-

[RoboEmperor]

----------

[frogglesmash]

I may be wrong, but think it's generally agreed that this rule is best ignored even if it is RAW, as the dysfunctions that arise from it are just too headache inducing.

[Mordaedil]

I love the dichotomy of "new evidence" and pulling up a 11+ year old book.

[magic9mushroom]

So I'm familiar with the debate.
On one side we have people saying "First Step" is the default rule citing Red Dragon Disciple and DMG p.176, and then citing Primary Source Rule to declare Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's rule of "losing all benefits when you no longer qualify for the PrC" as inapplicable to any PrC other than those found in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane.

I'm not getting what this focus on "First Step" is. The "first step" thing says that you can't take the first level of a PrC unless you already have all the prereqs (i.e. you can't satisfy the PrC's prereqs the same level you take it, as you can for feats). It doesn't say anything one way or the other about what happens if you cease to meet the prereqs of a PrC.

And I mean the thing about having to have the requirements before you take the PrC is not in contradiction with needing to keep the requirements to keep the class features. Both are relevant, and neither redundant. Ergo, no contradiction, only elaboration.

[Crake]

Huh, I got the opposite impression considering almost every DM I played with Rule 0'd that rule in, and if you point out Red Dragon Disciple they just Rule 0 that too.



Newly discovered evidence? :(

Considering things like feats can be specifically targeted by various spells and abilities for temporary deletion, and feats are frequently prerequisites for prestige classes, you're effectively turning those abilities into complete and utter class nukes for wiping away people's power if you assume that no longer meeting prerequisites means you lose all benefits.

My personal favourite example for this is the black guard, it requires improved sunder. Improved sunder requires power attack. Power attack requires 13 strength. Ergo, if your strength drops below 13 for any reason, like being damaged by strength poison, becoming fatigued or exhausted, or whatever other method, you instantly lose power attack, which means you lose improved sunder, which boom, means you lose your entire class.

It also means if you ever qualify for a prestige class by means of a magic item (which is explicitly allowed in I think complete arcana?), you can never part with the item even for a split second, otherwise boom, all your features, gone. Looks like you're showering and sleeping in that mobility armor you bought to qualify for shadowdancer.

[magic9mushroom]

Considering things like feats can be specifically targeted by various spells and abilities for temporary deletion, and feats are frequently prerequisites for prestige classes, you're effectively turning those abilities into complete and utter class nukes for wiping away people's power if you assume that no longer meeting prerequisites means you lose all benefits.

My personal favourite example for this is the black guard, it requires improved sunder. Improved sunder requires power attack. Power attack requires 13 strength. Ergo, if your strength drops below 13 for any reason, like being damaged by strength poison, becoming fatigued or exhausted, or whatever other method, you instantly lose power attack, which means you lose improved sunder, which boom, means you lose your entire class.

It also means if you ever qualify for a prestige class by means of a magic item (which is explicitly allowed in I think complete arcana?), you can never part with the item even for a split second, otherwise boom, all your features, gone. Looks like you're showering and sleeping in that mobility armor you bought to qualify for shadowdancer.

Generally, the assumption is that you get them back once you qualify again, as with feats. I'll admit that I can't find anything that explicitly says that, although PHB2 does strongly imply it.

And I mean, yeah, you can get your class nuked. But it's not like you can't have your class nuked or effectively nuked by other things (hi there, Helm of Opposite Alignment! Hi there, penalties/damage to casting stat!).

[Gnaeus]

Considering things like feats can be specifically targeted by various spells and abilities for temporary deletion, and feats are frequently prerequisites for prestige classes, you're effectively turning those abilities into complete and utter class nukes for wiping away people's power if you assume that no longer meeting prerequisites means you lose all benefits..

So, on the one hand, you have a problem in which PRCs can be deactivated temporarily by hitting PCs with strong debuffs. Easily explained away.

On the other hand, you get people turning into were giant octopuses, then reshuffling skill ranks to enter PRCs, then curing their lycanthropy. Because elite organizations everywhere have a real desire to recruit temporary were-monsters.

The gameplay, realism, raw/rai issues with having people lose all benefits are there. They are just way less abusable/egregious than the same issues on the retain the PRC side.

[Crake]

For feats there is 0 contention that you lose 100% of the feat's benefits. So when you do lose that magic item or get hit with ability damage you lose the ability to use those feats. Also you regain the benefits of the feat when you re-qualify so your last statement is false.

Yes, you regain the benefit of feats, because that's explicitly stated. In complete arcana and complete warrior, there's nothing about gaining back your class features once you re-qualify, so in the black guard example, you'd gain back power attack and improved sunder, but you'd still be out all your black guard class features.

[Jack_Simth]

So I'm familiar with the debate.
On one side we have people saying "First Step" is the default rule citing Red Dragon Disciple and DMG p.176, and then citing Primary Source Rule to declare Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's rule of "losing all benefits when you no longer qualify for the PrC" as inapplicable to any PrC other than those found in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane.

Not quite how it goes.

The 3.0 DMG PrC header had essentially the same language found in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane: You lose PrC benefits when you lose PrC prerequisites. WotC pulled that language from the 3.5 DMG, which is also when they put the Dragon Disciple into the DMG, with it's somewhat problematic capstone (for the 3.0 rule).

Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane, meanwhile, were rather early 3.5 books, and had a bunch of other 3.0 -> 3.5 transition errors; there's numerous spots in both that reference 3.0 things that ceased to apply in 3.5.

Then you go with the Primary Source rule and so on. It was specifically removed from the DMG, the DMG is the primary source, anything that says otherwise is an editing error.

That said:
I'm fond of house-ruling it:
1) If you have a PrC requirement forcibly removed from you, you can't advance in the PrC until such time as you get it back.
2) If you voluntarily relinquish a PrC requirement, you lose PrC features.
3) If the loss of a PrC requirement would be due to the PrC itself (such as, say, an Ur-Priest getting Divine spells), then neither of the above applies.

So the Blackguard who gets Str poisoned down to Str-12 is... well, not fine, but keeps his Dark Blessing.
The Loremaster hires an Embrace the Dark Chaos / Shun the Dark Chaos pair to get rid of Skill Focus(Knowledge), on the other hand, has problems.

[XionUnborn01]

For feats there is 0 contention that you lose 100% of the feat's benefits. So when you do lose that magic item or get hit with ability damage you lose the ability to use those feats. Also you regain the benefits of the feat when you re-qualify so your last statement is false.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you don't lose the feat, you just can't use it. So you wouldn't lose your class because you didn't lose your feat.

[magic9mushroom]

Not quite how it goes.

The 3.0 DMG PrC header had essentially the same language found in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane: You lose PrC benefits when you lose PrC prerequisites. WotC pulled that language from the 3.5 DMG, which is also when they put the Dragon Disciple into the DMG, with it's somewhat problematic capstone (for the 3.0 rule).

In fairness, some of what they pulled from the PrC description was explicitly a mistake (they removed "PrCs don't give a multiclassing penalty"). I'm not 100% sure whether it was intentional to pull the "lose PrC features" rule.

Also, Complete Arcane was well over a year into 3.5 (November 04, changeover was July 03); it's not super-early like e.g. Draconomicon was.

[The Kool]

So what I'm hearing is, poor editing across multiple books and an edition change lead to this being yet another rule that contradicts itself and creates a rules paradox? Why am I not surprised?

In practice though, I don't have a hard rule but treat it by the following concepts. For the most part, losing something will lose you everything in the chain, but gaining it gives it back. Lose a key feat for a PrC, you lose access to that PrC until you get it back. On a smaller scale, losing access to something short term will have more localized impacts. Str drops below 13? No power attack and no sunder until it goes back up, but I'm not going to negate your Blackguard levels because that's just not worth the effort to be totally honest. By the time we figure it out it'll be back up. Things like Dragon Disciple the RAI is clearly that you can't be a dragon before taking the class, because the class will turn you into one, so things like that I just handwave as poorly written.

[Segev]

Personally, I'd rule inconsistently on this in general. Go with whatever is most fun and/or sensible to the fluff. Is it a race-based PrC because you need particular racial features to make it work? You lose its benefits if you cease to be that race. Because it's cultural and they'd never teach it to a non-[race]? You keep the knowledge and training, obviousy; I'd also allow a suitably well-played fake member of the race to cheat his way into training; such stories can be fun. Is the loss of requirement due to the PrC's own evolution (the infamous Dragon Disciple example)? Obviously you do not lose the PrC due to the PrC's own development. Is the Schroedinger's War Hulk fun for your table? Then it works just fine.

[Troacctid]

A blackguard whose Strength gets drained would still have the Power Attack feat. Temporarily disabling it doesn't cause it to vanish entirely. She'd meet the prerequisites just fine even with the lower Strength. It's only an issue if the 13 Strength is a prerequisite for the prestige class itself, rather than a prerequisite to the prerequisite to the prestige class.

[ShurikVch]

But what if character qualified for PrC via item-granted feat - such as Alertness from Ioun Stone (Dark Blue Rhomboid); then item was suppressed, stolen, destroyed, or even given away voluntary?

Especially interesting point: there are some cases of "self-qualifying PrC" - i. e. PrC which give some feature which could be used to qualify in it. So, what's should happen, if you lose whatever which you used to enter the PrC, but already on the level where the PrC itself "qualify" you for it via that CF?

[Jack_Simth]

So what I'm hearing is, poor editing across multiple books and an edition change lead to this being yet another rule that contradicts itself and creates a rules paradox?Pretty much, yes.

That's a good point if it's specifically removed. But on the other hand, a lots of supplemental material reintroduces so... (the FAQ, CW, CA, PHBII), I think reintroduction speaks more intent or at least the most recent intent over specifically removed.Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind, though, how I actually play doesn't go either direction that folks saying they're playing it RAW espouse. I'm not exactly strongly tied to the arguments, one way or another.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think this argument needs to be rehashed YET AGAIN, does it?

Everyone knows that it's a controversial topic and everyone's already decided which side of the line they fall on. What's the point of this? Are we trying to finally find the one thing that will change everyone's minds? Are we just trying to prove that we're right and everyone else is wrong?

It's pointless.

Just accept that some people play it one way and others play it a different way, and let sleeping dogs lie.

Hey, maybe instead of arguing about what the rules say, the more important question is "what makes the game better?" Does anyone actually believe that losing a bunch of class features for no good reason is BETTER than keeping them?

Set aside what the books say for a minute and really think about it. And then realize that maybe someone else came to a different conclusion than you did, and understand that it's all down to house rules and personal preference no matter which way you went.

[Jack_Simth]

Hey, maybe instead of arguing about what the rules say, the more important question is "what makes the game better?" Does anyone actually believe that losing a bunch of class features for no good reason is BETTER than keeping them?

Set aside what the books say for a minute and really think about it. And then realize that maybe someone else came to a different conclusion than you did, and understand that it's all down to house rules and personal preference no matter which way you went.
Either extreme leads to funky stuff.

On the "you keep everything" side, the feat taxes that are at least partially intended to offset the power increase of PrC's stop applying, power creep happens, and you get weird things like Ranged Ledgerdomain manipulation without the obviously linked Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster).

On the "you lose everything" side, you get weird effects like a Blackguard forgetting how to apply poison to a blade because of a simple first level spell (Ray of Enfeeblement).

It's why I house rule it. Neither seems right all the time.

[KillianHawkeye]

^ That's a great example.

[Saintheart]

A blackguard whose Strength gets drained would still have the Power Attack feat. Temporarily disabling it doesn't cause it to vanish entirely. She'd meet the prerequisites just fine even with the lower Strength. It's only an issue if the 13 Strength is a prerequisite for the prestige class itself, rather than a prerequisite to the prerequisite to the prestige class.

Hilarious Exploit: If getting STR-drained is ruled as removing the feat entirely, this is a much cheaper way to achieve the Dark Chaos Shuffle, because you've got an empty feat slot.

[Anthrowhale]

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you don't lose the feat, you just can't use it. So you wouldn't lose your class because you didn't lose your feat.


A blackguard whose Strength gets drained would still have the Power Attack feat. Temporarily disabling it doesn't cause it to vanish entirely. She'd meet the prerequisites just fine even with the lower Strength. It's only an issue if the 13 Strength is a prerequisite for the prestige class itself, rather than a prerequisite to the prerequisite to the prestige class.

This is correct in my understanding. I'm not sure why it's being ignored here.

[Jack_Simth]

This is correct in my understanding. I'm not sure why it's being ignored here.

Because it's been hashed over a zillion times, and there's no real consensus. You lose the benefits of the feat. Do the benefits of the feat include qualifying for things? Some say "Yes, that's something you get out of the feat, so it's a benefit." Others say "No, it's just referring to the 'benefits' section of the feat entry in question."

Which is "right"? Who knows. Lots of folks will know what's right for their table, but there's not going to be consensus any time soon.

[KillianHawkeye]

Lots of folks will know what's right for their table, but there's not going to be consensus any time soon. ever

Slight correction here. :smallwink:

Hence why there's no reason to keep discussing these things.

[Jack_Simth]

Slight correction here. :smallwink:

Hence why there's no reason to keep discussing these things.

If the last person playing the game comes to a decision on the matter, that will be consensus, of a sort. I doubt that will be soon, though.

[Jack_Simth]

I think threads like these are important. There was a thread that showed an official statblock in Elder Evils where a wizard prepared 4 persistent touch spells which shows by RAW and RAI touch spells are fixed range and I didn't know that and it completely changed how I play the game.
The catch with that sort of thing is that statblocks are error-prone. It's quite common for NPC's to not qualify for the PrC's they have, or to not qualify for the feats they have, or to have the wrong modifiers, or similar. It's a side effect of how books are written: Folks write up and idea and a block of stuff using it, after some testing find that the X is too powerful and needs more requirements, so they add some requirements... but don't modify the stat block.

[Troacctid]

There is a reason.

"By RAW it works"

If by RAW it doesn't work, it is completely shutdown and players can't demand their DMs for it, since it is 100% house rule territory as opposed to "technically RAW" territory. So it's still worth discussing.
No offense but I think you have really weird views of player-DM relationships.

[KillianHawkeye]

Really? Because as I understand it, everything starts from RAW and then the DM says he has these house rules or homebrew.

I would say that everything starts with your group's common understanding of the rules (which for us on the Internet, is pure RAW, because we're a bunch of strangers to each other). Nobody has a perfect understanding of the rules, and I'll bet you that most people who play don't strive to. I would even wager that there are more D&D players who don't discuss the rules over the Internet than those who do.

So, by necessity, everyone has their own grasp on what they think the rules are. And again, by necessity, any group of players has to come to a general consensus about the rules (or at least, a fair majority of the rules) in order to play a game together.

It is only from that starting point that a DM or a group can start deciding to make changes. So what you will almost certainly see if you examine many gaming groups is that some play very close to the RAW and some don't.


Oh, and...

There is a reason.

"By RAW it works"

If by RAW it doesn't work, it is completely shutdown and players can't demand their DMs for it, since it is 100% house rule territory as opposed to "technically RAW" territory. So it's still worth discussing.

The other thing is that something being RAW or Not RAW is not a valid reason to be demanding anything. This is a game. Getting along with the other players is more important than rules lawyering.