arguably greater weight, which describes requirements as being needed only for the first level.

The premise of this thread is assuming you've considered that weight and ultimately made a decision. Mine, and others in this thread as I noted in my quotes, was interpretation D. For us at least, not that big a deal.

[Necroticplague]

He specifically asked what the point of it is, not for you to restate your RAW arguments. And when one tries to act as a neutral arbiter, they aren't entirely possible to disconnect. 'I do it because it's what I think the rules are, or what they would need to be to work'. The rules reason is mine own. Thus, my reluctance to expand further.



Name three classes you will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels because they fail to meet the pre-reqs. Because right off the top of my head, I think 99.999999% that not meeting the pre-reqs ever comes up is Ur-Priests, since Dragon Disciples are unplayable garbage and 99.999999999999999% of PCs can't possibly lose their pre-reqs.

I want to know what classes you are taking away class features from that you think is actually good for the game.Previous discussion is this thread has already provided three examples.

1.A beholder mage not in his own beholder form loses his abilities.
2. An illithid savant not in his illithid form loses all his Acquire X and Lore abilities.
3. Warhulk (either hit by a transformation, or else because they aren't always Large [i.e, lycanthropes, Mountain Rage goliaths, psywars with Expansion]).
Already mentioned how I think these ones are good for the game in previous posts.


In order to avoid anyone to have to suffer to no benefit, I'm fairly liberal about retraining.
Also, most classes are easy to lose the prereqs for. You can retrain or DCFS away feats that serve as prereqs, get debuffed so your stats don't meet minimums anymore (i.e, class requires improved grapple, get hit by a bunch of DEX poison). Or it could be a very simple case where you only relatively temporarily meet them in the first place, such as Warhulk (mentioned above), Frenzied Berserker (Power Attack used to qualify comes from Bite of the Werebear spell), or Ephemeral Exemplar (a ghost stops manifesting).

[Telonius]

E. I usually work on the basis of a few things: how permanent is the change, was the change deliberate on the part of the player, and is the source of the PrC's class coming from the character or from some other entity.

Permanent (or semi-permanent) changes disqualify you for a PrC whenever the change is made; you generally keep abilities that you already have (unless the rules specifically call out that you lose them, or as described below), but you can't advance in the PrC until the change is undone. Obviously temporary changes - like getting hit with enough Strength damage to drop your score to 12, in a build with a PrC that requires Power Attack - do not cause you to lose any features, because that's just too obnoxious to keep track of. If you happen to level up before you heal the damage, that's fine.

Was the change deliberate? Did the player decide to Chaos Shuffle away the feats that he needed (assuming I had a stroke and allowed Dark Chaos Shuffle), or did an enemy plop a Helm of Opposite Alignment on him? If the player is making a deliberate change that disqualifies himself, he can't advance. If it's something that isn't completely his fault (like the example of a Shadowcraft Mage being reincarnated as something other than a Gnome) I'd cut him some slack and allow him to advance.

What's the source of the power? This is usually most important for divine casters like Clerics and Paladins. Most characters will retain the abilities they already have, unless the rules specifically call them out to lose it. But if they're a divine caster (or get their power from "outside" somehow), and there is an alignment shift sufficient to cause the character to "fall," they lose all Su and Sp abilities granted by both the base class and the PrC, along with casting. The deity was the one granting the powers, and the deity can take them away if the character acts sufficiently counter to that alignment. If the character can find some other sponsoring entity to replace the original, they get all their goodies back, but this would usually involve some sort of significant side quest. If it were a Shining Blade of Hieroneus switching to Fharlanghn, or a Radiant Servant of Pelor switching to Kord, or something like that, I'd have to hash out with the player exactly what abilities changed to fit the new alignment.

(I should mention that I have some houserules for Paladins and Clerics. Both are tied to the deity, with Paladins needing to be the deity's alignment, and Clerics needing to be within one step of it. All codes of conduct - for both Clerics and Paladins - are explicit and determined before the first session).

EDIT: Also houseruled: most alignment restrictions for non-divine classes do not exist in my games. Lawful Bards are a thing. So are Chaotic Monks and Barbarians.

[elonin]

I'm curious how many people would rule that pc's can't slip out of prc requirements but would allow a pc to keep the abilities after an alignment shift (monk and barbarian etc). How much of this has to do with the power level of the prc? For example, the assassin class is one that I've heard more DM's being willing to waive the alignment requirement. I've also seen in real life and on these boards dm's limit the number of prc's which isn't strictly by the rules. I'm not arguing that it should be one way or another, just curious.

[Beheld]

Previous discussion is this thread has already provided three examples.

That is of course, completely incorrect. You presented specific situations that would never and could never occur, and then presented post hoc rationalizations that don't even follow.


1.A beholder mage not in his own beholder form loses his abilities.

No, you've never even played with Beholder Mage in any game ever. PCs cannot be allowed to have Beholder, Beholders are CR 13, Beholder Mage 1 is terrible and pointless, this is basically a CR 15 or more monster, and it's one of hundreds, and you have never had a Beholder cast Polymorph.


2. An illithid savant not in his illithid form loses all his Acquire X and Lore abilities.

No one has ever allowed an Illithid Savant to eat Brains for abilities ever in any game that ever gave even the tinniest of a **** about balance or power. This has all the problems of above, but even worse because the actual thing that makes this class worth taking at all is a pile of nonsense.


3. Warhulk (either hit by a transformation, or else because they aren't always Large [i.e, lycanthropes, Mountain Rage goliaths, psywars with Expansion]).
Already mentioned how I think these ones are good for the game in previous posts.

Maybe, but that's still one class, not three.


get debuffed so your stats don't meet minimums anymore (i.e, class requires improved grapple, get hit by a bunch of DEX poison).

You took Dex Damage, so now you lose your class! This is good gameplay and totally fun for everyone!

[OldTrees1]

I'm curious how many people would rule that pc's can't slip out of prc requirements but would allow a pc to keep the abilities after an alignment shift (monk and barbarian etc). How much of this has to do with the power level of the prc? For example, the assassin class is one that I've heard more DM's being willing to waive the alignment requirement. I've also seen in real life and on these boards dm's limit the number of prc's which isn't strictly by the rules. I'm not arguing that it should be one way or another, just curious.

Depends on the reason for the alignment restriction:
1) No reason -> Remove the prerequisite
2) Alignment meant to represent requirement for the organization to train you? -> Keep all abilities but might not be able to progress (default is no progression but the player is free to propose means/reasons otherwise). One could also ignore the prerequisite if taught by one such NPC but would be limited by the level that NPC reached.
3) Alignment is tied to the granter deeming you worth of the power they grant (god bestowed paladin prestige class on an ex paladin) -> Lose the granted abilities in a manner similar to Ex-Paladins. This requires having a good manner for handling Ex-Paladins that works for your group.

Summary: What alignment requirements? I see no alignment requirements.

[Psyren]

I view it as going beyond just a granter/grantee relationship - the prereqs can also represent a trained or instinctive mindset needed to maintain and advance the class. An Assassin for instance could need to be evil because the willingness to kill people for no reason other than being told to do so (by an employer, benefactor, whomever) is part of where their facility with their powers comes from. Similarly, a Shadowdancer could need Mobility, because that specialized training could help them instinctively access both the extraordinary and supernatural abilities that make the class work. A thief who loses Mobility would have trouble manifesting their shadow.

So you can justify both "can't advance further" and even "lose current powers" depending on how you interpret the class' training and abilities.

[OldTrees1]

I view it as going beyond just a granter/grantee relationship ...

So you can justify both "can't advance further" and even "lose current powers" depending on how you interpret the class' training and abilities.

Yes. Also it is important to note that since the thematic nature of the PC - PrC - PrC Features relationship is dependant on interpretation, different DMs/Groups could rule differently on the same PrC (like how Psyren and I would rule differently on Assassin).

[Necroticplague]

That is of course, completely incorrect. You presented specific situations that would never and could never occur, and then presented post hoc rationalizations that don't even follow. What rationalizations? I wasn't aware I had even posted those. I don't remember going on my speal about how Illithid Savant and Beholder mage both require the unique biology of their respective species to sensibly function.

No, you've never even played with Beholder Mage in any game ever. PCs cannot be allowed to have Beholder, Beholders are CR 13, Beholder Mage 1 is terrible and pointless, this is basically a CR 15 or more monster, and it's one of hundreds, and you have never had a Beholder cast Polymorph.

No one has ever allowed an Illithid Savant to eat Brains for abilities ever in any game that ever gave even the tinniest of a **** about balance or power. This has all the problems of above, but even worse because the actual thing that makes this class worth taking at all is a pile of nonsense.
Why do you assume my ban list is the same as yours?

Maybe, but that's still one class, not three.
Can you stop moving the goal posts? you asked for me to 'Name three classes you will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels because they fail to meet the pre-reqs'. I would take away the class features for those if they failed to meet them. I satisfy the condition you ask for.

However, if you insist on this, I'll rise:
I would take away the class abilities of an Incantatrix who DCFS'd away their Iron will, and I would take away the (largely redundant) class abilities of an Emaciated Spawn who got resurrected. If anyone thinks it's gonna be crippling, they're free to retrain in the downtime (and in the latter, I would heartily recommend it).

You took Dex Damage, so now you lose your class! This is good gameplay and totally fun for everyone!

A foreseen and very temporary consequence of a battle. Once the battles over, you'll heal up and go back to normal, get your class features back, and all will carry on. For that moment, you were unable to access your more specialized grappling ability because you no longer has the coordination to do it.

[Beheld]

Can you stop moving the goal posts? you asked for me to 'Name three classes you will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels because they fail to meet the pre-reqs'. I would take away the class features for those if they failed to meet them. I satisfy the condition you ask for.

No, you failed to satisfy the condition, because one of the conditions is "will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels." Since you won't ever take away the abilities of these classes, because they would have to deliberately decide to kill themselves with stupidity to give you the opportunity, even if you did allow those classes (which, let's be honest, you don't) you would still never take their abilities away in an actual game.


However, if you insist on this, I'll rise:
I would take away the class abilities of an Incantatrix who DCFS'd away their Iron will, and I would take away the (largely redundant) class abilities of an Emaciated Spawn who got resurrected. If anyone thinks it's gonna be crippling, they're free to retrain in the downtime (and in the latter, I would heartily recommend it).

Yes, I'm sure that the person who insists that Folchulan Lyricists can't use Rings of Evasion totally let's people play emancipated spawn and incantatrixes. But sure, it's nice to keep in mind that you still can't name a class you would ever actually take the abilities from in game, because you are now hypothizing a character with the most powerful and broken PrC in existence deliberately choosing by become a level 7-15 character who casts like a level 5 Wizard.

[Jack_Simth]

RAW need not apply.

I've heard all the arguments for all the different variations on this from a RAW perspective multiple times. I'll say it again: RAW need not apply.

In case it wasn't clear enough already: I am looking for answers about how actual DMs run their games.

How do you guys handle prestige class requirements after the first level of the prestige class?
A) doesn't matter after 1st
B) must meet requirements for taking levels
C) must meet requirements to keep abilities
D) b and c
E) some other strange thing I haven't listed here

My preferred method:
If a no-shenanigans PrC requirement is torn from you unwillingly, you can no longer advance in that PrC, but other than tightly thematically linked abilities to the lost requirement (which will include divine casting in the case of a gross alignment change), you don't lose current features. So if that Elf Arcane Archer gets Reincarnated as a dwarf, the new dwarf just can't proceed any further in the PrC.

If a PrC requirement is voluntarily relinquished (such as with retraining, the dark chaos shuffle, or otherwise), then I go full Complete Warrior rule on you. So that Ur-Priest that retrains Iron Will away loses all divine casting.

If a met-with shenanigans PrC requirement goes away (such as, say, someone using a Ring of Evasion to qualify for a PrC that requires Evasion), then I'm probably going to go Complete Warrior rule, if I allowed the shenanigans at all in the first place.

[OldTrees1]

No, you failed to satisfy the condition, because one of the conditions is "will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels." Since you won't ever take away the abilities of these classes, because they would have to deliberately decide to kill themselves with stupidity to give you the opportunity, even if you did allow those classes (which, let's be honest, you don't) you would still never take their abilities away in an actual game.



Yes, I'm sure that the person who insists that Folchulan Lyricists can't use Rings of Evasion totally let's people play emancipated spawn and incantatrixes. But sure, it's nice to keep in mind that you still can't name a class you would ever actually take the abilities from in game, because you are now hypothizing a character with the most powerful and broken PrC in existence deliberately choosing by become a level 7-15 character who casts like a level 5 Wizard.

If you are asking for 3 PrCs that people in his group would take, would disqualify themselves from, that he would remove the specials from, and knowing that the players would still voluntarily disqualify themselves from the classes?

Is that what goal post you are asking for (because if it is you needed/need to be clearer on that)?

It also would be a stupid goalpost since the whole point of disqualifying removing special features is that people are not going to disqualify themselves as a consequence of that rule existing.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

My preferred method:
If a no-shenanigans PrC requirement is torn from you unwillingly, you can no longer advance in that PrC, but other than tightly thematically linked abilities to the lost requirement (which will include divine casting in the case of a gross alignment change), you don't lose current features. So if that Elf Arcane Archer gets Reincarnated as a dwarf, the new dwarf just can't proceed any further in the PrC.

If a PrC requirement is voluntarily relinquished (such as with retraining, the dark chaos shuffle, or otherwise), then I go full Complete Warrior rule on you. So that Ur-Priest that retrains Iron Will away loses all divine casting.

If a met-with shenanigans PrC requirement goes away (such as, say, someone using a Ring of Evasion to qualify for a PrC that requires Evasion), then I'm probably going to go Complete Warrior rule, if I allowed the shenanigans at all in the first place.

I've had two of these examples in my games, actually, and have a houserule to address the last.

An Arcane Archer being reincarnated as a not-Elf - I chose to continue to allow the AA to advance. Arcane Archer doesn't rely on any physical traits of Elfiness in the way that, say, Beholder Mage or Illithid Savant does. And as a reincarnated character, the Arcane Archer is still mentally basically an Elf. So I had no issues continuing to allow him to advance there, despite no longer meeting the requirements. It is, however, an edge case, and interacts a bit with some of my houserules surrounding racial traits and Reincarnation. I'd also, FWIW, allow him to continue to advance after a PAO, but would not allow a Dwarf PC changed somehow into an Elf to take Arcane Archer (except I would because restricting it to Elves is dumb).

If the requirement is voluntarily relinquished through retraining or similar then I too apply the CW rule. I'd also apply it in the case of a PrC that relies on a physical characteristic that no longer exists. An Illithid Savant which no longer has its face-tentacles can't function as an Illithid Savant.

In the third case, my rule is generally that characters have to qualify for things naked. Items, spells or other gear don't count.

[Troacctid]

I would allow a transgender character to qualify for Beloved of Valarian, so I'd have no problem allowing a reincarnated elf to qualify for Arcane Archer.

[Psyren]

I would allow a transgender character to qualify for Beloved of Valarian, so I'd have no problem allowing a reincarnated elf to qualify for Arcane Archer.

Speaking personally - the change I'd make there is throwing out gendered PrC requirements, rather than throwing out PrC qualification rules in general. As far as I'm concerned, if you can have male witches then anything goes as far as gender is concerned.

Well, almost anything - There are some deities (notably Lolth) who prefer to enforce divides like that, but I think that kind of arbitrary discrimination fits their personalities anyway.

[Alex12]

I've had two of these examples in my games, actually, and have a houserule to address the last.

An Arcane Archer being reincarnated as a not-Elf - I chose to continue to allow the AA to advance. Arcane Archer doesn't rely on any physical traits of Elfiness in the way that, say, Beholder Mage or Illithid Savant does. And as a reincarnated character, the Arcane Archer is still mentally basically an Elf. So I had no issues continuing to allow him to advance there, despite no longer meeting the requirements. It is, however, an edge case, and interacts a bit with some of my houserules surrounding racial traits and Reincarnation. I'd also, FWIW, allow him to continue to advance after a PAO, but would not allow a Dwarf PC changed somehow into an Elf to take Arcane Archer (except I would because restricting it to Elves is dumb).

Would you allow, say, a Warforged or Goliath who met the non-race requirements to take levels in Dwarven Defender? Or Deepstone Sentinel?

[Psyren]

Would you allow, say, a Warforged or Goliath who met the non-race requirements to take levels in Dwarven Defender? Or Deepstone Sentinel?

This isn't directed at me, but I want to point out that Deepstone Sentinel has an adaptation that relaxes the racial requirements considerably, even opening it up to elves and changing the earth pillar ability to an entangle effect. At my tables, any WotC-suggested adaptation is fair game, minus only the very poorest/sparsest ones like Arcane Swordsage.

[Anlashok]

Generally D with the no-self-disqualifying houserule others have mentioned to prevent classes like DD and Ur-Priest from breaking themselves.

Though I also make exceptions like crazy for fluff reasons or gameplay reasons or whatever, both to accommodate players and for the dreaded "doesn't make sense".

The latter normally applies to nonmagical prestige classes that have ephemeral components to them. The examples I have are escaping me right now but I remember an instance with a nonmagical class that required a specific alignment and couldn't think of any real justification why you'd lose those Ex abilities if your alignment changed so I waived that.

[rrwoods]

Surprising amount of option D in this thread, I honestly didn't expect it. I also didn't expect three pages of varied responses, wow O_o

Thanks for the responses guys!

[Crake]

I run with B, and of course ignore classes that self disqualify.

Anyone who runs with C must hate their players, because good luck to anyone playing a PrC that requires power attack who has their strength damaged/drained below 13. Not only do your attacks suck right now, but since you no longer qualify for power attack, you lose it until you regain the pre-requisites, and by extension also lose all your class features. Good work.

[Ashtagon]

Seriously, if you don't want people to do something, just talk with your group about not doing that.

I agree. I call this "telling them what my houserules are."

Ultimately, the OP asked what our house rules are. We answered. To argue at us because our houserules are not RAW is frankly, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Regarding the fochlucan lyrist: This was (I believe) designed to be a bard/rogue/druid prestige class (the non-cheese entry replicates the path a bard would have taken in 1st edition AD&D rules). It is designed to expect you to have at least one bard level and at least two rogue levels (although of course other methods are conceivable). If you use a magic ring to qualify and lose the ring, I'm okay with you losing the class features. I really am. It's not about power levels; it's about cheese and the spirit of what the class was designed to achieve.

[Andezzar]

A

However I usually discourage people from taking organizational PrCs (RWoT, Bone Knight etc.) unless I include the organizations in the setting. If I do I follow the RAW (which is A unless the specific PrC says otherwise) or remove the screwed up rule, should someone want a PrC from CArc or CW.

If a particular organization and its PrC is in the the game repercussions for violating the tenets of that group will not come in the form of removing class features.

I might even remove the the ways of removing benefits of a PrC, when they are especially ridiculous like a Blackguard ever performing a good act.

[nedz]

One thing I didn't mention earlier was my treatment of fluffy requirements.

I run games in home-brew worlds so I disregard any setting in the feat pre-reqs. This means I am quite happy with mixing, say, Eberron and FR PrCs.

PrCs often have a RP requirement linked to some organisation etc. I have an ambivalent attitude to these since to use them I have to write in some new organisation into my setting. Alternatively I have to arrange for the PC to meet some mentor who is already has the PrC, which is fine, but it introduces a side plot requirement for purely meta-game reasons and this has to happen before the PC acquires the relevant level or it breaks their build. I tend therefore to ignore these requirements unless they are useful in some way.

[Andezzar]

Yeah if organizational PrC do not give benefits for being in an organization it is quite easy to remove the organization from the PrC and game world. That guild mage PrC (forgot the exact name) makes little sense without a mages' guild, especially the spell pool class feature. On the other hand nothing in the rules for the Knight Phantom requires the character to be part of the Aundair military to make sense.

[Necroticplague]

No, you failed to satisfy the condition, because one of the conditions is "will ever have in any game ever where you will take away the class levels." Since you won't ever take away the abilities of these classes, because they would have to deliberately decide to kill themselves with stupidity to give you the opportunity, even if you did allow those classes (which, let's be honest, you don't) you would still never take their abilities away in an actual game.



Yes, I'm sure that the person who insists that Folchulan Lyricists can't use Rings of Evasion totally let's people play emancipated spawn and incantatrixes. But sure, it's nice to keep in mind that you still can't name a class you would ever actually take the abilities from in game, because you are now hypothizing a character with the most powerful and broken PrC in existence deliberately choosing by become a level 7-15 character who casts like a level 5 Wizard.

That condition is impossible to satisfy. Largely due to me being unable to see the future of what might happen, the past of this rule coming up relatively rarely, and you apparently having the psychic ability to know what I allow at my table better than I do. Yes, all the examples were hypotheticals. That's because I find, in practice, that most people tend to keep whatever lets them qualify for PRCs, and the rule for when they don't rarely comes up (outside of Warhulk).

What makes you think I wouldn't allow for the Lyricist to use a Ring of Evasion? My rules seem to make it fairly clear I allow that; he'd just better keep the ring on if he wants to keep the PRC abilities.

[Beheld]

That condition is impossible to satisfy. Largely due to me being unable to see the future of what might happen, the past of this rule coming up relatively rarely, and you apparently having the psychic ability to know what I allow at my table better than I do. Yes, all the examples were hypotheticals. That's because I find, in practice, that most people tend to keep whatever lets them qualify for PRCs, and the rule for when they don't rarely comes up (outside of Warhulk).

So all that nonsense about interesting decisions was just completely wrong and there are no interesting decisions, people just avoid breaking pre-reqs? So... Okay, what you are preventing is now... Dark Chaos Shuffle of pre-reqs. (But apparently not the Dark Chaos Shuffle of Elven Proficiency Feats and scribe scroll). Yeah, seems like you'd be better off just preventing Chaos Shuffle instead of making up PrC rules that only prevent Chaos Shuffling pre-reqs.

[Necroticplague]

So all that nonsense about interesting decisions was just completely wrong and there are no interesting decisions, people just avoid breaking pre-reqs? So... Okay, what you are preventing is now... Dark Chaos Shuffle of pre-reqs. (But apparently not the Dark Chaos Shuffle of Elven Proficiency Feats and scribe scroll). Yeah, seems like you'd be better off just preventing Chaos Shuffle instead of making up PrC rules that only prevent Chaos Shuffling pre-reqs.

Avoiding breaking prereqs is a choice, DCFS has a cost consumate with it's benefits if you force them to internalize all of the cost (like needing to find said level . The fact my players usually go with one option (Warhulk and Arcane Archer being notable exceptions, but ones that do exist) doesn't reduce the fact the option is available. I prepare for if any of my players step their game up, so the hypotheticals matter to me.

[Beheld]

Avoiding breaking prereqs is a choice, DCFS has a cost consumate with it's benefits if you force them to internalize all of the cost (like needing to find said level . The fact my players usually go with one option (Warhulk and Arcane Archer being notable exceptions, but ones that do exist) doesn't reduce the fact the option is available. I prepare for if any of my players step their game up, so the hypotheticals matter to me.

If they step their game up they won't deny themselves pre-reqs. If they don't step their game up, they won't deny themselves pre-reqs. No one will ever deny themselves pre-reqs, because doing is that dumb. At any point where it matters at all.

Incantatrixes will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever actually Shuffle away a pre-req under your houserules, because doing that gains them nothing and loses them everything. They will still Shuffle away everything that isn't, and still get tons of free feats at no cost, but who cares? You still haven't described a circumstance in which there are "interesting choices" you described a bunch of things you allegedly prevent by making the consequences so absurdly monstrous that no one will ever do it, but since those things are just things you can not allow people to do, and your rule doesn't even prevent the things you actually want to prevent, it basically is a lesson in how making pretextual houserules that aren't directly targeted at the actual abuse and pretending those rules apply to a wide variety of circumstances just creates problems elsewhere without solving all the actual problems you want to solve.

[atemu1234]

My rule is that to take a level in the prestige class you must meet the prerequisites. You keep the abilities if you cease to qualify, but you can't gain more levels in it. If it grants spellcasting, you keep the spellcasting. I even ruled in favor of a neutral good Ur-Priest taking levels in Contemplative.

[Necroticplague]

If they step their game up they won't deny themselves pre-reqs. If they don't step their game up, they won't deny themselves pre-reqs. No one will ever deny themselves pre-reqs, because doing is that dumb.

They will if the perceived advantage is greater than the perceived loss (like if an arcane archer was exploring a place with limited line of sight, it might be to their advantage to polymorph into a melee form, ditching the archery abilities for something more useful to their environment).

[Deadline]

They will if the perceived advantage is greater than the perceived loss (like if an arcane archer was exploring a place with limited line of sight, it might be to their advantage to polymorph into a melee form, ditching the archery abilities for something more useful to their environment).

Or, say, a Changeling with Racial Emulation and levels in Urban Soul who changes shape into an orc to track down a threat outside of their city. They'd temporarily lose their class features (which only function while in a city), which would include Urban Sustenance.

Same with temporarily qualifying for War Hulk with Mountain Rage (as is common in Hulk style builds presented around here). Get angry and hulk out, calm down and regain your senses. Fits the theme nicely.

[Hecuba]

I run with B, and of course ignore classes that self disqualify.

Anyone who runs with C must hate their players, because good luck to anyone playing a PrC that requires power attack who has their strength damaged/drained below 13. Not only do your attacks suck right now, but since you no longer qualify for power attack, you lose it until you regain the pre-requisites, and by extension also lose all your class features. Good work.

I find C useful for games where you want a high degree of simulation and verisimilitude, though it still requires a lot of judgement calls. If you have Power Attack as a prereq. for a class with the ability "hit it even harder," it makes sense to view that "hit it even harder" as part of the reason PA is a prereq. to begin with.
If the class also happens to advance, provide an improved version of bardic counter-song, that probably wouldn't go away with PA being gone. Presumably, however, the class would also have counter-song as a prerec.: for that prerec, the reverse would be true.

(This seems like a very odd PRC. Perhaps it should involve doing battle with tubas.)

[Andezzar]

I find C useful for games where you want a high degree of simulation and verisimilitude, though it still requires a lot of judgement calls. If you have Power Attack as a prereq. for a class with the ability "hit it even harder," it makes sense to view that "hit it even harder" as part of the reason PA is a prereq. to begin with. All of the PrCs with that ability that I can think of work like, use power attack and get greater benefits. If you trade away power attack you cannot use the class feature anyways.


If the class also happens to advance, provide an improved version of bardic counter-song, that probably wouldn't go away with PA being gone. Presumably, however, the class would also have counter-song as a prerec.: for that prerec, the reverse would be true.If you trade something away that you need, the class features do not work anymore even without houserules, but why would an invisible blade no longer get sneak attack damage with daggers when he can no longer throw his daggers as far (trade away far shot)

[OldTrees1]

All of the PrCs with that ability that I can think of work like, use power attack and get greater benefits. If you trade away power attack you cannot use the class feature anyways

As a counterexample:
War Hulk requires Cleave. Look at its 4th and 10th level abilities. Despite not being worded as "while using cleave" it is quite evident that they a thematically linked to the Cleave Prerequisite.


The 2nd half of your post goes into more granularity than I personally wish to in this forum thread so I did not address it. However I will remark that that granularity could be quite rewarding.

[Flickerdart]

The way I actually handle requirements is:

You must qualify before you can take a level in the class. You cannot take the class and then qualify afterwards when starting above level 1, or take the class and then retrain prerequisites.
You must qualify while you have the class. If you ever stop qualifying (for instance, because the spell you cast to be Large expired) you lose your class features and cannot gain levels until you qualify again, at which point they are restored.
If the PrC itself disqualifies you, we have a good laugh about editing and move on with our lives, secure in the knowledge that a dragon disciple cannot be a dragon because it is his destiny to be a half-dragon and half-dragons can't be dragons, and becoming a dragon through the class does not disqualify it from itself.

[Andezzar]

As a counterexample:
War Hulk requires Cleave. Look at its 4th and 10th level abilities. Despite not being worded as "while using cleave" it is quite evident that they a thematically linked to the Cleave Prerequisite.I disagree. Cleave grants you an extra attack, Great swing and massive swing allow a single attack to affect more than one target. IMHO those abilities don't have much in common.

[Hecuba]

If you trade something away that you need, the class features do not work anymore even without houserules, but why would an invisible blade no longer get sneak attack damage with daggers when he can no longer throw his daggers as far (trade away far shot)

Like I said, it requires significant judgment calls. In that case I would not have far shot cause an issue*, but I would do so for weapon focus (dagger or ...).

*In general, I would actually just house rule to better segregate the invisible blade and master thrower prerecs, but that is a different issue.

[OldTrees1]

I disagree. Cleave grants you an extra attack, Great swing and massive swing allow a single attack to affect more than one target. IMHO those abilities don't have much in common.

I did say thematically didn't I?
Cleave is the swing your attack through a foe and into someone else (simulated mechanically as an extra attack when downing a foe)
Great Swing is swinging your attack through foes in an even larger and more reliable arc (simulated by covering everyone in a few squares and happening regardless of whether a foe was downed)
Thematically they are quite related to the point that Great Swing is an advancement in the form.

[Andezzar]

I did say thematically didn't I?
Cleave is the swing your attack through a foe and into someone else (simulated mechanically as an extra attack when downing a foe)
Great Swing is swinging your attack through foes in an even larger and more reliable arc (simulated by covering everyone in a few squares and happening regardless of whether a foe was downed)
Thematically they are quite related to the point that Great Swing is an advancement in the form.That fluff might only be in your head. On cleave it is quite ambiguous whether the extra attack is done with the same swing or with an additional swing. Great Cleave definitely is multiple swings:

You can follow through with powerful blows.

You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes.
And that is if the wording "immediate extra melee attack" is not enough to signify two swings.

Great/Massive Swing on the other hand is explicitly only one swing:
Starting at 2nd level, a war hulk is able to make a great, sweeping swing with a melee weapon. As a full-round action, the war hulk can choose three squares adjacent to one another (he must threaten all of them). His attack applies to all creatures in those squares.And the mechanics back that up by using only one attack.

[Toilet Cobra]

I treat it sort of like a paladin who falls. If you lose prerequisites, then you don't lose any permanent physical or mental changes (dragon disciple) and you don't lose mundane knowledge or skill points. On the other hand, most of the good stuff (extra levels of spellcasting for example) vanish.

It should be noted I play a real casual game where retraining is extensively allowed. This has never come up for me beyond the first or second level of a Prestige Class, but if it did I'd let the PC (with training and in-game time) give up their PrC levels and trade them for something else.

[Alex12]

If the PrC itself disqualifies you, we have a good laugh about editing and move on with our lives, secure in the knowledge that a dragon disciple cannot be a dragon because it is his destiny to be a half-dragon and half-dragons can't be dragons, and becoming a dragon through the class does not disqualify it from itself.
[/LIST]

What are you talking about? All dragons are half-dragons. The other half is also dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html).