Why do people care about feat taxes?

[Elves]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref after taking your first level in the PrC?

I feel like people may be unnecessarily labeling as cheese and giving aesthetic demerits to something that's a simple and straightforward case of RAW.

[Troacctid]

Uh, because you can't? :smallconfused:

[Thurbane]

Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.

[StevenC21]

Uh, because you can't? :smallconfused:

You are wrong by RAW. You have a reasonable houserule, but the CW and CAr rulings make it clear that most PrCs only require prereqs for the first level.

[The Random NPC]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref or chaos shuffle after taking your first level in the PrC?

I feel like people may be unnecessarily labeling as cheese and giving aesthetic demerits to something that's a simple and straightforward case of RAW.

Because those options may not be available, you may be stuck with a subpar feat for the duration of your character's life. There's also the argument that you lose access to the classes if you lose the prerequisites. And finally, unlike regular taxes which are meant to benefit the larger population, feat taxes are meant to delay an individual's gain.

[Zaq]

Because you lose points in Elegance if you do something like that. All 3.x games are Iron Chef, right? Pretty sure that's right.

[FearlessGnome]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref or chaos shuffle after taking your first level in the PrC?

I feel like people may be unnecessarily labeling as cheese and giving aesthetic demerits to something that's a simple and straightforward case of RAW.
Psychic ref/chaos shuffle are ugly and frowned upon by a lot of DMs. By RAW one of the Tome of Battle classes gets 6x their normal skill points at first level, but in reality 99% of games would never allow for that. You can call it a simple case of RAW - but so can a player using whichever martial class that was. Bad RAW that never gets used in real games is still bad, and it makes sense people frown on it even with theoretical builds.

In addition, most feats are fun and feel like a resource. Even something as standard as Dodge gives a little smattering of flavour - my character distinguishes themselves from others with their class by having trained a bit more other [Class] to avoid getting hit. For casters, picking and choosing between different metamagic or crafting feats is serious business. Your feats are things you pick up at the expense of a limited resource. But when a prestige class requires a lot of dead feats, you lose originality and space to personalize your build. Using magic to rewrite your feats from scratch also takes a way from the continuity. Your character didn't train or work to become what they are. They are not entirely the same person as they were before their mind got zapped and their skills and knowledge changed. And for the dark chaos shuffle to work, they had to once have been the kind of person who would embrace the dark chaos. That's a reeeal poor fit for a lot of character concepts, and just feels... dirty.

[Troacctid]

You are wrong by RAW. You have a reasonable houserule, but the CW and CAr rulings make it clear that most PrCs only require prereqs for the first level.
"7th level monks can't cast 8th level cleric spells" is a houserule now? :smallconfused:

[Elves]

And for the dark chaos shuffle to work, they had to once have been the kind of person who would embrace the dark chaos. That's a reeeal poor fit for a lot of character concepts, and just feels... dirty.

Chaos shuffle is more expensive, but psychic ref via spellcasting services is only 405gp+125gp for each extra level back you go, plus a paltry xp cost to yourself. People above 10th level are already going to be using this as a matter of course, prereq exploits or no.

[Doctor Awkward]

Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.

Personally I'm of the opinion that being able to use a ray of enfeeblement to end a Frenzied Berserker's Frenzy or destroy a Blackguard's fiendish mount is a pretty strong argument against that dumb rule... but eh.

...or using a ray of clumsiness to remove a Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight or to get rid of a Dwarven Defender's damage reduction or a Duelist's Precise Strike and Deflect Arrows.

...or being able to use those spells to force back-edits to characters with levels in Bloodclaw Master, Deepstone Sentinel, or Master of Nine to remove high-level maneuvers (which are explicitly class features).

I could honestly go on all day. Dragon Disciple is far from the only prestige class that doesn't plays well with that rule.

[StevenC21]

"7th level monks can't cast 8th level cleric spells" is a houserule now? :smallconfused:

I assume you mean via Ur Priest?

If your monk met the prereqs, then yes. That's precisely a houserule.

[SangoProduction]

Chaos shuffle is more expensive, but psychic ref via spellcasting services is only 405gp+125gp for each extra level back you go, plus a paltry xp cost to yourself. People above 10th level are already going to be using this as a matter of course, prereq exploits or no.

Of course all spellcasting services are ultimately available only if the GM says there is a caster who is not only powerful enough, but also knows the spell and will give you the time of day, and isn't off doing whatever the heck spellcasters do.

[Divine Susuryu]

Of course all spellcasting services are ultimately available only if the GM says there is a caster who is not only powerful enough, but also knows the spell and will give you the time of day, and isn't off doing whatever the heck spellcasters do.

You could say that about literally any part of the game though, so that's a zero-sum argument. The GM could decide there are no casters in their game at all, or that everyone's a caster, or that the prereqs don't matter and you can just get into any PrC, or that there are no PrCs, and so on and so forth.

To say that "the GM might not allow it" is like saying "the player might not want to do it". Yes, but so what? We're working off the assumption that this is what the player wants to do and the GM will allow it. The discussion of "will the GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "should a GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "is it possible within the rules?". This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

EDIT: Actually, it's probably just my bias against theoretical rule 0 judgements in a RAW discussion showing here, so feel free to ignore the second part of this post.

[Willie the Duck]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref or chaos shuffle after taking your first level in the PrC?

I feel like people may be unnecessarily labeling as cheese and giving aesthetic demerits to something that's a simple and straightforward case of RAW.

Because, regardless of whatever pointless arguments about RAW that we have in this thread, there will still be a huge number of DMs who will not rule in favor of this.

Addendum: Also, just because you might later be able to undo/erase having to have a feat-tax feat doesn't mean that you haven't had to carry it around for X levels before you get to do so.

[Thurbane]

This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

Is it though? From the OP, it's not simple a RAW "can this be done" thread - OP is asking for reasons as to why people worry about feat taxes.

Availability in a given campaign of the methods described in the OP seems germane to the discussion to me...

[Elves]

To say that "the GM might not allow it" is like saying "the player might not want to do it". Yes, but so what? We're working off the assumption that this is what the player wants to do and the GM will allow it. The discussion of "will the GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "should a GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "is it possible within the rules?". This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

Actually, I am sort of interested in the aesthetics of it. Is it really as inelegant as claimed, or is it just something simple and not deserving of the lashback it gets. My point is that banning psychic reformation is its own argument, not linked to this question, since it's still incredibly useful if prereq retraining's banned.

[legomaster00156]

Well, since we are assuming there is no GM to veto such methods, then sure, feat taxes aren't worth worrying about. In my experience, most games have a GM.

[Divine Susuryu]

Is it though? From the OP, it's not simple a RAW "can this be done" thread - OP is asking for reasons as to why people worry about feat taxes.

Availability in a given campaign of the methods described in the OP seems germane to the discussion to me...

Fair - I was only thinking in the context of the post I was responding to and not to the greater thread. I just have a personal bugbear in "the GM might X" in theory-crafting threads that carried across to here.

[Zaq]

Personally I'm of the opinion that being able to use a ray of enfeeblement to end a Frenzied Berserker's Frenzy or destroy a Blackguard's fiendish mount is a pretty strong argument against that dumb rule... but eh.

...or using a ray of clumsiness to remove a Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight or to get rid of a Dwarven Defender's damage reduction or a Duelist's Precise Strike and Deflect Arrows.

...or being able to use those spells to force back-edits to characters with levels in Bloodclaw Master, Deepstone Sentinel, or Master of Nine to remove high-level maneuvers (which are explicitly class features).

I could honestly go on all day. Dragon Disciple is far from the only prestige class that doesn't plays well with that rule.

My (RAI not RAW) take is that if you cause yourself to lose the prereqs (or if you surrender the prereqs), you lose the class features. If an enemy causes you to temporarily lose the prereqs, that's acceptable and we're not going to sweat the details unless it looks like it's turning into a truly permanent thing.

This is based on an infamous experience in my group wherein we did, in fact, use temporary ability score penalties to cause an enemy tempest to lose their prereqs and then the GM had to recalculate everything, which we agreed in hindsight was Just Not Fun even if it was a bit of a goofy thrill in the moment to realize that it was technically a possibility under the ruleset we'd been previously using.

I will reiterate, of course, that I am not making any argument about anything in this post being RAW. Just what my group and I find to be fun.

[Particle_Man]

I thought feat tax was more like Natural Spell for Druids or Adaptive Style for swordsages. The argument usually being that if the feat is always going to be taken anyhow why not just make it a class feature to get it as a bonus feat and be done with it?

[FaerieGodfather]

Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.

Four minutes. Not bad.

What I love is how the OP just assumes that high-level psionic powers and 8th-level [chaotic] spells from a supplement about extraplanar monsters are going to be accessible (or desirable) to the majority of players for optimization purposes. Like, real talk, if you think about what Embrace the Dark Chaos actually does, what adventurers in their (comparatively) right minds would ever actually allow someone to cast it on them?

[Afghanistan]

What I love is how the OP just assumes that high-level psionic powers and 8th-level [chaotic] spells from a supplement about extraplanar monsters are going to be accessible (or desirable) to the majority of players for optimization purposes. Like, real talk, if you think about what Embrace the Dark Chaos actually does, what adventurers in their (comparatively) right minds would ever actually allow someone to cast it on them?

I mean it's theorycrafting. We're assuming that the game works in a relatively self-contained bubble where all sources are possible as needed for the experiment/argument to take place. I see no reason why in the Theorycrafting campaign setting all resources are freely available on the open market as dictated in any available sourcebook.

Besides, I don' find it entirely unbelievable that a Chaotic Neutral/Evil 3rd level Psion, 5th level Wizard, 10th level Cerebremancer couldn't wake up one day and elect to make themselves a magic/psionic item that can allow them to shuffle their feats around, or the feats of anyone else around. Heck, that sounds like a fun adventure for retraining by itself if we're making this an NPC :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

The simple answer is... nobody likes paying taxes.

[The Random NPC]

I thought feat tax was more like Natural Spell for Druids or Adaptive Style for swordsages. The argument usually being that if the feat is always going to be taken anyhow why not just make it a class feature to get it as a bonus feat and be done with it?

Feat tax is generally used to mean one of two things, a feat that will always or nearly always be taken, e.g. Natural Spell, or a feat that is not desired but required for a more desirable feat, e.g. Point Blank Shot.


I mean it's theorycrafting. We're assuming that the game works in a relatively self-contained bubble where all sources are possible as needed for the experiment/argument to take place. I see no reason why in the Theorycrafting campaign setting all resources are freely available on the open market as dictated in any available sourcebook.

Besides, I don' find it entirely unbelievable that a Chaotic Neutral/Evil 3rd level Psion, 5th level Wizard, 10th level Cerebremancer couldn't wake up one day and elect to make themselves a magic/psionic item that can allow them to shuffle their feats around, or the feats of anyone else around. Heck, that sounds like a fun adventure for retraining by itself if we're making this an NPC :smallsmile:

From the opening post, the tread is not solely for theory-crafting, so you're going to get some answers that will address the non-theory-crafting side.

[SirNibbles]

"Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat...A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite." - Player's Handbook, page 87

"Meeting Class Requirements: It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." - Complete Warrior, page 16

RAI seems to be that if for some reason you no longer qualify for an ability, you can't use it.

__

Either way, saying 'an 8th level spell can fix your feats' is not really the right answer for someone playing from first level and taking garbage feats to make it into a prestige class they want.

[Karl Aegis]

The feats were in your build at some point. Just because they aren't there at the end of the build doesn't mean you never had the feats in the first place.

[pabelfly]

You could say that about literally any part of the game though, so that's a zero-sum argument. The GM could decide there are no casters in their game at all, or that everyone's a caster, or that the prereqs don't matter and you can just get into any PrC, or that there are no PrCs, and so on and so forth.

To say that "the GM might not allow it" is like saying "the player might not want to do it". Yes, but so what? We're working off the assumption that this is what the player wants to do and the GM will allow it. The discussion of "will the GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "should a GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "is it possible within the rules?". This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

EDIT: Actually, it's probably just my bias against theoretical rule 0 judgements in a RAW discussion showing here, so feel free to ignore the second part of this post.

But if you run with that argument, by that we should weigh the likelihood of a DM allowing Pun-Pun as a vanilla level 6 Ranger. No, it's one thing to say that certain mechanics exist within 3.5, it's another entirely to say that all mechanics are equally likely to be allowed in an actual gaming group.

[Afghanistan]

From the opening post, the tread is not solely for theory-crafting, so you're going to get some answers that will address the non-theory-crafting side.

That is fair I suppose. That said, I am a bit uncertain exactly what you mean by "non-theory-crafting side".

EDIT: I see what you mean. The topic isn't about whether or not retraining or feat shuffling is allowed or if you can maintain class features despite changing, it is about why people don't like doing it. It's more of a census than an actual discussion.

I don't do it because I find it aesthetically displeasing to look down on my sheet and see "reshuffled feats X, Y, and Z at levels A, B, and C", and most tables I go to do not actually allow this sort of thing for a number of reasons ranging from defying the spirit of the game, unfairly favoring certain racial choices, or being against the intent of the rules of the game.



RAI seems to be that if for some reason you no longer qualify for an ability, you can't use it.

This is further supported in the Dungeons and Dragons FAQ, which admittedly while a strange source with contradictory rulings or confusing rulings, still has more credibility than most RAW arguments because they were written by Skip Williams, who was on the design team for the DMG and most of the 3.5 line of books. This is one of those strange cases where authorial intent is freely available. Food for thought.

[darkdragoon]

The central problem is so many do little in the first place. So the value of an extra, or even replacing them is actually pretty low. And as mentioned, high level spells are not really cost effective to keep around as the "ok, I need archery today." Psychic Reformation is more reasonable but also doesn't have quite the same scope.

[Saintheart]

I guess the shortest answer to "Why's it so bad if Psychic Reformation/Dark Chaos Shuffle are a thing?" is "What if your DM doesn't allow psionics or doesn't use the Fiendish Codex?"

I think what really grinds the gears most, what makes something a Feat Tax, is that it just doesn't scale as the levels go by, or the feat's applicability steadily drops to irrelevance as time goes on. That combined with the fact, for those classes that really, really depend on feats to keep up, there are so few slots available. It's amazing to see how even Fighters can't get enough feats to dish out anything useful in the upper levels, even with basically double the feats of other classes. And by virtue of that ruling that says you're stuck with the feat tax for your entire career, there really isn't much you can do about it. It's sort of like how one mistake early in your life might follow you around for your whole life.

And it is mostly martials or non-casters that get hosed by these rulings. Casters' key attribute, what pushes them up the tier schedule, is their flexibility. They can change their spells every day if they want, especially divines. Their feats don't tend to be specific to one set of spells, or one strategy to finish a fight off. And for the most part caster PrCs don't really have a lot of feat taxes, or if they do have a feat tax, that prerequisite is a minor cost compared to the power they get out of the PrC - and indeed their feat taxes are not really taxes in the end, they often synergise very nicely with the PrC or at least their applicability or usefulness doesn't change once you're in the PrC. The martial, though, has to wear that Iron Will tag on his character sheet if he wants to do something fun above about level 6, and even then he won't keep up with the casters...

[Divine Susuryu]

RAI seems to be that if for some reason you no longer qualify for an ability, you can't use it.


That can't be universally true in the case of PrCs, because then we wind up with Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple, who by disqualifying himself with the half-dragon template loses the class feature that grants it, hence re-qualifying as a non-dragon, gaining the template, disqualifying, etc.. So either that's the intended rules interaction (no it isn't) or you can lose a pre-requisite after entering and still be fine. Now, this is contradicted by CArc and CW, but erratas state that the primary source wins out in contradictions - the primary source on PrCs being the DMG. The DMG received reprintings of errata after the publishing of those two books and nowhere in that errata did it include text to that effect. So, if the CArc and CW rules are to apply anywhere, they are to apply only to PrCs they contain per the primary source rule. This is an old argument, and it's pretty definitive if you follow the chain of logic.

It is, and I can say this with 100% certainty given the evidence above, a house rule to say otherwise. RAW indicates that for PrCs outside of those two books, you do not lose abilities for losing prerequisites, as there is no rule in the DMG to flow to those other books nor is such a rule in those books. RAI is a bit more complicated, but I contend that since the rule appears in those two books, and not ones printed before or after, the intent was also that prerequisites were for entry only - after all, if that were not the intent, they would have reprinted the rule or errata'd it in to the DMG. They did not do so.

Is it a good house rule? Depends, but for the majority of groups, its about as meaningful as a law against sprinting faster than 10,000km an hour - it will just never come up. For the groups where it matters, it'll either be a very good house rule or a mildly annoying one.


But if you run with that argument, by that we should weigh the likelihood of a DM allowing Pun-Pun as a vanilla level 6 Ranger. No, it's one thing to say that certain mechanics exist within 3.5, it's another entirely to say that all mechanics are equally likely to be allowed in an actual gaming group.

ICYMI I did say that in an at-the-table discussion rather than a RAW theory-crafting discussion it's different. I still don't think it's hugely helpful in an at-the-table discussion when compared to actually knowing what the specific GM in question would or wouldn't allow, but it does have value there. What gets my goat is that in RAW discussions people bring in GM fiat - it's just another variant of the Oberoni fallacy there.

[Asmotherion]

Uh, because you can't? :smallconfused:

Technically you can... wile loosing access to the PrC abilities because you no longer meet the pre-reqs.

[StevenC21]

Technically you can... wile loosing access to the PrC abilities because you no longer meet the pre-reqs.

Which is again, NOT RAW.

[Divine Susuryu]

Technically you can... wile loosing access to the PrC abilities because you no longer meet the pre-reqs.

Not true, read my above post where I explain why it is neither RAW nor RAI for classes outside of CW and CArc.

[Troacctid]

I assume you mean via Ur Priest?

If your monk met the prereqs, then yes. That's precisely a houserule.
Uh...no? I'm saying not every character has the ability to cast 8th level spells. I'm a 7th level monk? I have zero spellcasting capabilities. Give me another 15 levels of wizard and sure, if I boost my Int to 18, I can do a dark chaos shuffle. Until then, I can't do it.


You could say that about literally any part of the game though, so that's a zero-sum argument. The GM could decide there are no casters in their game at all, or that everyone's a caster, or that the prereqs don't matter and you can just get into any PrC, or that there are no PrCs, and so on and so forth.
Technically there are rules in the PHB for whether you can find spellcasting services in a particular settlement. I don't think psionics can say the same.


And it is mostly martials or non-casters that get hosed by these rulings. Casters' key attribute, what pushes them up the tier schedule, is their flexibility. They can change their spells every day if they want, especially divines. Their feats don't tend to be specific to one set of spells, or one strategy to finish a fight off. And for the most part caster PrCs don't really have a lot of feat taxes, or if they do have a feat tax, that prerequisite is a minor cost compared to the power they get out of the PrC - and indeed their feat taxes are not really taxes in the end, they often synergise very nicely with the PrC or at least their applicability or usefulness doesn't change once you're in the PrC. The martial, though, has to wear that Iron Will tag on his character sheet if he wants to do something fun above about level 6, and even then he won't keep up with the casters...
This is totally incorrect. Loads of great caster prestige classes come with feat taxes.


Now, this is contradicted by CArc and CW, but erratas state that the primary source wins out in contradictions - the primary source on PrCs being the DMG. The DMG received reprintings of errata after the publishing of those two books and nowhere in that errata did it include text to that effect. So, if the CArc and CW rules are to apply anywhere, they are to apply only to PrCs they contain per the primary source rule. This is an old argument, and it's pretty definitive if you follow the chain of logic.
That's not how the primary source rules work. If there's no contradiction, there's no conflict. The DMG rules don't contradict the CW and CAr rules, so it doesn't matter what the primary source is. Both rules apply. As for dragon disciple, it says you can't "already" be a half-dragon, i.e. you can't be a half-dragon beforehand. Becoming a half-dragon later doesn't violate the prerequisite, so there's no conflict. But if you want to houserule it so that it works another way, I guess that's cool for you. Boom, rules lawyered. :smallcool:

[Asmotherion]

Which is again, NOT RAW.

it is RAW as per CAr and CW. Using a universally accepted bad designed PrC such as Dragon Disciple as an arguement is a far streach. Dragon Disciple simply doesn't function RAW.

if you can provide me with an alternative source that contradicts it (instead of seemingly implying it through unrefined mechanics due to the editor's oversight) i'm ready to accept your logic.

Basically anything that doen't feel as the type of arguement of the "polymorph doesn't say you don't get the spellcasting abilities of the new form so if a creature is a caster i get all it's spells that are not Su or SLA" level.

[Divine Susuryu]

That's not how the primary source rules work. If there's no contradiction, there's no conflict. The DMG rules don't contradict the CW and CAr rules, so it doesn't matter what the primary source is. Both rules apply. As for dragon disciple, it says you can't "already" be a half-dragon, i.e. you can't be a half-dragon beforehand. Becoming a half-dragon later doesn't violate the prerequisite, so there's no conflict. But if you want to houserule it so that it works another way, I guess that's cool for you. Boom, rules lawyered. :smallcool:


Race: Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon).

Hmmmmm...


Creating A Half-Dragon
"Half-dragon" is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

A half-dragon uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

Size and Type
The creature’s type changes to dragon. Size is unchanged. Do not recalculate base attack bonus or saves.

Becoming a half-dragon violates the first part of the text.

Besides which, you're just a hair away from arguing "prerequisites only matter for entry" with the word 'already' there, so why not just come to the dark side? We have theorycrafting and cookies! :smallwink:

[StevenC21]

Well, first off, you DO get those spells, because spellcasting is (Ex).

Secondly, the logic is clear. The DMG is the primary source on PrCs.

CarC and CW are primary sources on their own PrCs. Open and shut.

[tiercel]

What gets my goat is that in RAW discussions people bring in GM fiat - it's just another variant of the Oberoni fallacy there.

1) I'd argue that even for theorycrafting, folks generally have some limits about how "pure RAW" they will be in their build -- if there are no limits other than "but the rules," then it's pretty much straight to Pun-Pun (or your other favorite infinite combo). Presumably, that's the appeal to "elegance" we've already seen in the thread: even if there is no overt GM, there is some desire to achieve a build without resorting to something, in some sense, too "easy" or "cheesy" (these ideas being highly subjective as to lactose tolerance, but still they exist).

2) The OP of this thread was also more general than theorycrafting, hence the number of responses on the thread saying "there are some things that just don't fly at the tables I've played at." As much as even theorycrafting generally doesn't hew only to RAW, actual games? Yeah.

In particular, the point of a "feat tax" is presumably to require a certain investment to attain a desired goal (capstone feat or PrC entry) -- to attain that goal without having to meaningfully pay the price (by means of getting the price refunded, so to speak) is at minimum such legerdemain that it would seem more honest to simply houserule "this feat tax is stupid and I am removing it" rather than to be "this feat tax is stupid and so I am going to use a loophole to pay what is, arguably, a much lesser price" (even assuming, as has also been pointed on this thread, that purely mechanical considerations are all that matter, and not the roleplaying implications of having one's brain rewritten or deliberately twisted by the dark forces of chaos).

If nothing else, while RAW discussions have their own value, it's not surprising if someone points out, e.g. "by RAW, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike," that at least some folks who are more focused on actual gameplay may tend to respond with *derisive snort*.

[Troacctid]

Hmmmmm...



Becoming a half-dragon violates the first part of the text.
The second part is a parenthetical clarification of the first part. No conflict.


Well, first off, you DO get those spells, because spellcasting is (Ex).

Secondly, the logic is clear. The DMG is the primary source on PrCs.

CarC and CW are primary sources on their own PrCs. Open and shut.
Again, that's not how primary sources work. They only matter when there's a disagreement between two sources. Unless you can point to a passage in the DMG that actually contradicts the text in CAr/CW, primary sources are irrelevant.

[Divine Susuryu]

The second part is a parenthetical clarification of the first part. No conflict.

But the first part still applies. If it were only half-dragons that were forbidden rather than all dragons, it would only say the second part, and not the first.

[Troacctid]

You could choose to read it in a dysfunctional way, sure, but if there's a non-dysfunctional reading right there that works just fine, it's not really a proper dysfunction.

[Afghanistan]

Well, first off, you DO get those spells, because spellcasting is (Ex).

Do you have a source for that? Because the "Spells" special attack in the monster manual doesn't declare it as extraordinary, supernatural, spell-like, or natural (however the rules go on to state that an ability is natural if it is neither extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.) I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on this particular topic or a citation or ruling from some errata I might have overlooked.

[Divine Susuryu]

You could choose to read it in a dysfunctional way, sure, but if there's a non-dysfunctional reading right there that works just fine, it's not really a proper dysfunction.

There's only another reading if you deliberately ignore the first part though. It's pretty unambiguous - you cannot be a dragon and enter the dragon disciple class. This is like... No True Oberoni, or something.

[FaerieGodfather]

This is like... No True Oberoni, or something.

"No True Oberoni" sounds like a can of something I got from a food bank once.

[pabelfly]

What gets my goat is that in RAW discussions people bring in GM fiat - it's just another variant of the Oberoni fallacy there.

DnD only becomes DnD with a GM. It's the GM's world with the GM telling you how that world functions, after all. And you can go to the GM with your RAW reading and your citations and arguments and all of it means not a single thing if no GM would allow it in their game.

[Afghanistan]

There's only another reading if you deliberately ignore the first part though. It's pretty unambiguous - you cannot be a dragon and enter the dragon disciple class. This is like... No True Oberoni, or something.

If my understanding of Troacctid's argument is solid, than this is a rather clear cut case. Dragon Disciple's prerequisites very clearly only check if you are a half-dragon at the time of adopting the prestige class, but not at level 10 of the prestige class because the prestige class doesn't care what you are after you become a Dragon Disciple, only that you were not a Half-Dragon and were a nondragon at the time you adopted the prestige classes 1st level. It's the prerequisites checking what you are, not what you have, which is the case with feat based requirements.

At least that is what I THINK they are arguing. I think I'd like more elaboration if I am getting the gist of it. :smallconfused:

[Asmotherion]

Well, first off, you DO get those spells, because spellcasting is (Ex).

Secondly, the logic is clear. The DMG is the primary source on PrCs.

CarC and CW are primary sources on their own PrCs. Open and shut.

So you propose that RAW i can Chain-Polymorph myself into an Arcanaloth or Dragon to effectivelly have infinite spells per day? :smallconfused:

You do understand the absurdity of the statement and that choosing to creativelly (and abstractly/incorrectly) interpreting rules this way results to extream forms of munchkinism?

[Divine Susuryu]

If my understanding of Troacctid's argument is solid, than this is a rather clear cut case. Dragon Disciple's prerequisites very clearly only check if you are a half-dragon at the time of adopting the prestige class, but not at level 10 of the prestige class because the prestige class doesn't care what you are after you become a Dragon Disciple, only that you were not a Half-Dragon and were a nondragon at the time you adopted the prestige classes 1st level. It's the prerequisites checking what you are, not what you have, which is the case with feat based requirements.

At least that is what I THINK they are arguing. I think I'd like more elaboration if I am getting the gist of it. :smallconfused:

I don't mean to speak for Troacctid here, but I'm reasonably certain that there wouldn't be agreement on the bolded text. The idea that it only matters for the first level is actually my position in the first place to prevent quantum DDs. If pre-requisite loss causes PrC feature loss, then you get a paradox because dragons cannot be DDs, and half-dragons are dragons. But if pre-requisite loss does not cause PrC feature loss, then there's no contradiction.

[FaerieGodfather]

At least that is what I THINK they are arguing. I think I'd like more elaboration if I am getting the gist of it. :smallconfused:

The problem is, there are Prestige Classes that are clearly designed one way or the other, and Prestige Classes that are unclearly designed with no real indication-- except possibly by which book they're in-- which way their prerequisites are supposed to work.

I mean... if Dragon Disciple is clearly intended to ignore its Race prerequisite after 1st level, are other racial Prestige Classes supposed to work the same way? If I'm already Riding the Suicide Express, can I also shop for racial PrCs while I'm at it? If Assassins are allowed to become non-Evil after 1st level, what about other classes with Alignment prerequisites?

[Psyren]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref or chaos shuffle after taking your first level in the PrC?

I can't speak for theorycrafters, but most folks making builds and handbooks are doing so because they are actually providing advice that they expect to get used in a real game. As others in this thread have said, it's not exactly reasonable to expect psonics and high level spells from demonic splats to be available in every game.

There's also the notion that, if you have a GM that's willing to let you do something like Dark Chaos Shuffle to get {thing}, they're probably also fine just giving you {thing} for free. I'd wager that it's actually more likely to find a GM willing to houserule like that in the name of fun, than it is to find one that wants you to have fun but only if you leap through the most convoluted RAW-legal hoops imaginable to get there.

[Troacctid]

The problem is, there are Prestige Classes that are clearly designed one way or the other, and Prestige Classes that are unclearly designed with no real indication-- except possibly by which book they're in-- which way their prerequisites are supposed to work.

I mean... if Dragon Disciple is clearly intended to ignore its Race prerequisite after 1st level, are other racial Prestige Classes supposed to work the same way? If I'm already Riding the Suicide Express, can I also shop for racial PrCs while I'm at it? If Assassins are allowed to become non-Evil after 1st level, what about other classes with Alignment prerequisites?
Dragon disciple avoids self-disqualification with its "already" clause. I can't speak for any other prestige classes.


I can't speak for theorycrafters, but most folks making builds and handbooks are doing so because they are actually providing advice that they expect to get used in a real game. As others in this thread have said, it's not exactly reasonable to expect psonics and high level spells from demonic splats to be available in every game.

There's also the notion that, if you have a GM that's willing to let you do something like Dark Chaos Shuffle to get {thing}, they're probably also fine just giving you {thing} for free. I'd wager that it's actually more likely to find a GM willing to houserule like that in the name of fun, than it is to find one that wants you to have fun but only if you leap through the most convoluted RAW-legal hoops imaginable to get there.
And the other thing is, if you have to wait ten levels before you can retrain the feat tax, have you really avoided paying it? You just spent ten levels without the feats you wanted. I mean, you might as well be like, "Why do people care about feat taxes? You gain a new feat every three levels, just gain more levels and you can get the feats back. I don't see the big deal here."

[Divine Susuryu]

Dragon disciple avoids self-disqualification with its "already" clause. I can't speak for any other prestige classes.

Again, only if you selectively don't read the text immediately before it where it states that you must be non-dragon.

[RatElemental]

Again, only if you selectively don't read the text immediately before it where it states that you must be non-dragon.

It could be the writer forgot that half-dragon changed your type to dragon, or it could be that rather than meaning "doesn't have the dragon type" by nondragon they meant "isn't some kind of true dragon (basically anything that is listed as <thing> dragon)"

[Arkhios]

Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.


You are wrong by RAW. You have a reasonable houserule, but the CW and CAr rulings make it clear that most PrCs only require prereqs for the first level.

These posts prove unequivocally what's wrong with 3.5 D&D.

The rules break apart under their own weight when designers didn't take into account the player ingenuity (and the ridiculous urge to break things just because they can).

[FaerieGodfather]

These posts prove unequivocally what's wrong with 3.5 D&D.

The rules break apart under their own weight when designers didn't take into account the player ingenuity (and the ridiculous urge to break things just because they can).

This wouldn't be a problem without that underlying player mentality... but it seems that something about the ruleset also fosters the mentality that makes it unsustainable.

Other games have optimization junkies and rules lawyers of their own, but I've never seen another game with a fanbase as bloodymindedly dedicated to reading each and every rule as far as possible from its most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether or not it benefits their own character(s).

Sometimes I think Dungeons & Dragons, or at least the 3.X offshoot of D&D, is more of a legalistic NRM than a game.

[Asmotherion]

This wouldn't be a problem without that underlying player mentality... but it seems that something about the ruleset also fosters the mentality that makes it unsustainable.

Other games have optimization junkies and rules lawyers of their own, but I've never seen another game with a fanbase as bloodymindedly dedicated to reading each and every rule as far as possible from its most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether or not it benefits their own character(s).

Sometimes I think Dungeons & Dragons, or at least the 3.X offshoot of D&D, is more of a legalistic NRM than a game.

i thought it was a well established fact that 3.5 secretly trains you to be a potent lawyer? :smalltongue:

i'm not sure this was the Rai behind 3.5 but it certainly is Raw.

[Morty]

As far as arguments go, "feat taxes aren't a problem because you can retrain them with high-level psionic powers or an evil-aligned feat" is pretty bizarre. And I agree that if a GM were to agree to that, it's easier for everyone involved to just houserule the taxes away.

[Telonius]

I think there are a couple different kinds of feat taxes: the ones you pay to have a character competent at what they do, the ones that you pay to get into a particular prestige class. I have a much bigger problem with the existence of the first kind, because they tend to be required of melee characters (who need all the feats they can get) and not of spellcasters (who are then free to take feats that make them even more powerful). They're also not the sort of thing that Chaos Shuffle can help; your Barbarian is nearly always going to need Power Attack on the list of Feats.

[Kaleph]

Why do builds, especially theorycrafting builds, treat PrC feat taxes as a serious impediment when you can just change them with psychic ref or chaos shuffle after taking your first level in the PrC?

I feel like people may be unnecessarily labeling as cheese and giving aesthetic demerits to something that's a simple and straightforward case of RAW.

Why do we care about char building in the first place, when homebrewing classes is RAW as well? When I come with the idea for a build, I could easily invent instead a PrC that already gives me everything I need at 1st level, right? It's in the DMG, after all.

Well, for PO-builds, retrain abuse simply won't be allowed, and for TO-builds...they ARE theoretical, so their spirit implies actually aestetic and system mastery criteria, and bypassing a big aspect of the exercise (i.e. fulfilling prerequisites) betrays somehow, at least in many people's eyes, this spirit.

I agree that, the more the build becomes a theoretical exercise, the less relevant this so-called "abuse" will become. Like, pun-pun would remain pun-pun even if the creator had "retrained" a couple of feats.



There's also the notion that, if you have a GM that's willing to let you do something like Dark Chaos Shuffle to get {thing}, they're probably also fine just giving you {thing} for free. I'd wager that it's actually more likely to find a GM willing to houserule like that in the name of fun, than it is to find one that wants you to have fun but only if you leap through the most convoluted RAW-legal hoops imaginable to get there.

That's also the first thing I've though as I've read the OP.

[Mordaedil]

RAW versus RAI almost remind me of people studying computer class, where some have designed a complex loop of if statements, while others have a few lins of switches and for loops to do the same job, with fewer bugs at that.

At the end of the day, the books are written fallibly and are written to be read by humans and a certain level of capable debuggery, yet some people insist these rulebooks be written with if statements upon if statements.

I get it, it is the only consensus we can really agree on, but that does not a game make.

[Sepultra]

That can't be universally true in the case of PrCs, because then we wind up with Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple, who by disqualifying himself with the half-dragon template loses the class feature that grants it,

This would be a great argument if the SRD didn't specifically state that race "Cannot already be a half dragon" - which it does, so you've just not read the material properly. Even the Wizards article on the PrC says "already be non-dragon" when discussing the requirement. It's quite obvious that the requirement for this class is specifically written in order to emphasize the state upon entry being different from the state at the end of this class.


So either that's the intended rules interaction (no it isn't) or you can lose a pre-requisite after entering and still be fine.
Or you can read the prerequisites for a class wrong and help push a falsehood all over these forums. Dragon disciple allows you to be a half dragon. You just cannot be one when you enter the PrC.

Your entire "This is RAI" argument falls flat because of this. I'm not overly interested in RAW because WOTC have made incredible amounts of stupid decisions in the wording of printed materials that makes RAW madness in many cases. Another great example is the idea that a Kobold can become a True Dragon - although, like the quotes above, this could be resolved by reading more closely.

[Elves]

Dragon disciple avoids self-disqualification with its "already" clause.

No, that's obviously not true. The clear intent of that clause is to prevent redundancy in template features gained, ie a dragon disciple's abilities represent the gradual acquisition of the half-dragon template and so a half-dragon couldn't gain those benefits again.

This is clear because grammatically it makes no sense and is legally ineffective if read as an exemption from the "any nondragon" clause.

[Sepultra]

Again, only if you selectively don't read the text immediately before it where it states that you must be non-dragon.

Dragon disciple states "already".
Already: prior to the present or at a particular time in the past.

You're the one selectively reading. You are actively ignoring a word in order to make the case that the rules are broken.


No, that's obviously not true. The clear intent of that clause is to prevent redundancy in template features gained, ie a dragon disciple's abilities represent the gradual acquisition of the half-dragon template and so a half-dragon couldn't gain those benefits again.

This is clear because grammatically it makes no sense and is legally ineffective if read as an exemption from the "any nondragon" clause.

Yes, it is obviously true.

Dragon Disciple grants you the Half-Dragon template. Dragon disciple's prerequisites state that one cannot "already" be a half dragon at the time of entry. The word "already" clearly refers to a time period. The time period at entry and the time period at reaching level 10 (thus becoming a Half-Dragon) are distinct. Therefore it is obviously true unless you have an active desire to avoid reading properly.

You've also moved away from a RAW to RAI argument at the start of this post. Where's your citation for RAI when reading RAW as written without ignoring words provides a sufficient explanation?

Why is it grammatically nonsensical?

[Willie the Duck]

Get ready for the usual "only PrCs in CW and CAr lose their features when they lose reqs" and "what about the Dragon Disciple" arguments.
Prescient.


1) I'd argue that even for theorycrafting, folks generally have some limits about how "pure RAW" they will be in their build -- if there are no limits other than "but the rules," then it's pretty much straight to Pun-Pun (or your other favorite infinite combo).
…
If nothing else, while RAW discussions have their own value, it's not surprising if someone points out, e.g. "by RAW, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike," that at least some folks who are more focused on actual gameplay may tend to respond with *derisive snort*.

This thread is doing a good job of explaining why RAW-arguing has gotten such a bad name and why future editions have deliberately hewed to a 'rulings over rules' mentality.

Regardless, on some level, even theory-craft discussions have some level of 'will others accept this?' in their makeup. Usually people are putting forth a build for consideration that others might look at their proposed build (or whatever) and deem it a good suggestion. If the build is predicated on too many things that you have to argue the validity of (be it 'is this RAW?' or 'would the PCs have access to this, at any real table?'), then no one else on the theory-craft thread is likely to look at your build and consider it one of the top suggestions.


i thought it was a well established fact that 3.5 secretly trains you to be a potent lawyer? :smalltongue:

i'm not sure this was the Rai behind 3.5 but it certainly is Raw.
I'm not a lawyer, but I work with them. It has been explained to me that that's really not what makes a good lawyer. Thing is, this 'my arguments are irrefutable!' mentality that always seems to pop up in 3e RAW debates isn't how you get good at high school debate team, much less make a good IRL lawyer. In law, you actually have to convince others of your position. These things are, really, more like the people studying computer science that Mordaedil mentioned (except with computer science courses, in the end there is a compiler that fails to produce a given output if you've coded wrong, so you actually in-the-end know if your logic was correct or not).

[Elves]

Dragon disciple states "already".
Already: prior to the present or at a particular time in the past.

The line is: "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)."

No grammatical reading of this line makes it mean what you say it does.

In particular, trying to make the parentheticals be an ie statement results in a logical absurdity.

To dismiss an incoherence and then point out what this rule is actually doing (precluding the double application of half-dragon template benefits) is not the same thing as moving from an RAW to an RAI argument.

[Psyren]

Do we really have to do the Dragon Disciple thing again? It's been over a decade, let it go and make a ruling at your own table(s).


RAW versus RAI almost remind me of people studying computer class, where some have designed a complex loop of if statements, while others have a few lins of switches and for loops to do the same job, with fewer bugs at that.

At the end of the day, the books are written fallibly and are written to be read by humans and a certain level of capable debuggery, yet some people insist these rulebooks be written with if statements upon if statements.

I get it, it is the only consensus we can really agree on, but that does not a game make.

This, and frankly, "consensus" is a silly standard to chase anyway. Even if nobody is, say, actually using 1d43 for their scorpion-tail whip's damage, somebody online is going to say they do, for lulz if nothing else. I'm happy with just a plurality, and for some readings I'm even happy being in the minority. I don't have to justify myself to anyone but my GM (or my players, from the other side.)

[denthor]

Here is a challenge take a character plot put what it takes to get a Prestige glass.

Play that character from 1st level take all requirement feats and skills to get that class. You will find out why they are supposed to be rare to run across.

[Willie the Duck]

Do we really have to do the Dragon Disciple thing again? It's been over a decade, let it go and make a ruling at your own table(s).

What I'm fascinated by is the idea that it proves anything else beyond whether the designers thought through the wording implications of a specific prestige class.


Here is a challenge take a character plot put what it takes to get a Prestige glass.

Play that character from 1st level take all requirement feats and skills to get that class. You will find out why they are supposed to be rare to run across.

I think we're on the same page -- feat taxes are worth caring about (even if you can get rid of them later) because you have to live with them until you can get rid of them.

[Troacctid]

The line is: "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)."

No grammatical reading of this line makes it mean what you say it does.

In particular, trying to make the parentheticals be an ie statement results in a logical absurdity.

To dismiss an incoherence and then point out what this rule is actually doing (precluding the double application of half-dragon template benefits) is not the same thing as moving from an RAW to an RAI argument.
Okay. Hang on a second. You're saying that this line somehow prevents the bonuses from the template from being applied twice, once from the class features, once from the template itself. How exactly does it prevent this? That's a huge leap that you're making there. I don't see anything in that prerequisite line that even implies anything like that.

Furthermore, if you're avoiding applying the template's bonuses twice, how are you even changing your type to dragon in the first place? I assume you're preferencing the bonuses granted by the class rather than the template, because specific beats general...but you'll notice the 10th level ability conveniently omits the type change portion of the template. So you never violate the prerequisite at all because even after the transformation, you're still a nondragon.

[Elves]

Okay. Hang on a second. You're saying that this line somehow prevents the bonuses from the template from being applied twice, once from the class features, once from the template itself.

If you were a half-dragon prior, not when you gain the capstone. The text for Draconic Apotheosis makes clear that the stat boosts, at the very least, are supposed to be a progressive acquisition of half-dragon ability bonuses, despite being noted as gained "as if through level advancement".

[EldritchWeaver]

...(except with computer science courses, in the end there is a compiler that fails to produce a given output if you've coded wrong, so you actually in-the-end know if your logic was correct or not).

Ironically, it is impossible to prove if a given program actually has an end state or not. So while a program running a million years before it arrives with an answer is clearly impractical, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from one running forever. You just kill both.

[Troacctid]

If you were a half-dragon prior, not when you gain the capstone. The text for Draconic Apotheosis makes clear that the stat boosts, at the very least, are supposed to be a progressive acquisition of half-dragon ability bonuses, despite being noted as gained "as if through level advancement".
No it doesn't, plus you're talking RAI not RAW, and also, what?

[Willie the Duck]

Ironically, it is impossible to prove if a given program actually has an end state or not. So while a program running a million years before it arrives with an answer is clearly impractical, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from one running forever. You just kill both.

Well yes. The analogy is imperfect. My point was, in many-to-most cases, with programming your 'logic' is put to the test against a roughly objective arbiter. Online RAW debates don't do that, but they are still more like that than law.

[Luckmann]

I skimmed the thread and didn't see it mentioned, so.. uh.. are we just ignoring the fact that regardless of the RAW/RAI of qualifying/continuing prestige classes, Embrace the Dark Chaos expressly and explicitly makes what is suggested in the OP impossible?
If the lost feat was a prerequisite for other feats or prestige classes, the subject loses access to those feats or prestige class abilities until it once again meets all the prerequisites.Leaving only the psionic route.

Nevermind that most "taxes" are paid for higher-chain feats, not prestige classes, and not having the prereq (as has been mentioned) for a feat means you can't use it. Full stop.

[Crake]

This wouldn't be a problem without that underlying player mentality... but it seems that something about the ruleset also fosters the mentality that makes it unsustainable.

Other games have optimization junkies and rules lawyers of their own, but I've never seen another game with a fanbase as bloodymindedly dedicated to reading each and every rule as far as possible from its most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether or not it benefits their own character(s).

I don't think that the mindset is as pervasive as giantitp makes it SEEM like it is. I highly doubt most people play "Absolute strictest RAW possible" at their table, everyone will have SOME houserules at their table to fix the inconsistencies and, as people put it, dysfunctions. The issue though, is that everyone will have slightly differing ideas on what is and isn't dysfunctional, or how this or that rule can be interpreted, or what is and isn't a reasonable rule.

Thus, the only way to really discuss the game is with the "absolute strictest RAW possible" reading, which even then is sometimes ambiguous.

tl;dr: I really doubt people are as argumentative over the rules at their tables as they are here.


There's also the notion that, if you have a GM that's willing to let you do something like Dark Chaos Shuffle to get {thing}, they're probably also fine just giving you {thing} for free. I'd wager that it's actually more likely to find a GM willing to houserule like that in the name of fun, than it is to find one that wants you to have fun but only if you leap through the most convoluted RAW-legal hoops imaginable to get there.

I think this pretty much sums it up. There are times when sometimes it would make more senses to use psychic reformation or DCFS to change abilities around, but I personally think the only time a PrC should have a feat or skill requirement is when said feat or skill requirement is integral to the PrC, and that PrC should instead have more story-centric requirements, rather than meta-crunch requirements. My players actually rarely take prestige classes these days, because they're just such a hassle, and none of them enjoy the experience. The last time one of them took a memorable PrC was actually one of the players taking a homebrew, dragon-slayer-themed PrC that had campaign ties and story elements. It's actually one of the things I think pathfinder just did better, archetypes/ACFs over PrC, though I think PrC still have their place, my table I think is pretty much over the whole hardcore theorycraft characters into oblivion and pick all this and that, and they would much rather just play the game and let the characters grow on their own, and if something's not working, we'll fix it later.

[SirNibbles]

You are wrong by RAW. You have a reasonable houserule, but the CW and CAr rulings make it clear that most PrCs only require prereqs for the first level.

"Meeting Class Requirements: It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." - Complete Warrior, page 16


It's not just the first level; quite the opposite.

[SangoProduction]

You could say that about literally any part of the game though, so that's a zero-sum argument. The GM could decide there are no casters in their game at all, or that everyone's a caster, or that the prereqs don't matter and you can just get into any PrC, or that there are no PrCs, and so on and so forth.

To say that "the GM might not allow it" is like saying "the player might not want to do it". Yes, but so what? We're working off the assumption that this is what the player wants to do and the GM will allow it. The discussion of "will the GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "should a GM allow this?" is a different discussion to "is it possible within the rules?". This thread is the last discussion, not the first two.

EDIT: Actually, it's probably just my bias against theoretical rule 0 judgements in a RAW discussion showing here, so feel free to ignore the second part of this post.

Actually, the discussion was why do people care about feat taxes. Which is none of the proposed questions that you mentioned.

[SangoProduction]

That can't be universally true in the case of PrCs, because then we wind up with Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple, who by disqualifying himself with the half-dragon template loses the class feature that grants it, hence re-qualifying as a non-dragon, gaining the template, disqualifying, etc.. So either that's the intended rules interaction (no it isn't) or you can lose a pre-requisite after entering and still be fine.

Or, it can just be bad writing. But that would never happen, especially in some of the first books. Not with WotC.
Monks definitely are proficient in unarmed strikes.

[Elves]

No it doesn't, plus you're talking RAI not RAW, and also, what?

The class is a more of a mess than I realized. Specifically, is the +4 Strength and +2 Cha from Draconic Apotheosis replacing the normal stat benefits from half-dragon, or is it on top of them? RAI's likely the first, but you could claim that that line is referring to the ability boost mechanism already established, meaning the class grants 2x the normal stat adjustments of half-dragon. That sounds like the type of conclusion you would normally argue against...


Regardless, this doesn't change my refutation, which is just that the clause you cite -- "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)" -- does not mean and can't in English be read to mean that you can be a dragon so long as you weren't a half-dragon upon entering.

Is it possible that the author forgot that half-dragon changes your type to dragon? Maybe. At that point we are in RAI territory, for real.



are we just ignoring the fact that regardless of the RAW/RAI of qualifying/continuing prestige classes, Embrace the Dark Chaos expressly and explicitly makes what is suggested in the OP impossible?

Sloppy mistake, thanks for the correction. No real difference because psychic reformation is much cheaper anyway.

[Silvercrys]

"Meeting Class Requirements: It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided." - Complete Warrior, page 16


It's not just the first level; quite the opposite.That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.

It's entirely possible that they wanted to try the rule and then decided not to implement it more widely. It's also possible this is RAI. But it isn't RAW, and for my own part, I don't even use that rule for prestige classes in the books that rule is printed in because the rule doesn't make sense.

I require characters to meet prerequisites whenever they take a level in that class; the only penalty for not meeting prereqs for classes is not being able to advance the class further unless explicitly noted otherwise in the class itself, same as the penalty for Monks who become nonlawful and Barbarians who become lawful.

Is that RAW? No, but it's the middle ground I've chosen for my home games. RAW here is pretty murky, but I don't think RAI can be to apply a rule only found in 2 non-core splat books to every prestige class ever printed. Maybe it is, but I don't think so.

[Morty]

I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.

[SirNibbles]

That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.

It's entirely possible that they wanted to try the rule and then decided not to implement it more widely. It's also possible this is RAI. But it isn't RAW, and for my own part, I don't even use that rule for prestige classes in the books that rule is printed in because the rule doesn't make sense.

I require characters to meet prerequisites whenever they take a level in that class; the only penalty for not meeting prereqs for classes is not being able to advance the class further unless explicitly noted otherwise in the class itself, same as the penalty for Monks who become nonlawful and Barbarians who become lawful.

Is that RAW? No, but it's the middle ground I've chosen for my home games. RAW here is pretty murky, but I don't think RAI can be to apply a rule only found in 2 non-core splat books to every prestige class ever printed. Maybe it is, but I don't think so.

I understand. I was responding specifically to the claim that, according to CW/CAr, you only need prereqs to take the first level.

[Troacctid]

The class is a more of a mess than I realized. Specifically, is the +4 Strength and +2 Cha from Draconic Apotheosis replacing the normal stat benefits from half-dragon, or is it on top of them? RAI's likely the first, but you could claim that that line is referring to the ability boost mechanism already established, meaning the class grants 2x the normal stat adjustments of half-dragon. That sounds like the type of conclusion you would normally argue against...
I'm working backwards from your reading by accepting your premises and extrapolating them to their logical conclusions. C'mon, this is one of the first things they teach you in rules law school.


Regardless, this doesn't change my refutation, which is just that the clause you cite -- "Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon)" -- does not mean and can't in English be read to mean that you can be a dragon so long as you weren't a half-dragon upon entering.
Yes it can.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.

It's not a bad class if you are a melee character. Full BAB 4/Stalwart Battle Sorcerer 1/DD 10 is not a terrible start to a build. Won't be a god tier uber charger but works just fine, such as if you pick Zhentarim fighter so you can turn the Cha boosts into better fear or use Janissary for knowledge skills and do a knowledge devotion build.

[Thurbane]

I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.

Take a few levels after you've maxed out Ur-Priest (or similar) for extra 9th level spell slots.

[Doctor Awkward]

Monks definitely are proficient in unarmed strikes.

In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121.

Note that while the weapon description limits you to punches, kicks, head butts, and other simple brawling techniques, the monk's class feature has a much greater variety available to them, to better reflect specific martial arts training. Monks may additionally attack freely with unarmed attacks with their hands full, a courtesy not granted to even creatures that take Improved Unarmed Strike.

Regular unarmed strikes additionally deal fixed damage based on the creature size, while the monk class feature has a table that increases at the listed rate as the monk increases in level. The monk class feature is further treated as both a manufactured and natural weapon for magical enhancement purposes when it would be most beneficial, yet another feature not found in the weapon listed on page 121.

So a monk need not be proficient with the "unarmed strike" weapon listed in the equipment section because they do not have to use it. They are instead using an alternate version of unarmed strikes described in the class feature granted to them by the monk class, which is something else entirely. Confusion regarding this distinction I've found is generally rooted in simply not reading the relevant sections of these rules thoroughly enough.


...At least that's how I explain things in my games to those very fine people that try to bring this up as an example of how D&D 3.5 is completely and totally dysfunctional.

[HouseRules]

That rule doesn't appear anywhere except in CW and CAr to my knowledge. If they wanted it to be universally applicable they should have put it in the prestige class rules for every book they printed after that, which they didn't do, and they never errataed the DMG to include that text despite issuing DMG errata after those books were printed.

They appear in 3.0 DMG, and omitted in all of 3.5 DMG.

Also, before the Premium Edition, by the books (but not SRD), Prestige Classes have multiclass penalty for 3.5.


For the topic of the thread:
Most Prestige Class have about

3 to 10 levels worth of skill points prerequisite,
0 to 3 feat requirement (3 or 6 levels could satisfy most)

[SangoProduction]

In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121.

...*and stuff, check his post*...

Oh. That has interesting implications. Does that mean that simultaneously use the Unarmed Strike class feature and the Unarmed Strike weapon? (Why would you, but then again, why would you use 99.99% of all weapons that were printed?)

[tiercel]

This thread is doing a good job of explaining why RAW-arguing has gotten such a bad name and why future editions have deliberately hewed to a 'rulings over rules' mentality.

I like having more rules/guidelines because it gives me more to work with as a DM; if I find a wonky rules interface I can just pave over that instance with some ruling and move on. If there are many fewer rules, now I’m making judgments and rulings more often than the (hopefully) occasional correction because there isn’t any baseline.

It’s possible to go too far either way, of course; I’m not going to write a Constitution of My Group to hold a law body of work of house rules, but I don’t want players to feel like I’m going to Rule Zero everything (otherwise I’d probably choose some diceless system instead). Part of that is an agreement with players to not try to exploit less-than-completely-closed-logical-system rules.



The issue though, is that everyone will have slightly differing ideas on what is and isn't dysfunctional, or how this or that rule can be interpreted, or what is and isn't a reasonable rule.

Thus, the only way to really discuss the game is with the "absolute strictest RAW possible" reading, which even then is sometimes ambiguous.

I’d argue that

1) there’s plenty of space to discuss the game not-purely-by-RAW, since it doesn’t seem that uncommon for DMs or players to ask for advice for an actual game (and I don’t know of any actual games, personally, that even try to hew /purely/ to RAW, Tippyverse, infinite combos, drown healing, etc.etc.)

2) by the logic “you can’t have a discussion if people are coming in with different RAI,” if people can’t even agree about RAW, then we still can’t have a discussion.

Of course, putting (1) and (2) together is generally why folks who ask for advice give some context (allowed/banned sources, houserules, existing characters and/or encounters) so that folks who are responding do have some kind of baseline to work from.

After all, “is it RAW legal?” can’t be the only question at most actual games; “is this in keeping thematically and/or in optimization level with the rest of the table?” generally has to be in there too.



In the course of my investigation, I have concluded that the Unarmed Strike class feature granted by the first level in the monk class is something functionally similar, but distinctly different from the weapon listed in Chapter 7: Equipment of the Player's Handbook and described on page 121....
[substantial snip]
...At least that's how I explain things in my games to those very fine people that try to bring this up as an example of how D&D 3.5 is completely and totally dysfunctional.

I suppose my *derisive snort* reference to the idea of monks not being proficient with unarmed strike is a combination of

1) Even if, technically, monks as written were not proficient, it’s hard to imagine many (any?) groups actually using such a rule in play (not only since it arguably flies in the face of the whole concept of the monk class, but also OMG WHY NERF MONK?)

2) The very fact that one might actually need an argument like the above one in order to justify a monk being able to actually hit things with his fists? I mean, sure, OK, interesting that there is a careful reading that— THIS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE HAIR-SPLITTING OMG.

[Doctor Awkward]

Oh. That has interesting implications. Does that mean that simultaneously use the Unarmed Strike class feature and the Unarmed Strike weapon?

They are expressly permitted to use the class feature interchangeably with any other weapon. So while one strike would be at damage appropriate to their level, the other would be based solely on their size. Their would also be magical enhancements to consider, as the regular unarmed strike attack would not benefit from anything that only works on manufactured weapons, for example. They would also suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty to those attacks.

So I imagine they could do so, but I'm not sure why they would want to.

[Doctor Awkward]

I suppose my *derisive snort* reference to the idea of monks not being proficient with unarmed strike is a combination of

1) Even if, technically, monks as written were not proficient, it’s hard to imagine many (any?) groups actually using such a rule in play (not only since it arguably flies in the face of the whole concept of the monk class, but also OMG WHY NERF MONK?)

2) The very fact that one might actually need an argument like the above one in order to justify a monk being able to actually hit things with his fists? I mean, sure, OK, interesting that there is a careful reading that— THIS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE HAIR-SPLITTING OMG.

I am probably in complete agreement with your stance on how best to approach the rules to maximize fun.

That explanation is mostly a thought exercise for my own benefit. I bring it out when I encounter someone who genuinely believes that such a level of hairsplitting is a perfectly appropriate way to engage with the rules in game.

It's essentially my roundabout way of saying, "You don't know what hairsplitting is. Allow me to demonstrate..."

[Elves]

Yes it can.

So...explain how?


The argument that because CWar/Arc don't contradict the DMG there is no dispute is a workable one, but to make that argument you have to just admit that DDisciple is borked.

[Telonius]

I'm not sure why anyone would take Dragon Disciple ever, even less so if they're already a dragon.

Core-only game, playing (mainly) melee, and somebody else already called Horizon Walker.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Even if you get a tax refund at the end of the year, you still don't have that money in the interim. Having to "waste" a feat on a feat tax means dealing with it until you can swap it down the line, if you can swap it down the line.

In practical terms, most GMs are low to lower-mid op in their knowledge of the game and will flat veto anything outside of their percieved idea of balance. For the majority of groups, the dark chaos shuffle (which explicitly doesn't work for PrC prerequisites by RAW per the text of embrace the dark chaos) and paying for a psychic reformation are hopelessly out of reach.

Even in the case that pyschic reformation is allowed to be purchased the caster -still- has to pay half the XP cost, which will impose the necessity of suitable compensation for such. 5gp per xp is the -standard- exchange rate but it's not an exclusive one. A side-quest might be imposed or you might have to pony up for ambrosia, liquid pain, or living souls, the former two of which are likely easier to come by but much more expensive than the latter which is also much harder to come by.

All of this assuming that the relevant books are available for use even if the group is moderately high-op.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

Then there's the distaste for having to jump through such hoops in the first place; on the grounds of inellegance, lore flavor, a sense of it being a cheat or hack (whether you think that sense is valid or not), etc.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___


For whatever weight you give designer intent, the CW/ CAr clauses did not appear there fist. The clause originated in the 3.0 DMG and was ommitted in the 3.5 update. Given the mechanical headache and occasional contradiction inherent in applying that clause, as well as the relatively close release dates between CW, CAr, and the 3.5 update, that it was never erratta'd back in, and the fact that nearly all of the content in the early complete series were simply compiling and updating 3.0 materials; I strongly suspect that ommission was intentional rather than incidental and that the CW and CAr teams included that sidebar as an erroneous reminder for a defunct rule rather than a deliberate reintroduction of it.

TL;DR: I have a strong suspicion and what I believe is a reasonable argument that the CW and CAr sidebar is an error that should be ignored.

[Troacctid]

So...explain how?

The argument that because CWar/Arc don't contradict the DMG there is no dispute is a workable one, but to make that argument you have to just admit that DDisciple is borked.
Okay, I know I literally just explained this. Here are three readings where the CW/CAr rules apply and dragon disciple is not borked.

1. Being a half-dragon only disqualifies you if you were already a half-dragon, so becoming a half-dragon through dragon apotheosis doesn't matter.
2. Because you're gaining the template piecemeal, you only get the abilities that the class features tell you to get. Dragon apotheosis doesn't say your type changes to dragon, so your type doesn't change to dragon. For this not to be true, you'd need to gain the abilities of the template separately from the abilities of the prestige class, which would, by strict RAW, result in double-dipping all of the bonuses. As both readings are consistent with the text, it makes sense to choose the one that better matches what seems to be the obvious intent—the former reading.
3. Dragon apotheosis turns you into a half-dragon once and then does nothing after that; losing the ability doesn't cause you to lose the template. So who cares if you lose your class features? They're all included in the template, so you keep literally everything except the bonus spells. NBD.

[Doctor Awkward]

1. Being a half-dragon only disqualifies you if you were already a half-dragon, so becoming a half-dragon through dragon apotheosis doesn't matter.

The CW/CArc rules are quite clear: if at any point you cease to meet any requirement for a prestige class you immediately lose all class features gained from levels in the class. Gaining the half-dragon template is explicitly a class feature of Dragon Disciple.

The requirements for Dragon Disciple are equally clear: any nondragon. Per CW/CArc this is not a one-time check. The requirements are a constant. If at any point you are a dragon, you no longer qualify for Dragon Disciple.

Pretending that this rule does anything other than render Dragon Disciple non-functional is rules-lawyering of the highest order.

[Troacctid]

The CW/CArc rules are quite clear: if at any point you cease to meet any requirement for a prestige class you immediately lose all class features gained from levels in the class. Gaining the half-dragon template is explicitly a class feature of Dragon Disciple.

The requirements for Dragon Disciple are equally clear: any nondragon. Per CW/CArc this is not a one-time check. The requirements are a constant. If at any point you are a dragon, you no longer qualify for Dragon Disciple.

Pretending that this rule does anything other than render Dragon Disciple non-functional is rules-lawyering of the highest order.
Counterpoint, everything I said before is still correct.

[animewatcha]

Why do people hate feat taxes against PRCs?

This can be answered by a feat straight from the PHB.

The almighty Whirlwind Attacks. The 'feat taxes' / pre-reqs are Combat Expertise, Dodge , Mobility, Spring Attack, DEX 13, INT 13, base attack bonus +4.

some of the pre-reqs help Whirlwind. Some hurt. Some both. Some have no use for it whatsoever.

These are supposed to work right out of the box. Therefore, anything used to try to 'fix' or 'help' create situations more favorable for Whirlwind attack outside of this feat chain / book and the types of actions it makes use of ( again limited to PHB ) is an acknowledgement that feat taxes are a big no-no and that side wins in this argument.

Onward to the feats.

Int 13. Same pre-req for combat expertise. Why we need an intellect of 13 to fight more defensively than basic form ( fighting defensively - action economy) is beyond me. This is more of a stat tax, but relates to feat tax. Definately not needed for whirlwind attack.
BAB requirement. This can be acknowledged that you are trying to swing your weapon around and actually attempt to hit somethings ( yes, plural ) around you. Taking martial skill to try and to do it right. I can see some justification for the bab requirement.
Dex 13. I am partial here because an overweight person that is the incarnation of 'not-dextrous' can still swing a weapon around widely and try to hit somethings around you. However, the dexterity is also to help you dodge incoming attacks since you likely put yourself in a position in which multiple enemies can attack you back.
Combat Expertise. Shares reasoning here with Dex 13. Help you dodge incoming attacks from multiple attackers. However, you are also sacrificing accuracy which is detrimental to whirlwind attack. Helps the other feats so there is synergy here, but the sacrifice in accuracy hurts Whirlwind and can be seen as a feat tax.
Dodge. Works for one opponent. Helps a lil with whirlwind against one opponent. However, it could have been made to apply to all opponents ( like a later feat did ). Rendering this a feat tax. Synergizes with the other feat taxes a bit.
Mobility. Extra AC when dealing with moving and threatened spaces. Helps Combat expertise, dodge, and spring attack. Contrary to Whirlwind since whirlwind requires full attack and full attack ( within PHB only ) means 5 ft, not move action. Therefore, feat tax.
Spring attack. Plays well with the other feat taxes even though this could simply have just been put into fewer feats. Different action economy than Whirlwind. While it can help set up next round to be whirlwind. Unfortunately, this also sets enemies up for full round beatdown first turn comes around again. The idea is to move in and whirlwind in the same round, not separate rounds. Feat tax.

[FaerieGodfather]

The issue though, is that everyone will have slightly differing ideas on what is and isn't dysfunctional, or how this or that rule can be interpreted, or what is and isn't a reasonable rule.

Thus, the only way to really discuss the game is with the "absolute strictest RAW possible" reading, which even then is sometimes ambiguous.

I would argue that this is demonstrably false, having already been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread, and that the "absolute strictest RAW possible" interpretation of the rules is the most actively (and deliberately) detrimental way to approach them.

If you go into the rules with the assumption that the 10th level of Dragon Disciple doesn't divide your campaign setting by zero and that Monks are automatically proficient in the use of their primary class feature, the game works and you can carry that mindset forward to make reasonable assumptions about (most) other poorly-designed rules that allow your game to continue working.

Denying that the game rules were written by human beings for human beings, and refusing to apply a "reasonable person" standard to any reading, can only exacerbate the unavoidable failings of any massive, complex ruleset that was written-- again-- by human beings for human beings. If we're all aspiring rules lawyers here, this post represents the Sovereign Citizens of D&D.


There are times when sometimes it would make more senses to use psychic reformation or DCFS to change abilities around, but I personally think the only time a PrC should have a feat or skill requirement is when said feat or skill requirement is integral to the PrC, and that PrC should instead have more story-centric requirements, rather than meta-crunch requirements. [...] It's actually one of the things I think pathfinder just did better, archetypes/ACFs over PrC, though I think PrC still have their place, my table I think is pretty much over the whole hardcore theorycraft characters into oblivion and pick all this and that, and they would much rather just play the game and let the characters grow on their own, and if something's not working, we'll fix it later.

Definitely agree that Pathfinder's Archetypes should have replaced 90% of the 3.5 PrCs.

I'm also a big fan of the Grouped Skills variant from Pathfinder Unchained. And it's useful to illustrate a point-- if a proficiency is integral to the function of a class, a Base Class should grant that proficiency while a Prestige Class should require it.

[Elves]

[snip]

Thanks for the effortful post. It's a good summing up. I agree that your case at bottom, even if not RAW, sounds like a plausible explanation.

[Thurbane]

In practical terms, most GMs are low to lower-mid op in their knowledge of the game and will flat veto anything outside of their percieved idea of balance. For the majority of groups, the dark chaos shuffle (which explicitly doesn't work for PrC prerequisites by RAW per the text of embrace the dark chaos) and paying for a psychic reformation are hopelessly out of reach..

Extremely relevant point there ^^


If the lost feat was a prerequisite for other feats or prestige classes, the subject loses access to those feats or prestige class abilities until it once again meets all the prerequisites.

...which basically limits the entire exercise to Psychic Reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm).

[Elves]

Yes, I corrected my wording, but that's the cheaper and more practical option in any case (4th level vs 8th, no evil/demonic influence, lower xp cost in many cases, and you can also change skill points &co).

[SangoProduction]

They are expressly permitted to use the class feature interchangeably with any other weapon. So while one strike would be at damage appropriate to their level, the other would be based solely on their size. Their would also be magical enhancements to consider, as the regular unarmed strike attack would not benefit from anything that only works on manufactured weapons, for example. They would also suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty to those attacks.

So I imagine they could do so, but I'm not sure why they would want to.

Awesome time to dual wield Unarmed Strike and Unarmed strike, during flurry of blows, and get an amazing -12 to attack with a 1d4 weapon. Glorious! This shall truly break all of monk-kind!

[tiercel]

I am probably in complete agreement with your stance on how best to approach the rules to maximize fun.

That explanation is mostly a thought exercise for my own benefit. I bring it out when I encounter someone who genuinely believes that such a level of hairsplitting is a perfectly appropriate way to engage with the rules in game.

It's essentially my roundabout way of saying, "You don't know what hairsplitting is. Allow me to demonstrate..."

Ha! :amused: Fair enough, but I think if these hairs get split any finer, you’re conducting alchemy or beginning a nuclear chain reaction :wink:

It’s not my place to tell folks on a discussion board that they can’t wrangle over fine details of the rules, but I don’t think it’s crazy to point out there are non-RAW ways of thinking about game issues in a game that was not intended to be, does not, and literally cannot run purely on RAW. (And my feathers get a bit ruffled when someone says “but this is the only way we can talk about the game” when it’s not that hard — and is necessary in any case — to provide context, whether it be for an actual game or even for theorycrafting.)

[FaerieGodfather]

Awesome time to dual wield Unarmed Strike and Unarmed strike, during flurry of blows, and get an amazing -12 to attack with a 1d4 weapon. Glorious! This shall truly break all of monk-kind!

I tried that sitting at my desk once and totally couldn't, so I nerfed it in the errata.

[Blackhawk748]

To answer the OPs question, because I play E6 and Reformation isnt in the table, so those terrible feats are just there. Forever

[Elves]

Just as an incidental note, Embrace the Dark Chaos is not actually an Evil spell, it's Chaotic, and the spell involves channeling "chaotic" energies from the Abyss, not evil ones. Moreover, Abyssal heritor feats are stated to be "not inherently evil", unlike Vile feats, several of which are listed in the same book. Rather, they're "chaotic, since a lawful soul would have trouble accepting the kinds of strange changes to the body and mind such feats impose". A character with two or more of these feats immediately becomes chaotic.

In other words, I think that intentionally utilizing these chaotic energies even if only to immediately reject them might very well make a lawful creature neutral, or if they have multiple feats embraced before having them shunned would make them chaotic as above. However, I don't see any evidence for this having moral good/evil implications.