Why are PRC entry requirements treated as a build constraint?

[Elves]

Character builds often end up feat-starved because of prestige classes with feat requirements. You can't get the feat you want because you had to take Dodge. But by the rules as written, this is a non-issue. This has been said before but it's worth restating.

DMG p.176 is clear: "characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class", not to maintain their class abilities or even before taking subsequent class levels. (Feats, by contrast, require that you meet their prerequisites to be “selected or used”, per PHB p.87.)

Take the entry feat, enter the PRC, and then swap the feat for another one using the feat retraining rules (PHB2 p.194). It's that simple. Or if you're in a hurry, use psychic reformation (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm), a 4th-level psychic power that you can buy as a service in almost any city using the spellcasting service rules.

But the FAQ says differently! The FAQ is an interpretation guide, not a rules source. The FAQ ruling on this question cites Complete Warrior page 16: "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."

But Complete Warrior isn't the primary source for prestige classes. The DMG is:


When you find a disagreement between two rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.... Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on.

You could argue that CW doesn't disagree but rather expands on the DMG. But the rule in Complete Warrior was taken straight from the 3.0 DMG. In the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, that rule was removed from the DMG, suggesting a proactive rule change, not a later elaboration. (CW was one of the first 3.5 supplements, which may be why this wasn't caught in proofreading.)

That argument also doesn't hold ground because there is demonstrable disagreement. A couple of prestige classes, most famously Dragon Disciple, have class features that are self-disqualifying. In order to enter the class, you can't be a half-dragon, but the class capstone turns you into one. Under the Complete Warrior rule, this feature would cancel out all your class features, including itself.

You could call that proof that the CW rule is dysfunctional, but I'll be more conservative. Even if you say it's Dragon Disciple that's dysfunctional, this example shows disagreement between the two rules, meaning the DMG text takes precedence.

At best, the rule in Complete Warrior applies only to PRCs in that book. Arguably, since it's phrased as a universal rule, it is simply overruled by the DMG (IMO, more sensible since there's no reason for PRCs from one particular splat to be different from the others).

Conclusion: By RAW, absent an "ex-class member" clause, PRC requirements don't have to be retained after entry. While the classes still have to be qualified for, PRC entry requirement feats shouldn't be treated as constraints on a character's ultimate feat loadout.

Many people think this feels dirty. But it's RAW, and is it really so bad for the game? What's added to the game by making characters take a bunch of crappy feats just to qualify for the class they want? Especially when it results in dysfunctions like Dragon Disciple, or means for example that an Arcane Archer loses all class features by being reincarnated.

A contra-example of possible inelegance is with alignment-based classes like blackguard. Technically, you could stay a blackguard even after becoming good. But that's how it is.

[Doctor Despair]

I agree that the rules don't require you to retain the prerequisites, but access to Psychic Reformation isn't guaranteed. Much like how a build predicated on having a specific item might be considered less elegant, so might a build that requires a Psychic Reformation. Along the same vein, even the feat retraining rules let you ditch prerequisites, but as I recall you need someone with the feat to train you, and that may not be there in-setting.

There's also the school of thought that, as it's disputed RAW, it's more elegant to just avoid the issue. For my part, I just avoid Psychic Reformation all together because, when combined with polymorphing into a barghest or dusk giant, you can just ignore all minimum skill requirements for prcs, entirely breaking the game in a number of ways. It is such a TO technique, and the best way to preclude it from happening would be just to avoid the psionic power, in my opinion.

[Remuko]

That argument also doesn't hold ground because there is proof of disagreement. A couple of prestige classes, most famously Dragon Disciple, have class features that are self-disqualifying. In order to enter the class, you can't be a half-dragon, but the class capstone turns you into one. Under the Complete Warrior rule, this feature would cancel out all your class features, including itself.

I think its even funnier than that. It disqualifies you so you lose it, but then since you lost it, you qualify, so you gain it again, etc ad infinitum. Sounds painful.

[Elves]

I agree that the rules don't require you to retain the prerequisites, but access to Psychic Reformation isn't guaranteed. Much like how a build predicated on having a specific item might be considered less elegant, so might a build that requires a Psychic Reformation. Along the same vein, even the feat retraining rules let you ditch prerequisites, but as I recall you need someone with the feat to train you, and that may not be there in-setting.
Elegance penalty for psychic reformation is fair, but the fact that the feat retraining rules don't even come with a retroactive disqualification clause makes it trivial. Basically, RAW, there are no PRC feat prereqs.

[Doctor Despair]

Elegance penalty for psychic reformation is fair, but the fact that the feat retraining rules don't even come with a retroactive disqualification clause makes it trivial. Basically, RAW, there are no PRC feat prereqs.

RAW, there are no skill prereqs either, as you can pay someone to polymorph you into a dusk giant or barghest, eat a bunch of stuff for temporary HD, psychic reformation your skill ranks up to their new maximum rank, then drain off (or let drain away) the temporary HD leaving the skill ranks intact. RAW, there are no good fluff requirements, as you can just write them into your backstory. That leaves class features and racial requirements. However, a lot of the game breaks down once you remove that many prereqs for prestige classes.

[Elves]

RAW, there are no skill prereqs either, as you can pay someone to polymorph you into a dusk giant or barghest, eat a bunch of stuff for temporary HD, psychic reformation your skill ranks up to their new maximum rank, then drain off (or let drain away) the temporary HD leaving the skill ranks intact.
True, but way more elaborate than just casting a spell or retraining the feat. Probably like 10x the elegance penalty.

[NigelWalmsley]

Because the question you're asking is poorly formed. There's not a general list of things that people treat as build constraints. It's specific to individual people and particular contexts. You might as well ask why people expect you to abide by WBL when infinite wealth loops are right there.

[Doctor Despair]

Because the question you're asking is poorly formed. There's not a general list of things that people treat as build constraints. It's specific to individual people and particular contexts. You might as well ask why people expect you to abide by WBL when infinite wealth loops are right there.

I wouldn't say it's poorly formed; it doesn't suggest the existence of a master constraint list, as you said. Given the context, the question in the title seems to be asking: why does anyone consider it a constraint? Thusfar, people seem to have given some answers.

[Elves]

Because the question you're asking is poorly formed. There's not a general list of things that people treat as build constraints. It's specific to individual people and particular contexts. You might as well ask why people expect you to abide by WBL when infinite wealth loops are right there.
My argument is that it's unnecessarily stigmatized in charop. WBL and wish loops are something everyone understands are RAW-legal but make the game fall apart. But with prereq feat retraining, I argue:
A) it's perceived as sketchy or illegal but is RAW.
B) it doesn't especially cause the game to fall apart since the feat = PRC power equivalency tends not to work anyway (most feat-heavy PRCs are crappy martial ones).

Another difference is that WBL is assigned so violating it is questionable for charop-in-a-vacuum.

[Doctor Despair]

For what it's worth, I haven't seen many folks use PRC entry requirements as a build constraint, per se. I've seen people avoid using Psychic Reformation or Retraining (for unstated reasons, but perhaps related to the elegance reasons I gave above). It's a notable difference, as it leaves feat-based requirements in place for the most part (save for those that can be provided by items). For example, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about satisfying the requirement for Alertness by using a familiar.

[Troacctid]

This RAW argument is bad and wrong. Egregiously so, even.

Let me try to explain for the people in the stands.


DMG p.176 is clear: "characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class", not to maintain their class abilities or even before taking subsequent class levels. (Feats, by contrast, require that you meet their prerequisites to be “selected or used”, per PHB p.87.)

[...]

But Complete Warrior isn't the primary source for prestige classes. The DMG is:


When you find a disagreement between two rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.... Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on.

You could argue that CW doesn't disagree but rather expands on the DMG.
So let's start with this. Right away, you've identified the fatal flaw in your own argument. You want the DMG text to override the CW text because it's a primary source. However, the primary source rule only comes into play when the two sources disagree.

DMG says that you must meet the prerequisites in order to take the 1st level of a prestige class.
CW says that if you lose the prerequisites to a prestige class, you also lose features from it.
This is not a disagreement. There's zero reason why both of these rules could not apply at the same time. DMG being the primary source therefore means jack-all. You have correctly noticed this and determined that your RAW argument is baseless. Which is why...

But the rule in Complete Warrior was taken straight from the 3.0 DMG. In the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, that rule was removed from the DMG, suggesting a proactive rule change, not a later elaboration. (CW was one of the first 3.5 supplements, which may be why this wasn't caught in proofreading.)
...Surprise! It was a RAI argument the whole time! After offhandedly dismissing the fairly incontrovertible RAI evidence from the FAQ, you've now gone right back to RAI by using the dubious assertion that it was a mistake. Even from a RAI standpoint, this is weak evidence, because it could just easily have been a mistake to omit the text from the 3.5 DMG—but whether or not it was a mistake doesn't matter because if you have to rely on this point at all, you can no longer say that your reading is based on RAW! You're now in the position of claiming that brazenly disregarding prestige class prerequisites is the designers' intent, and you've opened yourself to RAI arguments from the opposition.

Next, we have some non sequiturs!

That argument also doesn't hold ground because there is proof of disagreement. A couple of prestige classes, most famously Dragon Disciple, have class features that are self-disqualifying. In order to enter the class, you can't be a half-dragon, but the class capstone turns you into one. Under the Complete Warrior rule, this feature would cancel out all your class features, including itself.

You could call that proof that the CW rule is dysfunctional, but I'll be more conservative. Even if you say it's Dragon Disciple that's dysfunctional (the class that brought us the brilliant idea of spending 10 character levels on a +3 LA template), this example shows disagreement between the two rules, meaning the DMG text takes precedence.
First off, you've misquoted the prerequisite. Dragon disciple says you cannot already be a half-dragon. In other words, you can't be a half-dragon beforehand, but becoming one through the class is fine.

But that's not important to the issue at hand, so let's pretend you called out dragon devotee instead. What you've identified is not a conflict between the DMG and CW. If it's a conflict at all—we could debate that, but for now let's just grant that it's a conflict—then it's a conflict between RDr and CW. Nothing in dragon devotee conflicts with the rule that you must meet the prerequisites to take the 1st level of the class! The conflict is with losing the template once you gain the template. The DMG rule doesn't factor into it. When we apply the primary source rule, the result is that Races of the Dragon is the primary source for dragon devotee, so it saying "Do the thing" overrides Complete Warrior saying "You can't do the thing."

This line of argument doesn't have much bearing on the RAW issue in question except in regards to what I like to call "Troacctid's Razor," which is that when there are multiple valid readings of RAW, we should default to whichever is least dysfunctional. Maybe there's an argument to be made that the world where you can lose your features by self-disqualifying is a worse place to live than the world where you can retrain away your prerequisites with impunity and suffer no consequences for doing so, but if there is, I don't think you've made that argument here today. (If anything, you've made the opposite argument, as the very premise of this thread is a perversion of pretty much the whole concept of prestige classes.) And assuming we did have that argument, it would be primarily a RAI and RAF argument, because those discussions are predicated on there being an ambiguity for the DM to adjudicate.


TL;DR your conclusion isn't supported by your premises and you switched between RAW and RAI whenever it was convenient. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

[Elves]

fairly incontrovertible RAI evidence from the FAQ
FAQ has no inherent weight on the issue. Its authority here is based on the Complete Warrior cite.


you've now gone right back to RAI by using the dubious assertion that it was a mistake.
That's speculation. I have no idea. Though if it was intentional to fix a mistake you'd think they would put it in the DMG errata.


First off, you've misquoted the prerequisite. Dragon disciple says you cannot already be a half-dragon. In other words, you can't be a half-dragon beforehand, but becoming one through the class is fine.
You should check before saying this stuff. Half dragons have dragon type and DD requires nondragon.


What you've identified is not a conflict between the DMG and CW. If it's a conflict at all—we could debate that, but for now let's just grant that it's a conflict—then it's a conflict between RDr and CW.
It being dragon disciple is significant because Rdr and CW are of comparable authority but DMG is primary source. When a rule from a less authoritative splat renders primary source content logically dysfunctional, that to me is a sign of rulesets coming into conflict in a mutually incompatible way.


When we apply the primary source rule, the result is that Races of the Dragon is the primary source for dragon devotee, so it saying "Do the thing" overrides Complete Warrior saying "You can't do the thing."
I don't see how this invokes specific over general. It refers us to the rule for PRC qualification.

[Troacctid]

Oh and I forgot to mention, "It makes the dragon disciple capstone dysfunctional!" is a pretty weak argument when that capstone is already dysfunctional multiple times over. It's like complaining that your neighbor's tacky lawn ornaments are lowering the property values of your house when there's a set of train tracks and a power plant two doors down.


FAQ has no inherent weight on the issue. Its authority here is based on the Complete Warrior cite.
The FAQ is a reflection of RAI, so in a RAI discussion it absolutely carries weight. Also, how does "The CW rule applies here" have no weight on the issue of whether the CW rule is a toothless rule that never applies to anything?


That's speculation. I have no idea. Though if it was intentional to fix a mistake you'd think they would put it in the DMG errata.
You could just as easily say that if the CW and CAr rules were mistakes, they would have fixed them in their respective errata docs.


It being dragon disciple is significant because Rdr and CW are of comparable authority but DMG is primary source. When a rule from a less authoritative splat renders primary source content logically dysfunctional, that to me is a sign of rulesets coming into conflict in a mutually incompatible way.
What I'm hearing here is "I don't understand how the primary source rule works!"

[Elves]

so in a RAI discussion
Application of RAW =/= RAI.

As statements in themselves, the DMG and CWar quotes are compatible, but DMG gives us several proofs and CW makes one of those proofs inconsistent. Thus there's conflict between them. It resolves to DMG.

What do other people think?

[Troacctid]

Application of RAW =/= RAI.

As statements in themselves, the DMG and CWar quotes are compatible, but DMG gives us several proofs and CW makes one of those proofs inconsistent. Thus there's conflict between them. It resolves to DMG.

What do other people think?
If your argument is based on the premise that the text in CW and CAr was included unintentionally, that's a RAI argument.

[Elves]

If your argument is based on the premise that the text in CW and CAr was included unintentionally, that's a RAI argument.
It's not, but there's an RAI argument to make, which is that it doesn't seem likely that you have to buy an unrelated splatbook in order to understand the basic rules of how prestige classes work.

If some splatbook randomly stated that "dwarves gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate", that doesn't make it true simply because that rule doesn't contradict the dwarf stats given in PHB. Despite no positively stated conflict, this is intuitively subject to primary source. PHB being the primary source for the dwarf race implies a basic amount of comprehensiveness. The same is true for the DMG re: PRC rules.

[Troacctid]

It's not, but there's an RAI argument to make, which is that it doesn't seem likely that you have to buy an unrelated splatbook in order to understand the basic rules of how prestige classes work.

If some splatbook randomly stated that "dwarves gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate", that doesn't make it true simply because that rule doesn't contradict the dwarf stats given in PHB. Despite no positively stated conflict, this is intuitively subject to primary source. PHB being the primary source for the dwarf race implies a basic amount of comprehensiveness. The same is true for the DMG re: PRC rules.
So I imagine you would also argue that the weaponlike spell rules in Complete Arcane are nonfunctional because the PHB is the primary source for spells, yes? And, similarly, the expanded cold weather rules in Frostburn and the expanded hot weather rules in Sandstorm are superseded by the DMG's environmental rules? And every monster that says it can be summoned with a summon monster spell is lying, because the primary source for summon monster is the PHB, not a random monster entry in Fiendish Codex II. Retraining rules in PHB2? Forget it! The original PHB is the primary source for leveling up, and it doesn't mention anything about retraining! What about Magic Iten Compendium's rules for enhancing existing items with common effects? Direct contradiction of the DMG, which is the primary source for magic items and magic item crafting. Toss 'em out!

I could keep going, if you like.

[Elves]

But you admit the dwarf example is right -- in other words, lack of positive contradiction isn't sufficient to say there's no disagreement.

That strengthens the RAW argument relating to dragon disciple. But in terms of the RAI argument about primary source implying a "modicum of comprehensiveness", your examples don't fit. Expanded options for a summon monster spell, new options for magic items, or a whole new set of rules for retraining don't equate to a basic functionality of prestige classes.

Even comparing it with the expanded rules for weaponlike spells in CArc -- it makes sense that a book about casters gives expanded options for certain spell types, moreso than it laying ground rules for PRCs. On a RAW level, note that by including a section called "weaponlike spells" it becomes the primary source for that designation, which is not true of the PRC blurb later in the book.

Also, note that while these new rules were reproduced in Rules Compendium, the CWar and CArc PRC rule never appears in any other book, even though almost every splat published had PRCs.

[Troacctid]

But you admit the dwarf example is right -- in other words, lack of positive contradiction isn't sufficient to say there's no disagreement.
Absolutely not! I don't agree with that! It's not a hypothetical—kobolds were updated in Races of the Dragon to give them the dragonblood subtype and a bonus class skill, and again in a web enhancement to have natural weapons and slight build. You're arguing that no, in fact, they do not have those things, and the only RAW you're citing for it is that "Core books always win rules disagreements," which is an absurd argument.

I guess we can't give kobolds the dragonblood subtype because it's "intuitively subject to primary source," but we can summon a coure with summon monster IV because it "makes sense." Definitely RAW here, folks! Ironclad, text-driven, yessiree! 💁

[King of Nowhere]

"hard RAW" is 97% of my definition of "rule exploit"
If a player at my table asked to ditch a prerequisite because he's feat starved, and wants to take a feat that's not too cheesy in its place, i am inclined to agree.
If a player presents an elaborated rules-lawyering argument for why he should be allowed to ditch prerewuisites, i would strenuously disagree, on account of RAI and of the "i am the dm, i make the rules" trump card

[Elves]

because it "makes sense." Definitely RAW here, folks! Ironclad, text-driven, yessiree! 💁
Conveniently ignoring the next sentence. The new rules for weaponlike spells in CArc are in their own section, "Weaponlike Spells", on which CArc is authoritative.


Absolutely not! I don't agree with that! It's not a hypothetical—kobolds were updated in Races of the Dragon to give them the dragonblood subtype and a bonus class skill, and again in a web enhancement to have natural weapons and slight build.
Likewise, Races of the Dragon is by its nature clearly assumed to be primary source on the races it's describing. It provides a whole new statblock for kobold PCs that is in direct contradiction of (unlike my example) and obviously intended to supplant the info from Monster Manual. Primary source doesn't always mean earlier source.

Neither of these cases apply to the prestige class text in CWar/CArc.

[Gruftzwerg]

Absolutely not! I don't agree with that! It's not a hypothetical—kobolds were updated in Races of the Dragon to give them the dragonblood subtype and a bonus class skill, and again in a web enhancement to have natural weapons and slight build. You're arguing that no, in fact, they do not have those things, and the only RAW you're citing for it is that "Core books always win rules disagreements," which is an absurd argument.

I guess we can't give kobolds the dragonblood subtype because it's "intuitively subject to primary source," but we can summon a coure with summon monster IV because it "makes sense." Definitely RAW here, folks! Ironclad, text-driven, yessiree! 💁

The things that can alter Primary Source rules are either more specific or are called out as "exceptions", extended rules (e.g. Web extension; List expanding rules..).
CW on the other hand doesn't talk about an exception, nor does it talk about a more specific situation (e.g. only for CW PRC). And it doesn't tell you explicitly to extend the rules.
All it does is assuming that the rules that are presented in CW are general rules. But the general rules and the Dragon Disciple, both presented in the Primary Source (DMG), disagree with the assumption that the presented rules in CW are general rules.

The way the rules are presented in CW does nowhere indicate the required intention "to add rules to the definition of the DMG". CW lacks the permission to alter the Primary Source rules due to poor/wrong wording.

[Darg]

Should we argue the initiator levels progression of ToB? "Most cases" implies "unless otherwise specified" all prestige classes provide full initiator level progression. Unless we segregate the book's rules into its own ecosystem that is.

CArc and CW quite possibly might not actually be a part of the books at a table. This means the rules default to DMG regardless.

I disagree that the books and the DMG aren't disagreeing with each other. Even if the text isn't in disagreement, the result is. Which means they can't coexist.


.I guess we can't give kobolds the dragonblood subtype because it's "intuitively subject to primary source," but we can summon a coure with summon monster IV because it "makes sense." Definitely RAW here, folks! Ironclad, text-driven, yessiree! 💁

The reverse is also true. The core books weren't meant to be optional for the running of a game. Other books are optional. I don't agree that retraining prerequisites should be a thing, but I have to say that it is hardly the power spike that would unbalance the game. Power scaling is wholly unbalanced in 3.5 and that has to do with the linear feature progression with the exponential growth of magic power. The best way to curb this is to provide feature progression and regression in tandem with the growth of magic.

[Doctor Despair]

I disagree that the books and the DMG aren't disagreeing with each other. Even if the text isn't in disagreement, the result is. Which means they can't coexist.

That's fair. They both describe a system for prerequisites, but while the DMG doesn't explicitly say "You must retain prerequisites for all prestige classes," it does provide examples of PCs losing prerequisites and keeping their class features, cementing the idea that the system doesn't require you to keep them. This would put the system described in the DMG into conflict with CW/CA.

[Troacctid]

If you can quote the section in the DMG that says you keep your prestige class features even if you lose the prerequisites, then I'll concede the point and agree that it does in fact overrule CW and CAr by RAW. But you can't do that, because it doesn't say that. Which means you don't have an argument.


That's fair. They both describe a system for prerequisites, but while the DMG doesn't explicitly say "You must retain prerequisites for all prestige classes," it does provide examples of PCs losing prerequisites and keeping their class features, cementing the idea that the system doesn't require you to keep them. This would put the system described in the DMG into conflict with CW/CA.
Where are these examples, pray tell?

[Doctor Despair]

Where are these examples, pray tell?

Dragon Disciple. It changes your type to dragon, but the class can only be entered as a non-dragon. Type restrictions are entered as a race requirement, just as specific race requirements are. See Fiend of Possession (Race: Any outsider with the Evil subtype.), Tribal Protector (Race: Any humanoid or monstrous humanoid except dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, or human.), Lord/Lady of the Dead (race: any undead), and Fiend-blooded (Race: Any humanoid race (cannot already be a half-fiend)) for examples. I don't believe there are any creatures that just have "dragon" as their race (but rather black dragon, forest landwyrm, dragonwrought kobold, etc); when a prc requires "any dragon" or "any nondragon," I think it pretty clearly is referring to the dragon type. As such, Dragon Disciple would also result in the infinite fall/regain/fall/regain cycle that Dragon Devotee causes, too -- however, as you said, it won't be by merit of having the template, but rather by merit of having the type.

[Troacctid]

Dragon Disciple. It changes your type to dragon, but the class can only be entered as a non-dragon. Type restrictions are entered as a race requirement, just as specific race requirements are. See Fiend of Possession (Race: Any outsider with the Evil subtype.), Tribal Protector (Race: Any humanoid or monstrous humanoid except dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, or human.), Lord/Lady of the Dead (race: any undead), and Fiend-blooded (Race: Any humanoid race (cannot already be a half-fiend)) for examples. I don't believe there are any creatures that just have "dragon" as their race (but rather black dragon, forest landwyrm, dragonwrought kobold, etc); when a prc requires "any dragon" or "any nondragon," I think it pretty clearly is referring to the dragon type. As such, Dragon Disciple would also result in the infinite fall/regain/fall/regain cycle that Dragon Devotee causes, too -- however, as you said, it won't be by merit of having the template, but rather by merit of having the type.
Where's the example dragon disciple that has gained the dragon type and retained its class features? I don't recall seeing one.

(I'll also point out that such a loop only occurs if you take the dysfunctional reading that dragon disciples get the full LA of the template and double the normal ability score adjustments—total of +16 Strength between the class and the template—rather than the more common reading that they gain only those abilities of the template that are described in the 10th level feature. The latter interpretation results in no conflict, as the capstone pointedly omits any mention of the type change.)

[liquidformat]

Dragon Disciple. It changes your type to dragon, but the class can only be entered as a non-dragon. Type restrictions are entered as a race requirement, just as specific race requirements are. See Fiend of Possession (Race: Any outsider with the Evil subtype.), Tribal Protector (Race: Any humanoid or monstrous humanoid except dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-elf, or human.), Lord/Lady of the Dead (race: any undead), and Fiend-blooded (Race: Any humanoid race (cannot already be a half-fiend)) for examples. I don't believe there are any creatures that just have "dragon" as their race (but rather black dragon, forest landwyrm, dragonwrought kobold, etc); when a prc requires "any dragon" or "any nondragon," I think it pretty clearly is referring to the dragon type. As such, Dragon Disciple would also result in the infinite fall/regain/fall/regain cycle that Dragon Devotee causes, too -- however, as you said, it won't be by merit of having the template, but rather by merit of having the type.

This honestly seems to be a bad faith argument that takes ignoring half the racial requirements or a lack of understanding of the English language to make. The requirement is 'Race: Any nondragon (cannot already be a half-dragon).' Cannot already be a half-dragon, is the important part acknowledging inside of the prerequisites that you will become a half-dragon during the PRC.

Given the fact that this entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that Dragon Disciple is in conflict with the CW ruling it isn't a very stable argument. Also the rules presented in CW seem to go along with the general rules given for many classes that have prerequisites like cleric, paladin, and monk which take away your class features when you no longer meet the class requirements. Also in general 3.0 rules are to be followed unless they are explicitly changed in 3.5 and the 3.5 rule isn't contradicting the 3.0 rule and it is restated in 3.5 splat books. All and all it seems like RAW is saying if you loose your prerequisites for a PRC you loose the abilities granted by the PRC.

Also from a personal RAP perspective I have never been in a game that actually aloud feat retraining and have always seen it as more of a theory craft/charops tactic. But that might just be the groups I play with.

[Doctor Despair]

Where's the example dragon disciple that has gained the dragon type and retained its class features? I don't recall seeing one.

Are you suggesting that the correct reading is to say that Dragon Disciples should flipflop between being half-dragon or not being half-dragon infinitely, constantly being in a state of being and not being a half-dragon? That's a non-dysfunctional reading? Personally, I think it's fairly obvious that's a dysfunctional reading, especially considering it didn't occur until CW or CA were printed. The DMG's description of PrCs omits mention to needing to keep prerequisites; the DMG's usage of PrCs includes PrCs that are completely dysfunctional if you add that rule. The text's use of prerequisites for PrCs is in conflict with the rules stated in CW and CA.


(I'll also point out that such a loop only occurs if you take the dysfunctional reading that dragon disciples get the full LA of the template and double the normal ability score adjustments—total of +16 Strength between the class and the template—rather than the more common reading that they gain only those abilities of the template that are described in the 10th level feature. The latter interpretation results in no conflict, as the capstone pointedly omits any mention of the type change.)


At 10th level, a dragon disciple takes on the half-dragon template. His breath weapon reaches full strength (as noted above), and he gains +4 to Strength and +2 to Charisma. His natural armor bonus increases to +4, and he acquires low-light vision, 60-foot darkvision, immunity to sleep and paralysis effects, and immunity to the energy type used by his breath weapon.

The half-dragon template isn't a fluff term; it's a mechanical term. The former reading is the RAW one; to exchange "half-dragon template" for "traits of a dragon" is RAI.



Also from a personal RAP perspective I have never been in a game that actually aloud feat retraining and have always seen it as more of a theory craft/charops tactic. But that might just be the groups I play with.

It absolutely is a charop/theorycrafting thing, as I said upthread. I usually avoid it in any builds that I do, as it just makes it too messy and easy, much like the polymorph/reformation trick referenced above.

[A.A.King]

Aren't the feat retraining rules entirely optional? And similarly, can you really assume that in any given game you'll have the time and ability to locate a high enough level psionic character to perform the psionic reformation trick?

What you can and cannot do in any given game is ultimately the decision of the GM. The idea of RAW exists only because we need some common frame work to be able to discuss the game/rules outside of the context of an actual game. We can't know for certain what the GM will allow until we ask him and so until we can ask him we assume RAW and build base don that.

However, we also all know that these rulebooks were not drafted with the careful skill and craftmanship of actual lawyers. We can spends days/weeks/months ruleslawyering with each other because the original writers often assumed that'd we get what they were getting at. There exist any number of "Theoretical Optimization" tricks in this game that are all completely RAW but that we wouldn't actually try in a real game because no DM would allow it. Nobody is going to suggest that we should just ignore WBL simply because you can buy 10ft. Ladders, break them into 2 10ft. poles and sell them at a profit ad infinitum. We can't often on what does and does not constitute a "reasonable GM" but with these kind of tricks we do. When making a build we limit ourselves not just by what the RAW says we can do but also by our own assumption of what a reasonable GM would allow.

The point of all of this is simple: even if we assume that you are technically correct (which I highly doubt you are) and that the logical reading of the rules is that you can just ditch whatever prerequisite you needed to get into the PrC as soon as you've taken your first level then this whole discussion would still be moot. I'd very much doubt that you'll find a GM would allow you to abuse the feat retraining rules or psychic reformation to trade-in the useless feat prerequisites for more useful ones who wouldn't also have simply just let you ignore those feat prerequisites in its entirety.

The whole reason for your argument seems to be based in this: "What's added to the game by making characters take a bunch of crappy feats just to qualify for the class they want?". I'm not sure you really believe this to be true so much as you want this to be true, because you feel limited by the feat prerequisites. In some cases (maybe even many cases) you're right in that the feat prerequisites are needlessly prohibiting but this argument does not and will never solve that problem because even if this would be the correct technical reading of the rules (which I still doubt) then it still would not be the way the rules would be enforced in actual play.

So the answer the question as posted in the title - Why are PRC entry requirements treated as a build constraint?
Because almost no DM would be willing to let you trade them away in the way you suggest, so there is not much point in debating the rule.

[Troacctid]

Are you suggesting that the correct reading is to say that Dragon Disciples should flipflop between being half-dragon or not being half-dragon infinitely, constantly being in a state of being and not being a half-dragon? That's a non-dysfunctional reading? Personally, I think it's fairly obvious that's a dysfunctional reading, especially considering it didn't occur until CW or CA were printed. The DMG's description of PrCs omits mention to needing to keep prerequisites; the DMG's usage of PrCs includes PrCs that are completely dysfunctional if you add that rule. The text's use of prerequisites for PrCs is in conflict with the rules stated in CW and CA.
You were the one who claimed that the DMG explicitly included an example of keeping the prestige class abilities after losing the prerequisites. So where's this example? I don't see anything in the dragon disciple capstone spelling that out. What's to say you don't lose all your class features at the capstone? "It's dysfunctional!" doesn't mean it's not RAW. The dysfunctions of dragon disciple are well established. Where's the text?


The half-dragon template isn't a fluff term; it's a mechanical term. The former reading is the RAW one; to exchange "half-dragon template" for "traits of a dragon" is RAI.
Alternatively, we could say the prestige class's abbreviated list of racial abilities is in conflict with the template as it appears in the Monster Manual (+4 Strength is not +8 Strength!), which means we go to the conflicting sources rules, and subjectively determine, based on the context of the previous 9 levels, that dragon disciple is an exception to the normal half-dragon rules (or, alternatively, that dragon disciple is more specific, or that it is the primary source for its own capstone), and so it overrides the normal text of the template, thus resulting in the class working exactly the way it's supposed to with no loops, no LA, and no dysfunctions. 👨*⚖️

[Psyren]

What do other people think?

I agree with Troacctid that the primary source rule is very often misused on this forum. It only applies to contradictions, and two rules that can apply to the same situation simultaneously are not that.

[Elves]

The things that can alter Primary Source rules are either more specific or are called out as "exceptions", extended rules (e.g. Web extension; List expanding rules..).
CW on the other hand doesn't talk about an exception, nor does it talk about a more specific situation (e.g. only for CW PRC). And it doesn't tell you explicitly to extend the rules.
All it does is assuming that the rules that are presented in CW are general rules. But the general rules and the Dragon Disciple, both presented in the Primary Source (DMG), disagree with the assumption that the presented rules in CW are general rules.

The way the rules are presented in CW does nowhere indicate the required intention "to add rules to the definition of the DMG". CW lacks the permission to alter the Primary Source rules due to poor/wrong wording.
Gruftzwerg makes good points. Compared to other new rules, the way this rule is included in CWar and CArc is highly abnormal if meant to supersede DMG.

Frankly it's bizarre to think you aren't supposed to know the basics of PRC use unless you buy CW or CWarc, two incidental splats. And the rule never appeared in any other 3.5 book.

Dragon disciple stands out for being logically inconsistent, but there are other absurdities like dwarven defenders, arcane archers and other racial PRCs getting gimped by polymorph and similar effects. When these situations come up it's hard for me to see how you can say there's no rules conflict.


And similarly, can you really assume that in any given game you'll have the time and ability to locate a high enough level psionic character to perform the psionic reformation trick?
The DM can say no to anything, but by RAW one is available in almost any city, which is sufficient to assume its availability for the purpose of charop.


The whole reason for your argument seems to be based in this: "What's added to the game by making characters take a bunch of crappy feats just to qualify for the class they want?".
That's not the basis of my argument, but it's my opinion on why feat replacement doesn't damage the game.

The concept of forcing you to spend feats in order to take a more powerful class is apples to oranges at the best of times. It's like saying, "you can't ride this rollercoaster because you have an oak tree in your backyard." They're separate progressions and it's hard to balance a cost in one with a cost in the other. This is how feat costs are different from most other PRC requirements, which tend to limit the level or class combination you can enter with, rather than directly trying to exert a cost.

In practice, this cost is inconsistent. There are many powerful PRCs with easy requirements and many mediocre PRCs that become almost unusable due to high feat taxes. Characters already get few feats and the taxes quickly become punitive and restrictive rather than acting as a meaningful balancer.

A feat requirement makes the most sense when the PRC builds on or utilizes its benefit. Even here there's an argument for letting characters enter without that feat if they want. Maybe their interest is in a different class feature that PRC grants or maybe they're fine with missing out on the benefit for a while and taking the feat later. Why not let them?

Most of the time there's much less connection. Why does blackguard require Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder? It's a non sequitur. No connection to its abilities. It's bad design. If the rules allow it to be circumvented, that's not a tragedy.

[Troacctid]

Gruftzwerg makes good points. Compared to other new rules, the way this rule is included in CWar and CArc is highly abnormal if meant to supersede DMG.
Why the heck would anyone think it's meant to supersede the DMG's rule? No. Both rules apply at the same time, because they don't conflict.

[Doctor Despair]

Why the heck would anyone think it's meant to supersede the DMG's rule? No. Both rules apply at the same time, because they don't conflict.

I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation that "The DMG doesn't conflict with CW/CA because Dragon Disciple is supposed to be dysfunctional." The prc wasn't dysfunctional when it was printed; it only becomes dysfunctional if we try to apply the rules from CW/CA to the game writ large instead of just the prcs within their respective books. The prc system designed in the DMG doesn't seem to jive with the prc system described in CW/CA for that reason.

[AvatarVecna]

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'll say this: I've had a DM that allowed infinite combos and epic shenanigans, but still required us to continuously qualify for the feats and PrCs we took. It's one of those things that's technically RAW, but that I never ever ever expect to be allowed to do in a real game. Maybe your experience is different from mine, though.

[Troacctid]

I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation that "The DMG doesn't conflict with CW/CA because Dragon Disciple is supposed to be dysfunctional." The prc wasn't dysfunctional when it was printed; it only becomes dysfunctional if we try to apply the rules from CW/CA to the game writ large instead of just the prcs within their respective books. The prc system designed in the DMG doesn't seem to jive with the prc system described in CW/CA for that reason.
The DMG rule in question is not dragon disciple. It's this one sentence from page 176, which was quoted in the OP.

If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class.
As you can see, it does not address what happens if you later lose the prerequisites, so it does not conflict with CW's text clarifying that scenario. Dragon disciple is irrelevant.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you can quote the section in the DMG that says you keep your prestige class features even if you lose the prerequisites, then I'll concede the point and agree that it does in fact overrule CW and CAr by RAW. But you can't do that, because it doesn't say that. Which means you don't have an argument.


Where are these examples, pray tell?

Sorry but the burden of proof is on your side.
The DMG is the Primary Source for the PRC topic. Any other source would need to call out that it wants to change em and in which form they are changed.
CW just assumes the presence of general rules but doesn't provide any permission to alter the general rules. It doesn't call out any specific situation, it doesn't call out an exception to general rules or any intention to add rules.
The wording in CW never implies any intend to change the Primary Source rules and therefore lacks the permission to alter em. It just tries to add to general rules without permission.
Assuming rules that are not reflected by the Primary Source is a clear conflict with the Primary Source.

[Elves]

Why the heck would anyone think it's meant to supersede the DMG's rule? No. Both rules apply at the same time, because they don't conflict.
Bad word choice, it's weird even as expansion.

Plus, don't you find it a little bit weird that this rule only appears slipped into these two random splats that most tables are presumed not to own, is never mentioned elsewhere despite almost every splat published including PRCs, yet we're supposed to take it as a system wide rule for something on which those splats aren't even primary source?


I can't speak for anybody else, but I'll say this: I've had a DM that allowed infinite combos and epic shenanigans, but still required us to continuously qualify for the feats and PrCs we took.
Feats at least do unambiguously require continuous qualification.


It seems like the arguments have been said pretty clearly on both sides, so I want to address "should" instead of "if". I agree that continuous qualification is a better rule in the abstract. If you were overhauling the game you should use it. But the crappy way it's implemented in the official content -- from bad design (endless unnecessary feat taxes) to dysfunctions (race-based PRCs being gimped by spells like polymorph) -- makes me see it in practice as not a loss to mourn.

[Troacctid]

Bad word choice, it's weird even as expansion.

Plus, don't you find it a little bit weird that this rule only appears slipped into these two random splats that most tables are presumed not to own, is never mentioned elsewhere despite almost every splat published including PRCs, yet we're supposed to take it as a system wide rule for something on which those splats aren't even primary source?
"It's weird" isn't a RAW argument. Once again, as soon as the RAW becomes inconvenient to your interpretation, you run back to RAI. In RAW, it doesn't matter if it's weird. It's the text. It doesn't stop being the text just because it offends your sense of aesthetics. (Also, it's not weird.)

[Darg]

I've heard that CArc and CW were in development prior to the 3.5 system update. It is extremely likely the text could be a holdover from 3.0.

Does anyone have access to a premium edition DMG? I know that the premium versions of the PHB and MM make changes that aren't available elsewhere. I have to wonder if maybe this version would also have changes.

[ThanatosZero]

I like to pass on what we discussed on the discord server in regards to the rulings.
Here what our discord server member Knight said and quoted.



Most people cherry pick and are drawn to the red herring "If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class"
But messages and rules often cannot be simplified like that without creating misunderstanding.

"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."

The listed events are alignment change, level loss, and magical item loss.
The idea a PrC can disqualify it's self isn't an example and doesn't really agree with the first part. So the idea isn't quite right.

If it helps Andy Collins - accredited 3.0 player's handbook R&D, 3.0 dungeonmaster's guide additional designer, 3.0 book of vile deeds playtester, 3.5 player's handbook revisionist, 3.5 complete divine development team, simply listed at the top of 3.5 complete warrior, 3.5 races of eberron developer, and more. - has said in an official document provided by wizards of the coast and listed under D&D's game rules

"If the character already had one or more levels in warforged juggernaut before reaching 3rd level as a reforged, he would retain all warforged juggernaut class features (even the armor spikes gained at 1st level, since these aren’t the result of a warforged feat) but could not gain any additional levels in the prestige class."

So you have to try and refine the idea based on all the data you can gather.

[Elves]

Once again, as soon as the RAW becomes inconvenient to your interpretation, you run back to RAI.
I think the RAW argument on dragon disciple holds. I'm also bringing up these context clues.


"If the character already had one or more levels in warforged juggernaut before reaching 3rd level as a reforged, he would retain all warforged juggernaut class features (even the armor spikes gained at 1st level, since these aren’t the result of a warforged feat) but could not gain any additional levels in the prestige class."
This is actually stronger RAI evidence than the FAQ. FAQ is pure citation, this is actual opining from one of the devs.


Whatever. But the gist of my argument is that it should be uncontroversial in PO and certainly in TO to say "traded away prereq with psychic reformation".

[Gruftzwerg]

"It's weird" isn't a RAW argument. Once again, as soon as the RAW becomes inconvenient to your interpretation, you run back to RAI. In RAW, it doesn't matter if it's weird. It's the text. It doesn't stop being the text just because it offends your sense of aesthetics. (Also, it's not weird.)

And where is your RAW proof that CW & CArc have the permission/intention to change general rules? The format in which the rules in these 2 books are presented don't qualify to suppress Primary Source Rules.
Rule Compendium and Dragon Compendium are good examples how one can qualify to change rules or add to em. They explicitly call out their intentions. CW & CArc never make any similar claims and thus lack the permission to do so due to Primary Source rules.


I've heard that CArc and CW were in development prior to the 3.5 system update. It is extremely likely the text could be a holdover from 3.0.

Does anyone have access to a premium edition DMG? I know that the premium versions of the PHB and MM make changes that aren't available elsewhere. I have to wonder if maybe this version would also have changes.

If we look at release dates (I hope google, wikipedia and the WOTC ERRATA site have the correct dates):
CW - November 2003
CArc - 01 November 2004
DMG ERRATA - 03 December 2004
The DMG ERRATA was released a month later and didn't reflect any of the additional rules presented in those 2 books. As such, it is the latest intended alteration to the presented rules in the Primary Source for PRC (which again suppresses CW and CArc). Imho this shows much about "designer intends".. We have topic primacy (DMG) and the latest official rule alteration (DMG ERRATA) on the same page here to support the same claim.

The situation implies that even designers on different projects (CW & CArc / ERRATA) may had different intends or weren't aware of all the 3.5 changes. But that is sole the RAI side that is unclear.
RAW side is still clear for me, since CW & CArc don't provide any permissions to alter Primary Source general rules, nor do they qualify for specific rules or exceptions due to the way the text is worded. Not even the slightest indicator that it wants to change anything. It just assumes general rules that aren't there (anymore).

[Mordante]

DMG p.176 is clear: "characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class", not to maintain their class abilities or even before taking subsequent class levels. (Feats, by contrast, require that you meet their prerequisites to be “selected or used”, per PHB p.87.)

.

I don't think that any sane DM would allow swapping out feats that are required to for a PrC or for a following. No DM would allow a player to take improved bull rush and then later swap out power attack, while keeping improved bull rush.

[Darg]

I don't think that any sane DM would allow swapping out feats that are required to for a PrC or for a following. No DM would allow a player to take improved bull rush and then later swap out power attack, while keeping improved bull rush.

The PHB, which is core and the primary source for the rules for feats, specifically explains how losing prerequisites for feats works:


A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. For example, if your character’s Strength drops below 13 because a ray of enfeeblement spell, he or she can’t use the Power Attack feat until the prerequisite is once again met.

So there is no contention there. There are plenty of sane DMs that would allow it. The smarter DMs though would handwave the silly requirements that work to weaken an already weak PrC to get ahead of the need to retrain in the first place. There's no benefit for the table to weaken a character for fluff unless that character was already tier 1 or 2.

[Crichton]

This is actually stronger RAI evidence than the FAQ. FAQ is pure citation, this is actual opining from one of the devs..


No, that actually IS just the the FAQ, a direct quote from it(page 6). It's just presented here from a guy who has a weird fixation with trying to present the FAQ as more authoritative than it actually is, and so whenever he quotes from it he doesn't say that's where it's from, instead saying its from ' an official document provided by wizards of the coast'

Still a good RAI point, but just the FAQ

[Darg]

No, that actually IS just the the FAQ, a direct quote from it(page 6). It's just presented here from a guy who has a weird fixation with trying to present the FAQ as more authoritative than it actually is, and so whenever he quotes from it he doesn't say that's where it's from, instead saying its from ' an official document provided by wizards of the coast'

Still a good RAI point, but just the FAQ

So, from what I am getting from this is that the FAQ is contradicting itself again.

[Crichton]

So, from what I am getting from this is that the FAQ is contradicting itself again.

Yes, and it contradicts itself quite directly.


For those following along, the FAQ, in the section on Prestige Classes which begins on page 30, several times reiterates the CW rule that losing a prerequisite for a prestige class causes you to lose all class features and abilities from that prestige class, but on page 6 of that very same FAQ, it clearly illustrates losing the prerequisites of a prestige class (Warforged Juggernaut), and being able to keep all the class features, but be unable to advance further.


So any attempt to use the FAQ to determine the RAI of this issue is, essentially, impossible, since it supports both sides simultaneously and in contradiction with itself.

[ThanatosZero]

So any attempt to use the FAQ to determine the RAI of this issue is, essentially, impossible, since it supports both sides simultaneously and in contradiction with itself.

In this case, the more recent statement of the developer "Andy Collins" takes priority over any older statement he made.

[Crichton]

In this case, the more recent statement of the developer "Andy Collins" takes priority over any older statement he made.



Did I miss something? The statement you quoted from Knight's discord chat which is what was presented here as coming from Andy Collins IS from the FAQ (page 6) and it's the one I used in illustrating the self-contradicting info from the FAQ.

[ThanatosZero]

Did I miss something? The statement you quoted from Knight's discord chat which is what was presented here as coming from Andy Collins IS from the FAQ (page 6) and it's the one I used in illustrating the self-contradicting info from the FAQ.

To be completely honest, I have never payed much attention to the FAQ.

But regardless, if for example a law is rightfully altered, then anything what came before is no longer in effect.
The same speaks true about rulings.
If Andy Collin later stated the old ruling, then it means that the recent alteration is no longer in force.

It is really simple.

[Gruftzwerg]

To be completely honest, I have never payed much attention to the FAQ.

But regardless, if for example a law is rightfully altered, then anything what came before is no longer in effect.
The same speaks true about rulings.
If Andy Collin later stated the old ruling, then it means that the recent alteration is no longer in force.

It is really simple.

The problem I have is that the FAQ are not official rules and can't alter rules. While the latest instance of official rules regarding this topic is the ERRATA for the DMG. And the Errata doesn't reflect the previous differences in CW and CArc anymore. As thus, it legitimates/confirms the DMG version as latest correct instance of rules.

[Crichton]

To be completely honest, I have never payed much attention to the FAQ.

But regardless, if for example a law is rightfully altered, then anything what came before is no longer in effect.
The same speaks true about rulings.
If Andy Collin later stated the old ruling, then it means that the recent alteration is no longer in force.

It is really simple.



I think you're not understanding my question, or maybe we're not talking about the same thing here. What exactly is this statement from Andy Collins you're referring to?? The statement I thought you were referring to is this:


"If the character already had one or more levels in warforged juggernaut before reaching 3rd level as a reforged, he would retain all warforged juggernaut class features (even the armor spikes gained at 1st level, since these aren’t the result of a warforged feat) but could not gain any additional levels in the prestige class."

This statement is copy/pasted from the FAQ on page 6, which means this statement was released inside the same document as the other statements that contradict it. Thus the FAQ is self-contradictory on this issue.



Honestly I don't even know where the info came from that this statement came from him. Did he write the entire FAQ himself? If so, he's the one contradicting himself on this issue


(Nevermind that Andy Collins has any authority to alter rules, though his opinion on RAI would be equally as valid as that of any of the developers would, but not any more valid.)

[newguydude1]

Whatever. But the gist of my argument is that it should be uncontroversial in PO and certainly in TO to say "traded away prereq with psychic reformation".

no. the prc entry requirement has to be retained.

theres faq
theres book of exalted deeds
theres complete warrior
theres complete arcane

shun the dark chaos from fiendish codex

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

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.

every single place you look it says you lose all the benefits. dmg just forgot to include this. lots of source books forget to include basic stuff in this game so you gotta look at everything. minimum caster level is another basic thing dmg forgot to mention.

this is open and shut.

dragon disciple is a stable loop. its 10th class feature kills the prc, only for it to be reapplied, only for it to be killed again, over and over, and the ruling is clear. under such circumstance prc benefit is not lost.

[Vaern]

The PHB2 does specifically note that if rebuilding previous class levels or changing your race would prevent you from qualifying for a prestige class then you lose all benefits and special abilities of that prestige class except for HP, BAB, saves, and skill points. It does, however, have a blind spot for retraining feats and skill points.
So... if you retrain your feats or skill points away from your prerequisites you can keep your prestige class features; but, if you rebuild class levels such a way that you lose feats or skill points that were required for a prestige class, you lose abilities granted by that class. No apparent restrictions on psychic reformation.

As for dragon disciple, it doesn't just say that you can't be a half-dragon; it says you can't already be a half-dragon. I know I'm really reaching with this one and being a bit pedantic, but there's an argument to be made for that tiny detail to allow you to keep your class features after gaining the template at level 10.

[Doctor Despair]

The dragon type is also an issue

[animewatcha]

Build constraint?? Let's see Red Avenger with the stunning fist requirement.

Fluff-wise it is manipulation of ki and sterf.
Mechanically-Stunning fist has nothing to do the abilities ( aside from capstone ) as it is not expended.
If you wanna get mechanical of ki fueling everything monk. Then monk with wis mod of +5 and 10 levels of red avenger gets to do ki strikes at +15 attack roll bonus and damage bonus. Since in 3.5 ki strike +1, +2, etc. got converted to magic, lawful, etc. Note that the Red Avenger capstone says add twice WIS modifier WITHOUT sying 'instead of'. So if you go by monk ac bonus being fueled by ki, monk would get triple WIS to ac.

You wish to be an Akodo champion from Oriental adventures? Requires Iron Will, Ki shout, and weapon focus katana. Mechanically, none of these feats have to do with class abilities.

[Gruftzwerg]

no. the prc entry requirement has to be retained.

theres faq
theres book of exalted deeds
theres complete warrior
theres complete arcane

shun the dark chaos from fiendish codex

embrace the dark chaos


every single place you look it says you lose all the benefits. dmg just forgot to include this. lots of source books forget to include basic stuff in this game so you gotta look at everything. minimum caster level is another basic thing dmg forgot to mention.

this is open and shut.

dragon disciple is a stable loop. its 10th class feature kills the prc, only for it to be reapplied, only for it to be killed again, over and over, and the ruling is clear. under such circumstance prc benefit is not lost.
Findish Codex is not the Primary Source and thus can only make rules for its niche. It's a rule for a specific situation and doesn't become a general rule.


The PHB2 does specifically note that if rebuilding previous class levels or changing your race would prevent you from qualifying for a prestige class then you lose all benefits and special abilities of that prestige class except for HP, BAB, saves, and skill points. It does, however, have a blind spot for retraining feats and skill points.
So... if you retrain your feats or skill points away from your prerequisites you can keep your prestige class features; but, if you rebuild class levels such a way that you lose feats or skill points that were required for a prestige class, you lose abilities granted by that class. No apparent restrictions on psychic reformation.

As for dragon disciple, it doesn't just say that you can't be a half-dragon; it says you can't already be a half-dragon. I know I'm really reaching with this one and being a bit pedantic, but there's an argument to be made for that tiny detail to allow you to keep your class features after gaining the template at level 10.

Again, PHB2 is not the Primary Source and thus again can only make more specific rules for its own topic. As such the rule only applies when you "rebuild your character".
And what Doctor Despair said^^

[Vaern]

The dragon type is also an issue
Fair enough. I went back and did a bit of skimming after popping in and saw that Troacctid already beat me to that point after the fact.


Again, PHB2 is not the Primary Source and thus again can only make more specific rules for its own topic. As such the rule only applies when you "rebuild your character".
Then I don't see the point of this discussion at all. Retraining/rebuilding aren't in a primary source. Psychic reformation isn't in a primary source. Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos aren't in a primary source. Why are we arguing about whether swapping out your feat and skill requirements for prestige classes is valid strictly according to primary sources if the mechanics for doing so don't even exist in primary sources?

[newguydude1]

Fair enough. I went back and did a bit of skimming after popping in and saw that Troacctid already beat me to that point after the fact.


Then I don't see the point of this discussion at all. Retraining/rebuilding aren't in a primary source. Psychic reformation isn't in a primary source. Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos aren't in a primary source. Why are we arguing about whether swapping out your feat and skill requirements for prestige classes is valid strictly according to primary sources if the mechanics for doing so don't even exist in primary sources?

hes just trying to dismiss all the rules that say no and keep only the ones that are ambiguous so he can pretend his builds arent illegal.

[Darg]

no. the prc entry requirement has to be retained.

theres faq
theres book of exalted deeds
theres complete warrior
theres complete arcane

shun the dark chaos from fiendish codex

embrace the dark chaos

BoED is actually being specific to the prestige classes within itself:


The following text applies to every prestige class in this chapter:
A character who ceases to be of good alignment or who willfully commits an evil act loses all special abilities and spells acquired in this prestige class, and may not gain new levels in that class. She may regain her abilities if she atones for her violations (see Sin and Atonement in Chapter 1).

The FAQ is not rules text.

Chaos shuffle spells are specific rules that apply to specific spells.

The only ones that have any kind of actual legitimacy is CW and CArc. As they aren't the primary source, ruling is fully in the purview of the DM. It's also right to say that the rule in CW and CArc only applies to the PrCs within those books.

[newguydude1]

BoED is actually being specific to the prestige classes within itself:



The FAQ is not rules text.

Chaos shuffle spells are specific rules that apply to specific spells.

The only ones that have any kind of actual legitimacy is CW and CArc. As they aren't the primary source, ruling is fully in the purview of the DM. It's also right to say that the rule in CW and CArc only applies to the PrCs within those books.

right sure
dismiss everything and keep an ambiguous source that doesnt say it does or doesnt.
literally everything in 3.0 and 3.5 are consistent with each other. and even the developers intent is made absolutely clear, but sure. ignore all of it and look solely at an ambiguous thing.

theres also phb 2 right? so just how many things are you gonna ignore?

[Doctor Despair]

Then I don't see the point of this discussion at all. Retraining/rebuilding aren't in a primary source. Psychic reformation isn't in a primary source. Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos aren't in a primary source. Why are we arguing about whether swapping out your feat and skill requirements for prestige classes is valid strictly according to primary sources if the mechanics for doing so don't even exist in primary sources?

I think there's a misunderstanding about what a primary source is and isn't here; to be fair, it's not often relevant. Everything has a primary source; everything appears in a primary source. However, not all texts are primary sources for everything in 3.5. Some texts may be the primary source for character-building rules; others may be the primary text for certain species of creature; some may be the primary text for certain rules for spellcasting, or other subsystems. These can be updated in later texts (and often are):


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

So a text can introduce new rules that apply to the prcs within the same text, as it would be the primary source for those prcs, but could not just overwrite the DMG for the purposes of all 3.5 classes. To overwrite the DMG, there needs to be a specific errata text.

The DMG is the primary source wrt what happens when you lose prerequisites. The debate here is over whether or not CArc or CW are in conflict with the rules in the DMG. If they are, the DMG overrules them for all other books, as they are not errata.

The DMG lists the rules for what happens when you lose prerequisites to prcs; it does not mention losing class abilities. Dragon Disciple, a class in the DMG, becomes dysfunctional if it loses class abilities. This seems to create a conflict between the design of the system in the DMG and the design of the system in the two new books -- hence, folks argue it cannot apply to all other books, as the DMG would take precedence as the primary text.


right sure
dismiss everything and keep an ambiguous source that doesnt say it does or doesnt.
literally everything in 3.0 and 3.5 are consistent with each other. and even the developers intent is made absolutely clear, but sure. ignore all of it and look solely at an ambiguous thing.

theres also phb 2 right? so just how many things are you gonna ignore?

Quite an aggressive tone there, friend. They aren't ignoring them; they're explaining why those sources don't apply general rules to the rest of the game. You seem to be seeking to ignore the DMG.

The PhB is the primary source on retraining. It is not discussing losing prerequisites in general, but what happens when you retrain out of certain prerequisites.

[NigelWalmsley]

hes just trying to dismiss all the rules that say no and keep only the ones that are ambiguous so he can pretend his builds arent illegal.

It does not actually matter how many rules say something. The game isn't a democracy; there are specific mechanisms outlined for determining which rules apply. If the rule is X, citing a million things that say Y doesn't mean Y actually is the rule, it just means that those things are all wrong (or carving out specific exceptions).

[Vaern]

So a text can introduce new rules that apply to the prcs within the same text, as it would be the primary source for those prcs, but could not just overwrite the DMG for the purposes of all 3.5 classes. To overwrite the DMG, there needs to be a specific errata text.

The DMG is the primary source wrt what happens when you lose prerequisites. The debate here is over whether or not CArc or CW are in conflict with the rules in the DMG. If they are, the DMG overrules them for all other books, as they are not errata.

The DMG lists the rules for what happens when you lose prerequisites to prcs; it does not mention losing class abilities. Dragon Disciple, a class in the DMG, becomes dysfunctional if it loses class abilities. This seems to create a conflict between the design of the system in the DMG and the design of the system in the two new books -- hence, folks argue it cannot apply to all other books, as the DMG would take precedence as the primary text.
As far as I can tell, though, the DMG doesn't have rules for what happens when you lose prerequisites to prcs. It only has rules for gaining entry to the class and says that you can't take your first level if you don't qualify, and the issue of losing prerequisites is simply never addressed. Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior only appear to be adding a new rule regarding a scenario that DMG never takes into consideration; this rule about losing a prestige class's requirements doesn't retcon, change, or disagree with the DMG's rules about needing to meet a prestige class's requirements to qualify for the first level and can function just fine in conjunction with each other.

Whether dragon disciple is dysfunctional is debatable, and whether it should be relevant is debatable. The purpose of the class is to transform a character into a dragon, and the restriction is to prevent a character who has already achieved the purpose of the class from going into the class and doubling down on it. It places a specific restriction on itself which it is designed to overcome, and to that end may just a victim of being poorly written. I doubt it would be the first thing to be found dysfunctional by strictly core RAW.
It also occurs to me that it says that your race must be any nondragon. If a human dragon disciple hits level 10 they will gain the half-dragon template and the dragon creature type, but their race will still be human. You also gain the (augmented humanoid) subtype, which kind of just hangs around in the background to remind you that the base creature's race is not a dragon, despite what your current creature type tells you.
Or maybe I'm just reaching at this point, because really, who pays attention to the augmented subtype?

[Darg]

Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior only appear to be adding a new rule regarding a scenario that DMG never takes into consideration;

The problem with thinking like that is simple: the rules are permissive. If they don't tell you something happens then they don't happen by the rules. Leaving it unsaid is the same as saying that you don't lose your special abilities.

It would be the same way with the feat requirements. If the rules didn't specifically call out what happens when you lose a requirement then you would still be able to use the feat.

This is why there is a debate.

[newguydude1]

Quite an aggressive tone there, friend. They aren't ignoring them; they're explaining why those sources don't apply general rules to the rest of the game. You seem to be seeking to ignore the DMG.

The PhB is the primary source on retraining. It is not discussing losing prerequisites in general, but what happens when you retrain out of certain prerequisites.

im not ignoring the dmg. the dmg doesnt address the issue. trying to lawyer up to say no address=all other splat books cannot elaborate especially when theyre consistent with each other is really dumb.

just explain to everyone you play with that 7 rules across all the splat books and the faq are all wrong and must be ignored because the dmg never addressed the issue, and that the issue must be interpreted in a way that is the most munchkiny even though it creates dysfunction and betrays explicit instructions from the author of the entire system

and that is why you can change out all the feats you have with dark chaos shuffle and retraining rules because thanks to the dmg never addressing the issue you get to ignore the explicit instructions that says you lose all benefits of the prcs because primary source rule. (not saying that your saying this, its what other people are saying).

of the 3 ways of retraining feats, 2 explicitly dont work, so why would the last one, psychic reformation, also work when everything including the faq also says it doesnt work?

"never address the issue = must not have consequences at all, ever, forever, and that later elaborations must be ignored and dismissed because the the dmg forgot the address the issue".

im all for finding pedantic raw and exploiting the **** out of the game. but never address the issue does not mean no consequences.

[Darg]

im not ignoring the dmg. the dmg doesnt address the issue. trying to lawyer up to say no address=all other splat books cannot elaborate especially when theyre consistent with each other is really dumb.

just explain to everyone you play with that 7 rules across all the splat books and the faq are all wrong and must be ignored because the dmg never addressed the issue, and that the issue must be interpreted in a way that is the most munchkiny even though it creates dysfunction and betrays explicit instructions from the author of the entire system

and that is why you can change out all the feats you have with dark chaos shuffle and retraining rules because thanks to the dmg never addressing the issue you get to ignore the explicit instructions that says you lose all benefits of the prcs because primary source rule. (not saying that your saying this, its what other people are saying).

of the 3 ways of retraining feats, 2 explicitly dont work, so why would the last one, psychic reformation, also work when everything including the faq also says it doesnt work?

"never address the issue = must not have consequences at all, ever, forever, and that later elaborations must be ignored and dismissed because the the dmg forgot the address the issue".

im all for finding pedantic raw and exploiting the **** out of the game. but never address the issue does not mean no consequences.

Has there been clarification on whether armor and shield proficiencies are actually bonus feats? 1 level of fighter gives you 6 free feats to shuffle.

[Doctor Despair]

im not ignoring the dmg. the dmg doesnt address the issue. trying to lawyer up to say no address=all other splat books cannot elaborate especially when theyre consistent with each other is really dumb.

just explain to everyone you play with that 7 rules across all the splat books and the faq are all wrong and must be ignored because the dmg never addressed the issue, and that the issue must be interpreted in a way that is the most munchkiny even though it creates dysfunction and betrays explicit instructions from the author of the entire system

and that is why you can change out all the feats you have with dark chaos shuffle and retraining rules because thanks to the dmg never addressing the issue you get to ignore the explicit instructions that says you lose all benefits of the prcs because primary source rule. (not saying that your saying this, its what other people are saying).

of the 3 ways of retraining feats, 2 explicitly dont work, so why would the last one, psychic reformation, also work when everything including the faq also says it doesnt work?

"never address the issue = must not have consequences at all, ever, forever, and that later elaborations must be ignored and dismissed because the the dmg forgot the address the issue".

im all for finding pedantic raw and exploiting the **** out of the game. but never address the issue does not mean no consequences.

Errata can elaborate on how prestige class prerequisites work for all prestige classes. Specific books can expand on how prerequisites work for prestige classes in their own books. No one has said that no other books can elaborate; if you are reading that out of our discussion, you are misinterpreting our posts. I apologize if they weren't sufficiently clear.

The FAQ holds no bearing in a RAW discussion. It creates no dysfunction to interpret the rules the way they are written in the DMG; it creates dysfunction to interpret them the way they are written in CW/CArc (see Dragon Disciple). With that said, retraining and psychic reformationing your prerequisites away is super cheesey and munchkiny; I don't include those in my builds, nor would I encourage them at my tables were I to DM, but I recognize that, so far as I can tell, it would be a houserule I was implementing.

Dark Chaos Shuffle doesn't allow you to get rid of prerequisites because the specific text of the spells and abilities used in the shuffle say that you cannot. It's the same argument folks use to say that the prestige classes in CW/CArc require you to keep your prerequisites: although generally you don't need to keep prerequisites after taking your first level in a prestige class, you do need them for the prestige classes in CW/CArc because those books specifically say that you need to retain them to retain the benefits of their prestige classes. They are the primary source on their own prestige classes, so the rules in that book take precedence for the purposes of those prestige classes.

...

On the subject of CW/CArc, I think I found some text that might be relevant to the discussion. In CArc, the passage on prestige classes starts with this, immediately preceding the clause about losing prestige class benefits:


"This chapter presents nineteen prestige classes appropriate for spellcasters and characters of other classes who wish to acquire arcane abilities. While many of these classes are oriented toward the sorcerer and wizard, other kinds of characters should find a number of classes that appeal to them.

PICKING A PRESTIGE CLASS
Arcane magic naturally leads characters into strange and esoteric studies. Prestige classes offering abilities and features that characters simply cannot acquire in any other way serve as the best representation of some of these unusual paths.

If a player is interested in a prestige class, she should examine its entry requirements carefully. Most of the classes in this book have stringent requirements that will require several levels of careful advancement to achieve. The player should think about what kind of character she is trying to build; Table 2-1 lists the prestige classes found in this chapter by broad categories that might help her narrow her choices."

The CArc passage seems to immediately indicate that it is discussing the prestige classes that appear in this book -- not prestige classes writ large. In the context of this passage, then, the prerequisite clause may very well have just been referring to the prestige classes in this book.

In CW, the passage on prestige classes starts thusly:


"This chapter presents a host of prestige classes geared towards combat and martial themes. As mentioned throughout this book, these prestige classes aren't simply for fighters--or even just members of the game's martial classes (fighters, paladins, monks, rangers, and barbarians). Many of these classes incorporate aspects of other classes in their requirements and class abilities, and more than a few should appeal to characters of any class.


PICKING A
PRESTIGE CLASS
If you're looking for a prestige class--either for your current player character or as an NPC for a campaign you're running--review the descriptions of each prestige class in this chapter before choosing one. Also review the prestige class's requirements. Many of these prestige classes have high base attack bonus requirements, or they require a number of combat-oriented feats for admission. If you want to build a character hoping to achieve entry in one of these classes, you have to plan.

You also need to decide what you would like to do with your character. Since we have already narrowed the focus of this book to combat-oriented prestige classes, that narrows things down somewhat..."

Much like in CArc, the CW introduction begins by indicating that the topic of discussion here is the prestige classes that appear in this book -- not all prestige classes. The bolded text indicates that the prestige classes in this book have more stringent requirements -- up to and including the need to keep the prerequisites, apparently. The final line emphasizes again that this chapter on prestige classes is only concerned with the combat-oriented prestige classes it is discussion rather than prestige classes writ large.

Taken out of context, the clauses regarding losing class benefits seem to be speaking as if they were about all prestige classes, but in the context these books put them in, I think they seem to be very rooted in the context of the prestige classes within each respective book.

[Troacctid]

The DMG is the primary source wrt what happens when you lose prerequisites.
[...]
The DMG lists the rules for what happens when you lose prerequisites to prcs; it does not mention losing class abilities.
I would love to see a quote of the section where the DMG says this.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/McU2Qb5lNXOVoH0CzM/giphy.gif

[Elves]

Has there been clarification on whether armor and shield proficiencies are actually bonus feats? 1 level of fighter gives you 6 free feats to shuffle.

I'm glad you brought up this example. I expect Troacctid doesn't agree that armor proficiencies are granted as bonus feats, but it abides by the same logic of absence rather than outright contradiction. There's nothing inherently contradictory -- the classes could have all the class features described earlier and also get armor proficiency bonus feats. But it comes under primary source -- even with those feats being primary source for themselves, they still don't have the authority to grant class features.

[Gruftzwerg]

As far as I can tell, though, the DMG doesn't have rules for what happens when you lose prerequisites to prcs. It only has rules for gaining entry to the class and says that you can't take your first level if you don't qualify, and the issue of losing prerequisites is simply never addressed. Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior only appear to be adding a new rule regarding a scenario that DMG never takes into consideration; this rule about losing a prestige class's requirements doesn't retcon, change, or disagree with the DMG's rules about needing to meet a prestige class's requirements to qualify for the first level and can function just fine in conjunction with each other.
...
&

im not ignoring the dmg. the dmg doesnt address the issue. trying to lawyer up to say no address=all other splat books cannot elaborate especially when theyre consistent with each other is really dumb.

just explain to everyone you play with that 7 rules across all the splat books and the faq are all wrong and must be ignored because the dmg never addressed the issue, and that the issue must be interpreted in a way that is the most munchkiny even though it creates dysfunction and betrays explicit instructions from the author of the entire system
....

Neither CW nor CArc indicate the intention to add or alter rules. They present the "added" rules as if they are already general rules. They never say "change the rules", they never claim "these rules take precedence.

I'll provide examples of how this is done in 3.5:

1. Errata Primary Source rule.
Shows clearly the intention to alter how rules work in general and describes the rule hierarchy.

2. Dragon Compendium
Explicitly calls itself out as primary source for the "Dragon" topic. As such, it has the permission to ignore and trump anything released before and anything after unless it is either specific or explicitly calls out rule changes (e.g. ERRATA).

3. Rule Compendium
Explicitly calls itself out as the latest revision of the rules presented in the book. As such, it has to viewed with the same privilege as ERRATA text.

As far as I can tell, neither CW nor CArc provides any text that would show any intentions to change/add rules as it is common rule in 3.5
And since it even lacks the intention to make specific exception for sole "the prc presented in this book", it ain't even a specific rule. It's dysfunctional rule text, that gets trumped by the Primary Source rule hierarchy in any regards.

[Crichton]

explicit instructions from the author of the entire system

Wait, when did Monte Cook or even Skip Williams or Jonathan Tweet chime in on this issue? They're the ones credited as the design team for 3.5, with any others being subordinate as 'additional'


everything including the faq also says it doesnt work?

To be clear, the FAQ, as we've shown in quotes above, contradicts itself on this issue (page 6 says you keep your class features but can't advance further vs page 30 parroting the CW or CArc saying you lose class features), so it really can't be brought into this issue, even in the RAI sense, and obviously not in the RAW sense ever at all, since it isn't a source of the R in RAW.




(not that I'm disagreeing with your conclusions, but this discussion has been focusing on the minutiae so much, I felt it important to have all the facts straight here)




Has there been clarification on whether armor and shield proficiencies are actually bonus feats? 1 level of fighter gives you 6 free feats to shuffle.

What clarification? It's explicitly in the RAW. Look at the description of the armor proficiency feats: "Fighters, paladins, and clerics automatically have Armor Proficiency (heavy) as a bonus feat" etc....

[ThanatosZero]

What exactly is this statement from Andy Collins you're referring to?? The statement I thought you were referring to is this:
Yes, I was refering to this.



This statement is copy/pasted from the FAQ on page 6, which means this statement was released inside the same document as the other statements that contradict it. Thus the FAQ is self-contradictory on this issue.
Again, I didn't read the FAQ.

But let us say, multiple authors put their own Rule 0s into the document. In this case, the best choice of action is to pick the author with the utmost authority and experience with 3.0/3.5e, as well as checking their most recent offical statements. In the end it the DM's call.

[newguydude1]

i agree with troacctids funny picture. all dmg says is you need prerequisites to take the first step. that in no way tells you that you keep the benefits when you lose the prerequisites.

if a rule is unclear i go digging through books for official examples. and all of you are saying all the official examples outside of the original book must be trashed because it conflicts with the original books silence and the silence must be enforce through primary source rule.

seriously. your entire argument is "silence trumps all because primary source rule".

primary source rule is there for things like draconomicon defying monster manual regarding material components.


As far as I can tell, neither CW nor CArc provides any text that would show any intentions to change/add rules as it is common rule in 3.5
And since it even lacks the intention to make specific exception for sole "the prc presented in this book", it ain't even a specific rule. It's dysfunctional rule text, that gets trumped by the Primary Source rule hierarchy in any regards.

didnt you argue that feats are ex abilities because boed and faq said so? seems like your cherry picking when splat books and faq are allowed to clarify something.

i dont think this is breaking the forum rule of talking about another thread because im asking whether this person is using other books as clarification or whether those other books should all be cut out and dismissed from all discussions and its relevant to the discussion.


Has there been clarification on whether armor and shield proficiencies are actually bonus feats? 1 level of fighter gives you 6 free feats to shuffle.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dwarf.htm
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/elan.htm

none of them are feats as the official monster stat blocks show that class feats arent listed under the feat section.

and even if they were, thats the same category as wotc not intending for psicrystals to double the number of feats psions have, yet thats what happens. finding these things is fun. claiming "silence overrides all other books because primary source rule" is not fun. at least not for me.

[Pirate ninja]

It's not baggage, so no action.

[Twurps]

I'm not going to focus on the RAW-ness of this particular point as (1) others are doing a far better job at that, and (2) because it doesn't matter.

What your question comes down to is: Why don't people do X when X is RAW.
That question implies that you play RAW, to the point that you don't use any non-RAW restrictions in your character builds. That premise is a false one unless you play Pun-Pun.

So: Do you and your fellow players play Pun-pun in your games?
If the answer is 'no'. Ask yourself why not. Whatever you answer yourself there, is a good start for your answer here.

[Melcar]

It absolutely is a charop/theorycrafting thing, as I said upthread. I usually avoid it in any builds that I do, as it just makes it too messy and easy, much like the polymorph/reformation trick referenced above.

I use retraining all the time... it’s right there in PHB2... nothing char op about retraining combat casting away, when you reach a level where you can no longer fail your concentration check to cast defensively!

[Gruftzwerg]

i agree with troacctids funny picture. all dmg says is you need prerequisites to take the first step. that in no way tells you that you keep the benefits when you lose the prerequisites.

if a rule is unclear i go digging through books for official examples. and all of you are saying all the official examples outside of the original book must be trashed because it conflicts with the original books silence and the silence must be enforce through primary source rule.

seriously. your entire argument is "silence trumps all because primary source rule".

primary source rule is there for things like draconomicon defying monster manual regarding material components.



didnt you argue that feats are ex abilities because boed and faq said so? seems like your cherry picking when splat books and faq are allowed to clarify something.

i dont think this is breaking the forum rule of talking about another thread because im asking whether this person is using other books as clarification or whether those other books should all be cut out and dismissed from all discussions and its relevant to the discussion.

maybe reread where the Primary Rules applies to before dragging the discussion into unnecessary length:

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
Primary Source applies to to almost everything. All topics presented in the books (combat, feats, prc, monsters, abilities, skills) are a Primary Source for themselves. What Draconomicon does is to call itself explicitly out as Primary Source for its topic (Dragons). Because otherwise MM would still be the Primary Source, if Draconomicon wouldn't be clear with its explicit statement. CW and CArc doesn't have any statements, why it assumes rules that are not presented in the Primary Source. It is presented as if they already are Primary Source rules. It lakes the proper language to have any effect.

Regarding your concerns about the Feat thread:
When I referred to BOED in the thread, it was to support my interpretation of the Primary Source rules presented in the Special Abilities section. BOED calls out all exalted feats as an exception ( = provides reason to change/alter/add rules) and lables em as SU abilities and refers to "most feats" (note not all!) as EX. This statement supports the theory that feats are "Abilities" as per 3.5 definition and thus they have to be designated into one of the Special Ability categories. Finding supporting evidence for a theory based on the Primary Source is not the same as "finding evidence that ignores the Primary Source". Because due to ERRATA, Primary Source has more weight when conflicts emerge. Did you provide here any quotes that support the Primary Source for PRC (DMG) as I did in the feats thread? No, you are doing to complete opposite here. (I just try to clear up the situation. I hope this didn't feel it offending the way I put it. Not my intention here)



So: Do you and your fellow players play Pun-pun in your games?
If the answer is 'no'. Ask yourself why not. Whatever you answer yourself there, is a good start for your answer here.
This is not about whether or not anyone plays at this optimization lvl. It's just the way the forum works. If you ask a question here, do you want to always hear : "Ask your DM", because he has the power to alter/ignore/homebrew rules? I guess not, as such people tend to give RAW and RAI answers maybe added with a personal opinion (based on personal preferences for balance and optimization). Especially when it comes to the competitions in the forum, this gets even more important. Barely people play hit TO stuff, even if many of us "like to theorize" about it.

[Crichton]

Yes, I was refering to this.
Again, your response raises more questions and provides no answers, and I'm left more confused than when we started.



Again, I didn't the FAQ.
You didn't [what] the FAQ? Didn't read it? Didn't quote it? Please help me by being more clear with your writing. The statement you quoted as coming from Collins IS from the FAQ, and NOT some quote with his name attached. If he also said it somewhere else, fine, but I've not seen that as a citation. Have you? Would it matter? Random statements from the devs, made outside of official WotC sources are even less authoritative than the already problematic FAQ is.


But let us say, multiple authors put their own Rule 0s into the document. In this case, the best choice of action is to pick the author with the utmost authority and experience with 3.0/3.5e, as well as checking their most recent offical statements.

Again, very confusing. The FAQ doesn't list any authors at all, doesn't state which staff member at WotC wrote which answers, so there is no way to tell any of the information you're proposing we use to 'rank' the answers in the FAQ based on how 'authoritative' they are.
I'd also claim that that would be a nonsensical approach to interpreting the rules of the game, but fortunately, we don't know who wrote what, in the FAQ or in the other rulebooks, so we CAN'T take that approach, even if we wanted to for some misguided reason.


I'll reiterate my claim here: The FAQ makes claims on both sides of the PRC requirements topic, and thus the FAQ cannot be used in determining the RAI on this issue, and it of course can't ever be used to determine RAW, since it isn't Rules.




In the end it the DM's call.

While this statement is technically correct, it is not helpful here. In the end, literally everything about the game is the DMs call, but having these discussions about what the rules actually are and how they interact regarding confusing or ambiguous topics is very helpful in enabling those DMs to make informed decisions about how they'll run their game.

[Troacctid]

While this statement is technically correct, it is not helpful here. In the end, literally everything about the game is the DMs call, but having these discussions about what the rules actually are and how they interact regarding confusing or ambiguous topics is very helpful in enabling those DMs to make informed decisions about how they'll run their game.
It's actually extremely relevant here because the whole premise of the thread is that the ruling in question is supposedly indisputable. If it varies from table to table, the OP's argument falls apart like so much wet cotton candy.

[ThanatosZero]

Alright, I have found the FAQ and took a look.

You were absolutely correct in regards to the contradicting statements Crichton.
Now all of this feels more like a "Specific beats General" on the established rules.

Still, because it is a offical document, it's contradictions on previously established rulings cannot be ignored.
At best it concerns only the specific cases, but yet again it lies again at the hand of the DM what to make out of this.

[Elves]

the whole premise of the thread is that the ruling in question is supposedly indisputable. If it varies from table to table, the OP's argument falls apart like so much wet cotton candy.
Nothing is "indisputable", the question is where RAW stands on the dispute. Take the spellcasting services we were talking about. There will be variance in practice as to whether a DM allows you to find a psion with psychic reformation, but the rules provide that one should be accessible by default, which makes it a fair charop assumption.

Where do you stand on the Armor Proficiency feats? You can't stand by the CWar ruling and also believe characters don't get those bonus feats.

[Troacctid]

Nothing is "indisputable", the question is where RAW stands on the dispute. Take the spellcasting services we were talking about. There will be variance in practice as to whether a DM allows you to find a psion with psychic reformation, but the rules provide that one should be accessible by default, which makes it a fair charop assumption.
Well, you've been leaning on RAI arguments this whole time, so I stand by my point.


Where do you stand on the Armor Proficiency feats? You can't stand by the CWar ruling and also believe characters don't get those bonus feats.
Specific beats general. If a class says they don't gain proficiency with armor, then they don't gain the proficiency.

[Crichton]

It's actually extremely relevant here because the whole premise of the thread is that the ruling in question is supposedly indisputable. If it varies from table to table, the OP's argument falls apart like so much wet cotton candy.

I agree with your sentiment here


My statement was intended to show that if we use 'the DM has final sayso' as a way to dismiss or trivialize a discussion about what the rules say and how they interact on a complicated or ambiguous topic, then we'll be depriving DMs from later being able to use that discussion as a resource on which to lean when trying to make an informed and well though out decision on that topic.

The DM always has final sayso, on everything. So using these discussions to present all sides of an issue and hopefully arrive at a text-supported conclusion provides DMs with a tool to use in their games, which is a valuable endeavor. (see Burlew quote in my sig for my thoughts there)

[Twurps]

This is not about whether or not anyone plays at this optimization lvl. It's just the way the forum works. If you ask a question here, do you want to always hear : "Ask your DM", because he has the power to alter/ignore/homebrew rules? I guess not, as such people tend to give RAW and RAI answers maybe added with a personal opinion (based on personal preferences for balance and optimization). Especially when it comes to the competitions in the forum, this gets even more important. Barely people play hit TO stuff, even if many of us "like to theorize" about it.

I didn't say 'ask your DM' though. I said: 'Ask yourself'. And precisely because the OP doesn't play TO, he should be able to answer this particular question for himself.

[Elves]

Specific beats general. If a class says they don't gain proficiency with armor, then they don't gain the proficiency.
The issue is that the Armor Proficiency feats say the core classes gain them as bonus feats for the types of armor with which they're proficient. This gives people up to 3 extra feats to swap out, and a lot of charop builds use that. I don't see it as legal because of primary source.

Even the dictionary agrees (https://i.imgur.com/gSidnzh.png) "contradict" doesn't require positive statements

[Crichton]

The issue is that the Armor Proficiency feats say the core classes gain them as bonus feats for the types of armor with which they're proficient. This gives people up to 3 extra feats to swap out, and a lot of charop builds use that. I don't see it as legal because of primary source.

You've lost me there. I'm not following your logic on why that wouldn't be legal. The PHB is the book that defines what the feat system even is, and is the book that has those feats in them, and is the book that defines what a class is and has those classes in it. So the PHB would be the primary source for all of those areas. Nevermind that it doesn't contradict itself anywhere on whether those classes gain those as bonus feats.


Or are you trying to argue that a feat description doesn't have the authority to grant itself to a set of classes as a bonus feat? Because the primary sourcebook on what feats even are as a system, and on those feats in particular, would say otherwise.

Those classes do, unequivocally, gain those as bonus feats as defined in the PHB. What some other sourcebook lets you do with bonus feats you have already acquired is immaterial to whether or not those classes do or do not get them.

[Elves]

The feats chapter isn't primary source for classes. The classes chapter is, and more specifically the class descriptions. The feats are primary source for themselves, but not for classes, so they can't grant themselves to classes.


Nevermind that it doesn't contradict itself anywhere on whether those classes gain those as bonus feats.
It's the same situation as CWar vs DMG on prestige classes. These two possibilities don't preclude each other, but they are exclusive with each other (in a way that expanded options for a class, for example, are not). The class descriptions, the primary source for classes, doesn't say they gain those feats, so it wins out. They don't.

[Max Caysey]

Those classes do, unequivocally, gain those as bonus feats as defined in the PHB. What some other sourcebook lets you do with bonus feats you have already acquired is immaterial to whether or not those classes do or do not get them.

Are you saying that fighter gains bonus feats in weapon and armor proficients, even thought they are not called out specifically as being that? I mean cant a class ability be the exact same as a feat without actually being a feat?

Reading the fighter entry it does not look like the proficiencies gained are from feats...

[Crichton]

The feats chapter isn't primary source for classes. The classes chapter is, and more specifically the class descriptions.
You clearly didn't read the text of the Primary Source rule before you made this judgement. It makes no differentiation between different chapters, only between different books. Your claim here has no rules basis.



The feats are primary source for themselves,
Exactly, yes they are, so they get to say what they can and can't do, and nothing else gets to overrule that.




they can't grant themselves to classes.

Says who? Nothing anywhere in any rules text says that. With respect, it sounds like you literally just decided you didn't think they should be able to, and assumed that was how the rules work.



The feats section in the PHB is the primary source on what feats can do, so if the PHB says that armor proficiency feats can grant themselves to a subset of classes, then yes, they can do that. No other rule anywhere would be able to supersede that, since it can't supersede the primary source, but that fact is irrelevant, since no rule anywhere contradicts it anyway.





Are you saying that fighter gains bonus feats in weapon and armor proficients, even thought they are not called out specifically as being that? I mean cant a class ability be the exact same as a feat without actually being a feat?

Reading the fighter entry it does not look like the proficiencies gained are from feats...

Yes I am saying that, for armor, but not for weapons.

Well, actually it's not me saying it, it's the Players Handbooks saying that, on page 89 (or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#armorProficiencyLight)). Read the rules text and judge for yourself:



All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat.


Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, druids, and bards automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat


Fighters, paladins, and clerics automatically have Armor Proficiency (heavy) as a bonus feat.


Note that the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat has different wording, so isn't granted as a bonus feat to classes that have proficiency, with the explicit exception of War Domain for clerics.

[Max Caysey]

Yes I am saying that, for armor, but not for weapons.

Well, actually it's not me saying it, it's the Players Handbooks saying that, on page 89 (or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#armorProficiencyLight)). Read the rules text and judge for yourself:

Note that the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat has different wording, so isn't granted as a bonus feat to classes that have proficiency, with the explicit exception of War Domain for clerics.

Wow...

I've been playing 3.X for 20 years... never realized that! Cool! Thanks!

[Elves]

You clearly didn't read the text of the Primary Source rule before you made this judgement. It makes no differentiation between different chapters, only between different books. Your claim here has no rules basis.
The quote in OP is an excerpt. The full quote also includes this text:


One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Primary source is not just between books. These examples are explicitly not comprehensive ("one example..."). That is, there's a general definition of "primary text" of which these are only examples, and from these examples, we can tell it means the mechanical text where something is introduced, lain out, described, etc. The class chapter is primary text for classes in general, the class descriptions are primary text for specific classes, and class feature text, as noted in the quote, is primary text for specific class features.

The same thing applies to the feat chapter and to specific feats. Those feats are primary text for themselves, but not for any classes and so don't have the authority to modify them. (There's also no evidence that the intent IS to modify classes: similar text appears for class-granted bonus feats like the ranger's combat style feats.)

This isn't a matter of RAI either, but of textual interpretation. There's a difference between the two that often gets lost in these discussions, which I also see in some of Troacctid's posts. The RAI in this situation is that the feats are badly worded because the devs weren't thinking about feat replacement options, most of which hadn't been written yet, so it seemed like an unimportant difference of language. That's the "RAI" analysis, whereas I'm interpreting the text according to the rules. Where there's ambiguity, that's necessarily an active process, but it's not an appeal to intent.

[Crichton]

The quote in OP is an excerpt. The full quote also includes this text:


Primary source is not just between books. These examples are explicitly not comprehensive ("one example..."). That is, there's a general definition of "primary text" of which these are only examples, and from these examples, we can tell it means the mechanical text where something is introduced, lain out, described, etc. The class chapter is primary text for classes in general, the class descriptions are primary text for specific classes, and class feature text, as noted in the quote, is primary text for specific class features.

The same thing applies to the feat chapter and to specific feats. Those feats are primary text for themselves, but not for any classes and so don't have the authority to modify them. (There's also no evidence that the intent IS to modify classes: similar text appears for class-granted bonus feats like the ranger's combat style feats.)

This isn't a matter of RAI either, but of textual interpretation. There's a difference between the two that often gets lost in these discussions, which I also see in some of Troacctid's posts. The RAI in this situation is that the feats are badly worded because the devs weren't thinking about feat replacement options, most of which hadn't been written yet, so it seemed like an unimportant difference of language. That's the "RAI" analysis, whereas I'm interpreting the text according to the rules. Where there's ambiguity, that's necessarily an active process, but it's not an appeal to intent.

I'm seeing a LOT of assumptions and inferences here, with no evidence to back them up, as well as a lot of baseless extrapolating from examples, which you then seem to take as having the weight and authority of actual rules. Even your own choice of words is such that it's clear you're presenting your own personal opinion on what the rules say. Phrases like "we can tell it means..." and "the intent is...." as well as you assuming the devs' intent when you have no better clue than anyone else does what their intent was. Apparently your version of "I'm interpreting the text according to the rules" is to confuse where the rules stop and your own opinion starts, and to assume that what's "clear" to you is obviously the correct and only way this text can be interpreted.



What the rules DO say is that the Primary Source rule only comes into effect in the event of a contradiction, and there is no contradiction with regards to the armor proficiency feats.
What the rules DO say is that the armor proficiency feats are granted to certain classes automatically as bonus feats.
What the rules DO say is that the PHB is the primary source for both classes and feats, so no other text that came along later would have the authority to supersede it on these matters (which none do anyway)


There's no reading of this in which those feats aren't granted as bonus feats to the designated classes. One hundred percent certainly by RAW, and really no evidence of the RAI being any different. Never brought up again by any sourcebook, FAQ, or online article in any way that would indicate this wasn't the intent. Could there be unforeseen consequences for that intended rule, due to abilities that came along later, such as feat swapping by various means? Sure there could. But that changes neither the RAW nor RAI in any way whatsoever, and it would hardly be the first or most egregious example of an ability that came along in a later sourcebook and made core or other earlier rules a bit exploitable.

[Gruftzwerg]

You clearly didn't read the text of the Primary Source rule before you made this judgement. It makes no differentiation between different chapters, only between different books. Your claim here has no rules basis.


Let me first say that I agree with the rest of your statements/post. But even within your post, you show how different chapters behave under the primary source rule (PSR). The rest of your post is in conflict with this statement..^^


When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.
This sole sentence is the PSR. The rest only gives "a few examples". These are presented the way that you have to expect that these are not all of the situations where the rule applies. The PSR doesn't stop at the given examples. As such a chapter can also be the primary source for its topic (e.g. feats). A good example is that the combat chapter is the primary source for combat rules. The magic/spells section often refers to them and sometimes alter them for their "specific situation". But the other chapters/books/sources can't make new general combat rules (unless they call out the intention to change/add rules as the ERRATA does as example).
Finally, the first two examples, "Text over Table" and "individual spell description" shows how the PSR can apply within the same book.
PSR applies everywhere where you have rules. It is either a primary source or a secondary source. And this can change depending on the actual situation to solve. E.g. the spells section is the primary source for spells, while the same spells section can become a secondary sources regarding combat rules.

[Crichton]

Let me first say that I agree with the rest of your statements/post. But even within your post, you show how different chapters behave under the primary source rule (PSR). The rest of your post is in conflict with this statement..^^

This sole sentence is the PSR. The rest only gives "a few examples". These are presented the way that you have to expect that these are not all of the situations where the rule applies. The PSR doesn't stop at the given examples. As such a chapter can also be the primary source for its topic (e.g. feats). A good example is that the combat chapter is the primary source for combat rules. The magic/spells section often refers to them and sometimes alter them for their "specific situation". But the other chapters/books/sources can't make new general combat rules (unless they call out the intention to change/add rules as the ERRATA does as example).
Finally, the first two examples, "Text over Table" and "individual spell description" shows how the PSR can apply within the same book.
PSR applies everywhere where you have rules. It is either a primary source or a secondary source. And this can change depending on the actual situation to solve. E.g. the spells section is the primary source for spells, while the same spells section can become a secondary sources regarding combat rules.


I'll grant that that particular statement was an overreach, and hereby retract it.


However, having done that, it changes nothing about the implications of the rest of my post.

The Feats section in the PHB being the primary source on what feats can and cannot do means that feats can do anything that is defined in that section, and that section defines the armor proficiency feats as being automatically granted to the designated classes, thus they have the capacity to do so. Full stop. End of story. IF, and only if, there was another rule elsewhere saying otherwise, there could be some meaningful discussion about it, but since there isn't, there really isn't any way to claim the rules don't support it.

[Elves]

Phrases like "we can tell it means..."
Telling here is not personal processing. The rules state a generality and give examples, noting those examples aren't comprehensive.


and "the intent is...."
As you can tell by the parens, that was an aside, not a part of the argument. Guess I've learned not to make asides in forum posts.


as well as you assuming the devs' intent when you have no better clue than anyone else does what their intent was.
Read the last part of the post. The intent or thought process is evident but that's not here nor there.


Apparently your version of "I'm interpreting the text according to the rules" is to confuse where the rules stop and your own opinion starts
For a forum that loves rules lawyering there seems to be not much understanding that things like precedent, derivation of generalities and yes, context clues are necessary parts of textual interpretation under ambiguity and not the same thing as personal opinion, much less RAI, which is often, as in this case, a completely different thing.


to assume that what's "clear" to you is obviously the correct and only way this text can be interpreted.
So what do you think "primary text" means?

[Vaern]

Nothing is "indisputable", the question is where RAW stands on the dispute. Take the spellcasting services we were talking about. There will be variance in practice as to whether a DM allows you to find a psion with psychic reformation, but the rules provide that one should be accessible by default, which makes it a fair charop assumption.
My usual group's DM doesn't let us use resources from any book he doesn't personally own a hard copy of and he doesn't have the psionics handbook. The PHB's spellcasting services make no mention of psionics, and I have had DMs exclude psionics for other reasons, including the fact that psionics have a tendency to create issues and break the game even more than standard spellcasting or they just don't want to have to keep track of another form of spellcasting in their world. By default, psychic reformation is generally not accessible at the tables I play at because psionics simply don't exist in the absence of a book that injects an entirely new system into the game which core rules never take into consideration.
And for what it's worth, my usual table also don't use PHB2, so no retraining, no rebuilding, no psychic reformation... the arguments that the subject at hand is in fact rules-legal and that everyone should be doing this to make their characters as broken as possible makes the assumption that every table will even have access to the mechanisms necessary to abuse the perceived loophole in the rules to begin with, which is simply not the case.

[Elves]

and that everyone should be doing this
Note I'm not saying this, this argument is primarily in regards to charop

to make their characters as broken as possible
but as I said earlier I do argue that there is nothing broken (in the sense of damaging the game) about prereq retraining

[Doctor Despair]

Note I'm not saying this, this argument is primarily in regards to charop

but as I said earlier I do argue that there is nothing broken (in the sense of damaging the game) about prereq retraining

Eh, ignoring prereqs is sorta broken. A lot of prcs just aren't balanced around being available that early. I do think the conversation is worth having about TO builds though. Arguing whether it's RAW to do something and actually arguing it's likely to be admissible as PO are two very different things; we should restrict the focus of the conversation to whether or not it's RAW rather than whether or not it's balanced or intended.

[Gruftzwerg]

Eh, ignoring prereqs is sorta broken. A lot of prcs just aren't balanced around being available that early. I do think the conversation is worth having about TO builds though. Arguing whether it's RAW to do something and actually arguing it's likely to be admissible as PO are two very different things; we should restrict the focus of the conversation to whether or not it's RAW rather than whether or not it's balanced or intended.

Imho whether something is broken or not depends on the actual situation. How strong is the end result compared to the rest of the group? If it's on an equal or similar lvl, why not?

And as I said before, "rituals" and "magic items" to become something special (e.g. enter a prc) ain't that uncommon in fantasy and myths. It can be an enjoyable sidequest sometimes. Enough options to tailor a nice story around.

I mean, just because it is RAW doesn't change anything if the DM is willing to allow it or not imho. Just look at pun-pun, also RAW legal, but nobody plays him.
RAW only counts for TO showchase builds and for competitions. And anybody who claims that he plays full RAW doesn't know what he is talking about. At least, I haven seen any DM who would let "healing by drowning" work on a constant base (maybe for the laughs a few times, but it gets old really fast).

[Darg]

The feats chapter isn't primary source for classes. The classes chapter is, and more specifically the class descriptions. The feats are primary source for themselves, but not for classes, so they can't grant themselves to classes.


It's the same situation as CWar vs DMG on prestige classes. These two possibilities don't preclude each other, but they are exclusive with each other (in a way that expanded options for a class, for example, are not). The class descriptions, the primary source for classes, doesn't say they gain those feats, so it wins out. They don't.

Nothing says that armor and shield proficiencies aren't the feats either. The 3.0 players handbook called them free feats instead. Meaning that WotC did indeed actually take time to reword them, having ample opportunity to not imply that proficiencies weren't the feats. Because of this they wouldn't have to be given by the feats.

I'd say there is plenty of evidence that even weapon proficiency is possession of the feat too.

Either way, the only reselection method for free bonus feats is the dark chaos shuffle. Retraining and psychic reformation both require you to have chosen or selected the feats. Technically the shuffle can shuffle away the feat granted by Heroics for an infinite number of feats anyway.

[Gallowglass]

I feel like the emphasis in this thread is on the wrong argument.

We are concentrating on the RAW/RAI ness of Feat retraining and its effect on PrC feat requirements.

(Which, I feel we can now form a consensus that Elves thinks one way and everybody else think the other)

But that's not what the focus of this debate should be.

The focus should be on why this is a implicit constraint in GitP forum CharOp build competitions.

1. Because everybody but Elves a seeming majority of people view it as RAW/RAI?

I don't think that's the reason, no. As such the current debate is unnecessary for resolving this core question.

I think the reason why is because such contests REQUIRE reasonable implied constraints to be rigid and somewhat conservative in order to make the contests interesting and reasonably challenging.

No one uses infinite wealth loops or infinite power loops because that would be boring.

No one uses feat retraining out of PrC requirements for the same reason.

My own preference is to never see the Otyugh hole or psychic reformation for the same reason and wish that would be added to the constraint list as well. I certainly bottom out my elegance feelings on any build where I see those.

The constaint lists that exists (both explicit and implicit) have developed for the express reason of making the contests fairer and more enjoyable. And the majority of people partaking in the contests seem to agree. Or they wouldn't continue to exist.

For Elves, I suppose the solution would be to start his own contest, striking out the constraints he doesn't like and see if others follow him to his contest. If they follow, then he moves the measuring stick. If they don't, it can be seen as evidence that he is in the minority view.

Personally, I have no interest in a contest with LESS constraints because they quickly become boring. I don't view the point of the contests to produce characters "as broken as possible" but rather "as interesting as possible" and if constraints start disappearing, they get less interesting to me.

I feel that I am in the majority opinion, but am happy to be proven wrong.

[newguydude1]

No one uses feat retraining out of PrC requirements for the same reason. .

no your wrong. everyone i know would do this if it was legal because feat taxes are disgusting and is the reason why most people dont go archmage and other prcs.

the reason no one i know does this is because "silence trumps all because primary source rule" is one of the dumbbest things they ever heard and theres not a chance in hell they are gonna tell their dm to ignore 7 rules across all the books because "the dmg didnt address it is proof that you must not have consequences". you tell our dm to ignore 7 explicit rules throughout the game because dmg was silent on the issue and hes gonna kick you out because thats not the type of person we want to game with.

[Doctor Despair]

(Which, I feel we can now form a consensus that Elves thinks one way and everybody else think the other)


I don't think that's accurate; there's been spirited debate on both sides of whether or not it's RAW. The consensus so far is that Elves thinks it's not TO to do so, and everyone else seems to think the other way.



stuff about build contests


I agree; any good competition needs mutually agreed-upon limits, or else the competition becomes "everyone does Pun Pun."

[Elves]

Eh, ignoring prereqs is sorta broken. A lot of prcs just aren't balanced around being available that early.
You misunderstand. You still have to meet the prereqs, it's just that once you enter the class you don't have to keep them.


Nothing says that armor and shield proficiencies aren't the feats either. The 3.0 players handbook called them free feats instead.
You're saying this was in the character class descriptions or the feat chapter? If the former their removal is evidence to the contrary


(Which, I feel we can now form a consensus that Elves thinks one way and everybody else think the other)
It seems like the split is fairly even, but we seem to have people who agree with prereq retraining and also believe in the armor proficiency bonus feats, which I view as inconsistent.


I think the reason why is because such contests REQUIRE reasonable implied constraints to be rigid and somewhat conservative in order to make the contests interesting and reasonably challenging.
As I've said throughout the thread, I disagree that feat prereqs as a constraint add depth to character building or are needed for balance. Remove the need to keep them, and you can focus on what you should have focused on all along: the builds themselves, instead of an ancillary feat cramming minigame. In addition, a plethora of underpowered prestige classes become more usable, so you actually see more build variety.

Saying it's comparable to wish loops, Pun Pun or other infinite power exploits is ridiculous.


Personally, I have no interest in a contest with LESS constraints because they quickly become boring. I don't view the point of the contests to produce characters "as broken as possible" but rather "as interesting as possible"
A constraint that is orthogonal to the topic at hand more often restricts than begets interest. That's one of the basic problems with feat taxes as a balancing mechanism and certainly manifests in a contest environment too.


7 rules across all the books because
So where does this rule appear outside of CWar/CArc?

[Darg]

You're saying this was in the character class descriptions or the feat chapter? If the former their removal is evidence to the contrary

It's in the feat descriptions under "Special." Mechanically speaking, the only way this actually matters is the spell Embrace the Dark Chaos.


My own preference is to never see the Otyugh hole or psychic reformation for the same reason and wish that would be added to the constraint list as well. I certainly bottom out my elegance feelings on any build where I see those.

Is that what they are doing? Don't people know that retraining and psychic reformation only work on feats that you have selected yourself? Sure you would get Iron Will, but you couldn't change it out for anything else unless you use the dark chaos shuffle.

[Vaern]

but as I said earlier I do argue that there is nothing broken (in the sense of damaging the game) about prereq retraining
It does damage the game, though, especially the roleplaying and storytelling aspect. The prerequisites of a class represent the training and preparation that a character is going through in order to become whatever prestige class they're aiming for. Retconning all of that training and preparation because it's no longer required after the fact effectively ruins the character from a storytelling perspective.
Seriously, imagine that character. "After years of studying ancient scrolls and tomes I've finally become a Loremaster - a character define entirely by being exceptionally well-read, knowing and seeking obscure bits of secrets and legends. Since this class's lore and true lore features will be able to tell me anything I might have to roll a knowledge check for, though, I guess I can just go ahead and swap those skills out. Might as well just forget every word I've read over the past decade and take a craft skill so I can make better use of fabricate instead!"
Retraining skills and feats in general is one thing, but retraining prestige class prereqs while keeping all of the benefits of that class is essentially letting them strip away the foundation of the aspects that define their character with no repercussions.

...Not that that matters much here, since most of the chatter on the forums is strictly mechanical discussion. As far as game mechanics go, allowing retraining of prereqs wouldn't necessarily break the game in and of itself, but it would be a mechanism that people could and would use to that end. The option would absolutely be used by metagamers and theorycrafters to come up with ways to break the game in exciting new ways.


Has there been clarification on whether armor and shield proficiencies are actually bonus feats? 1 level of fighter gives you 6 free feats to shuffle.
Psychic reformation only lets you replace a feat that you selected when leveling up. Even if free proficiencies were considered bonus feats, you didn't select them; they're built directly into your class. The feats you choose at character creation (character level 1, fighter level 1, human bonus feats) are selected, but arguably not when leveling up.
Retraining only lets you replace a feat that you selected. You could replace feats chosen at character creation, but not proficiencies granted by your class.
You might be able to get away with swapping them out using embrace/shun the dark chaos, though.

[Crichton]

Psychic reformation only lets you replace a feat that you selected when leveling up. Even if free proficiencies were considered bonus feats, you didn't select them; they're built directly into your class. The feats you choose at character creation (character level 1, fighter level 1, human bonus feats) are selected, but arguably not when leveling up.
Retraining only lets you replace a feat that you selected. You could replace feats chosen at character creation, but not proficiencies granted by your class.
You might be able to get away with swapping them out using embrace/shun the dark chaos, though.


You're entirely correct about Psychic Reformation and Retraining. You can only replace feats you've selected. I'd definitely land on the side of level 1 only feats still counting, but I can see why you included the 'arguably' caveat.

But there's not really a question about 'considering' the core classes' proficiencies as feats or not, though. They explicitly are, as outlined in the PHB entry on those feats (see page 89 in the PHB, or my several posts above that provide the quotes). One could argue about whether that was 'intended' or not, but it's 100% clear and explicitly stated in the text that they are bonus feats, automatically granted so select subsets of classes, unless you want to try to do like Elves claims, and extend the Primary Source rule on textual disagreements so far into absurdity as to say that the PHB doesn't have the authority to define the rules of feats and classes and what they are allowed to do, despite there being no 'disagreement between two D&D rules' which is the required case for the primary source rule to be applicable. Again, see above. Not looking to get into an unproductive round-and-round on that again. The PHB says what it says.


But as you say, outside of shenanigans like the Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle, there is little to be done with them.

[Elves]

Seriously, imagine that character. "After years of studying ancient scrolls and tomes I've finally become a Loremaster - a character define entirely by being exceptionally well-read, knowing and seeking obscure bits of secrets and legends. Since this class's lore and true lore features will be able to tell me anything I might have to roll a knowledge check for, though, I guess I can just go ahead and swap those skills out. Might as well just forget every word I've read over the past decade and take a craft skill so I can make better use of fabricate instead!"
A lot of people forget what they learned for exams, and it may have no relevance to what they do now, but it sure helped them get into college or get that job.


unless you want to try to do like Elves claims, and extend the Primary Source rule on textual disagreements so far into absurdity as to say that the PHB doesn't have the authority to define the rules of feats and classes and what they are allowed to do
Read the full quote. It's explicit that the primary source rule is not just between different books. Based on the non-exhaustive examples it gives, the meaning of primary source is obviously the mechanical text where the rules for something are introduced and described. If you have an alternate suggestion for what it could mean, please offer it.

[Doctor Despair]

It does damage the game, though, especially the roleplaying and storytelling aspect.

The option would absolutely be used by metagamers and theorycrafters to come up with ways to break the game in exciting new ways.


As you said, that's another reason why people don't do it, not why people can't.

However, on that note -- it has definitely been used that way (myself included) to build disgusting, game-breaking builds that ultimately don't see play because they wouldn't be fun to play as or play with. That's why I just avoid Psychic Reformation and Retraining all together. Because they can be abused by RAW, I'd rather not use them at all, as it makes more sense to me to say "These two items are banned" than to say "You can use these two items, but like, not in a way that feels icky." That's just my preference when making my own builds though -- I wouldn't complain about a fellow player using them in a "fair" way to just adjust their character. In fact, I'd encourage it if the character wasn't working the way they wanted -- after all, they can always kill off the character a roll a new one, so why not save them the trouble and let them fix the issue? I just tend to plan my characters meticulously enough that I don't have to do that (or maybe I'm just too stubborn to admit I've made a mistake! :smallbiggrin:)

[Crichton]

Read the full quote. It's explicit that the primary source rule is not just between different books. Based on the non-exhaustive examples it gives, the meaning of primary source is obviously the mechanical text where the rules for something are introduced and described. If you have an alternate suggestion for what it could mean, please offer it.

Did read it, and already retracted my statement about book-only in an earlier response. I'm not above being shown I'm in error, and I was on the book-only claim.

But that changes nothing about whether they're bonus feats or not. Your claim that feats can't do that is still baseless, since the primary source on feats says they can do that. What other source on feats is there that says otherwise? None, so the the primary source rule doesn't even apply, since it's entirely explicit that it needs a rules disagreement to be called into applicability, but even if it was applicable, it still wouldn't override the fact that the primary source on feats says that these feats are automatically granted to the stated classes.

At this point I don't even know what your claim about these feats rests on. That feats can't be granted by anything but class features? That's obviously false, since Racial HD and Legendary Sites (such as Otyugh Hole) can grant feats, and I'm sure they aren't the only non-class based sources. So with that out of the way, and with the very chapter that defines what feats are and how they work explicitly granting them to those classes, what other rules-text objections do you have here? I haven't heard any rules-based objections on this. Just variations on 'they can't do that' or 'that's not what the devs intended'

[Elves]

That's obviously false, since Racial HD and Legendary Sites (such as Otyugh Hole) can grant feats
But they don't attempt to grant them as class features.

[Crichton]

But they don't attempt to grant them as class features.

That's some very tenuous logic. I think you're stretching here. If that's the entirety of your rules-basis for your claim, then it's entirely hanging on the thin thread of whether or not the feat descriptions are trying to grant those feats as class features or not (spoiler alert: they're not). Which in turn is hanging on the thin thread of whether the PHB's feat section is contradicting anything else anywhere, to invoke the PS rule (spoiler alert: it's not).

The armor proficiency feat descriptions don't say they add it as a class feature, they merely list which classes automatically have the feat 'as a bonus feat' which is very similar to how Otyugh Hole words its benefit: 'A character who has endured a week in an otyugh hole gains a noticeable edge to his personality, which manifests as a bonus feat'




Here's the texts in question:

Armor Proficiency(Light): All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat.
Armor Proficiency(Medium): Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, druids, and bards automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat
Armor Proficiency(Heavy): Fighters, paladins, and clerics automatically have Armor Proficiency (heavy) as a bonus feat.



So where in that text does it claim it's granting them as class features? And even if it is, what specific rule is it in contradiction with, to invoke the PS rule to invalidate the feat text?

[Darg]

Special: Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.

The special part of the feat description is simply stating facts. It doesnt give the classes anything. This means that proficiencies are synonymous with the feats.

An example is comparing the MM with the PHB. The elf entry:


Weapon Proficiency: Elves are automatically proficient with the longsword, rapier, longbow, composite longbow, shortbow, and composite shortbow.


Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats. Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery, so all elves are familiar with these weapons.

Using the primary source rule would require that npc elves not have the feats and players would have to have them. There is no conflict if they are synonymous.

[Crichton]

The special part of the feat description is simply stating facts. It doesnt give the classes anything. This means that proficiencies are synonymous with the feats.

An example is comparing the MM with the PHB. The elf entry:





Using the primary source rule would require that npc elves not have the feats and players would have to have them. There is no conflict if they are synonymous.



Thank you. A good catch, and an excellent clarification. This aids both in confirming that said classes DO have them as bonus feats, and also closes the silly TO loophole that a character could shuffle away the feat and still have proficiency granted by class feature.

[Elves]

Armor Proficiency(Light): All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat.
So you think that every class outside the PHB is proficient in light armor, even if their class description says they're not proficient in any armor? This quote shows your conclusion is mistaken. The only sensible result is if the lack of noted proficiency in the class description overrules this text.

Don't say the other books would be primary source for their classes, as according to you that's neither here nor there since there is no outright contradiction between those class descriptions and these feats.


There is no conflict if they are synonymous.
If I understand you're now trying to use the text in the Armor Proficiency feats to argue that every weapon or armor proficiency is a bonus feat? I don't see the basis for that.

In this case, the PHB is primary "for playing PC races" while the MM is primary "for monster descriptions". One reading is that PC elves get the profs as bonus feats while NPC elves don't. Then again, elf is a PC race whether or not the creature in question is a PC race, so it depends what "playing" means -- if the DM playing that creature, or that creature being "in play" counts as playing, it also gets the profs as feats. In this case a precedent might be ROTD being primary for kobolds overriding MM.

[Crichton]

So you think that every class outside the PHB is proficient in light armor, even if their class description says they're not proficient in any armor?
Is that what the rules text says? Why yes. Yes it is. Unless, as noted below, class listing for proficiency is synonymous with having the feat as the feat describes. See below for context.


The only sensible result is if the lack of noted proficiency in the class description overrules this text.
I think, and I say this without any disparaging intent, friend, that you're so fixated on this issue that you're not allowing yourself to realize that perhaps the result your mind came up with is not, in fact, the 'only sensible result.' It's dangerous ground to assume that one's conclusions are the only possible valid conclusions, or even that one's conclusions are always valid ones at all. That said, and again as noted below, if Darg is correct that the feat text listing them as bonus feats and the class description listing them as proficiencies are synonymous, then there is no problem with them being bonus feats for all who have them, and also later classes without light armor proficiency not having them. That would not be a contradiction.



Don't say the other books would be primary source for their classes,
They are the primary source for their classes. How would that be in dispute? What you're failing to remember is the Specific Trumps General rule.

If, as Darg has put forth, the feats and the class listing for proficiency are synonymous, then Specific Trumps General for those classes. General rule being as quoted, all characters aside from the listed ones get armor proficiency in light armor. Specific rule being that classes in other books that don't have it listed don't get it as a bonus feat.

If it can be shown somehow that they are not synonymous, then yes, every character aside from the listed ones would gain Armor Proficiency (Light) as a bonus feat, because that's what the rules say happens.



as according to you that's neither here nor there since there is no outright contradiction between those class descriptions and these feats.


What do you mean 'according to me' ?? Are you disputing the text of the rules, which says, and I quote "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." (emphasis mine)

So unless and only unless there is a disagreement between two different pieces of rules text that cannot exist at the same time, the PS rule is irrelevant. If the two pieces of rules text CAN exist in without contradiction, the PS rule is meaningless on that topic. Full Stop. End of Story.

[Gruftzwerg]

Using the primary source rule would require that npc elves not have the feats and players would have to have them. There is no conflict if they are synonymous.

I totally agree that it was the design intention (RAI). But RAW fails to use the correct language at the important parts.

The problem is that by RAW, classes directly give you proficiency in something, while the feats section does give the feats (that give the proficiency). While they don't stack, you can retrain the feat (note: I never used retraining so far and I'm not really a friend of it^^).

And regarding the "player races" in the "MM":
IIRC the PHB should be the primary source for "playable races", as such the MM entries have to follow the rules presented in PHB. Even the rules of the feats section, since the rules talk about "characters" in general and doesn't differentiate between PC and NPC.


_____________________________________
But as said, while I see it as RAW, I wouldn't encourage anyone the abuse of retraining em to get extra bonus feats. Before that happens, people should take flaws (1-2) first. And anyone else who asks for more feats, should question himself "when will the desire for more feats end?" It's like with flaws, if you always use em, you get used and will still have problems to fit your feats. But if you only use em occasionally, if it really doesn't work without, then they become a great tool. This is my reasoning why I dislike retraining overall. And since RAW doesn't allow for retaining prerequisites (specific), I would also never allow it (just my humble opinion here ;) )

[Elves]

I think, and I say this without any disparaging intent, friend, that you're so fixated on this issue that you're not allowing yourself to realize that perhaps the result your mind came up with is not, in fact, the 'only sensible result.' It's dangerous ground to assume that one's conclusions are the only possible valid conclusions, or even that one's conclusions are always valid ones at all. That said, and again as noted below, if Darg is correct that the feat text listing them as bonus feats and the class description listing them as proficiencies are synonymous, then there is no problem with them being bonus feats for all who have them, and also later classes without light armor proficiency not having them. That would not be a contradiction.
Look dude, this is rules minutiae and we've taken it too far already, but it's odd to take this patronizing tone when the argument you're having to make to uphold your reading is a wild extrapolation that proficiencies are always given as bonus feats. It's not supported by the text. Yes, there are two cases where we see that being done, but that isn't basis to extrapolate a general rule. Contrast this with the primary source quote where the rule is explicitly noted as a generality with non-comprehensive examples given.


So unless and only unless there is a disagreement between two different pieces of rules text that cannot exist at the same time, the PS rule is irrelevant. If the two pieces of rules text CAN exist in without contradiction, the PS rule is meaningless on that topic. Full Stop. End of Story.
That's my point. In your reading of the AP feats, psions gain Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat even though their class description says they aren't proficient with any types of armor. That's a dysfunctional result under which there literally cannot be any new class written that is not proficient with at least light armor. The simplest and most functional route is to say: it contradicts the primary source (the class description) and so is overruled.

Also, pointed this out earlier but even dictionary definition of contradict shows it need not be positively stated: https://i.imgur.com/gSidnzh.png


And again, how is this relevant to the thread topic? Because "only positively stated contradiction can invoke primary source" is the same logic used to privilege CWar over DMG. If you believe you can't retrain feat prerequisites, you must also believe that psions gain Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat.

[Darg]

If you believe you can't retrain feat prerequisites, you must also believe that psions gain Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat.

One has nothing to do with the other. I believe each book talks about itself. The wording of the PHB also speaks as if other non-core books don't exist (they didn't at the time it was written). WotC uses proficient and the feats interchangeably as I have shown. At the time of writing the DMG, no other book existed with PrCs. Meaning it is the primary source. The fact that it doesn't contradict itself is important as you have pointed out on many occasions.

Retraining and psychic reformation require you to have selected the feats yourself to work on them. Ones that you have not selected can't be touched by RAW. Meaning trading the otyugh hole's iron will away is an illegal action by RAW. If a class grants a feat like cleric choosing war domain you can't trade it away. If for say you got monk feats you could trade them away for a different monk feat because you picked the selected the feat.

At this point there really isn't going to be concensus because it is really a DM action anyway to even allow retraining in the first place. The classes that need the help are probably going to get the help in other ways already which would make retraining requisites unnecessary.

[Elves]

I believe each book talks about itself.
But this isn't the case; rather, primacy is governed by the primary source rule. And since there is no necessary contradiction between those class descriptions and the Armor Proficiency feats, the primary source rule is not invoked, making it irrelevant.

That is, unless you admit that effective contradiction IS enough to trigger primary source, which I believe is the case. But in that case you must also admit that classes don't gain the AP bonus feats in the first place, and that CWar's PrC rule is overruled by DMG.

It's very clear. If you think that the CWar text isn't sufficient to invoke primary source, then by the same textual logic, you must also think that psions and every other class that isn't supposed to be proficient in armor nonetheless gain light armor proficiency (since "All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat"). I think that's an absurd result.

[Darg]

But this isn't the case; rather, primacy is governed by the primary source rule. And since there is no necessary contradiction between those class descriptions and the Armor Proficiency feats, the primary source rule is not invoked, making it irrelevant.

That is, unless you admit that effective contradiction IS enough to trigger primary source, which I believe is the case. But in that case you must also admit that classes don't gain the AP bonus feats in the first place, and that CWar's PrC rule is overruled by DMG.

It's very clear. If you think that the CWar text isn't sufficient to invoke primary source, then by the same textual logic, you must also think that psions and every other class that isn't supposed to be proficient in armor nonetheless gain light armor proficiency (since "All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat"). I think that's an absurd result.

You aren't making sense at this point. I presented the argument that proficiency is synonymous with having the feat with evidence to support that. It makes sense and completely shuts down the "given to all classes" stupidity. The special line is not rules text; it states facts to help your decisions as is described in the PHB.

You also are misunderstanding my post. I support the DMG being the primary source. The evidence of contradiction and dysfunction to implement the rule in CW or CArc makes it hard to believe it was the intent.

[Elves]

I presented the argument that proficiency is synonymous with having the feat with evidence to support that. It makes sense and completely shuts down the "given to all classes" stupidity.
It would resolve this particular contradiction, but there isn't a textual basis for it. Unlike in science where a theory is valid as long as it satisfies the evidence, in rules interpretation there has to be a basis for the theory within the text.

I doubt it's RAI either -- it seems more to me like the designers sometimes laxly phrased acquired proficiencies as bonus feats because there was no expectation in their minds that the distinction of them as feats or not would ever be relevant.


The special line is not rules text; it states facts to help your decisions as is described in the PHB.
There are certainly examples of "special" lines with mechanical weight. Regardless of how much weight it has, the clause about "all classes" getting the feat is of equal weight to the rest of the "special" line, ie giving the profs as bonus feats.


You also are misunderstanding my post. I support the DMG being the primary source. The evidence of contradiction and dysfunction to implement the rule in CW or CArc makes it hard to believe it was the intent.
I get that, I was pointing out that the argument used to grant Armor Proficiency feats as bonus feats based on the "Special" line is the same argument used to certify the CWar rule on prestige classes -- that non-essential contradiction is insufficient to invoke primary text. If I understand right, your suggestion that proficiencies and proficiency feats are always synonymous is an attempt at a different resolution to the AP problem, but I don't see evidence for it. It seems to me that those feats are granted or not on the basis of primary text applying or not, and that if it doesn't, we get an inane result (psions with LAP).

[Darg]

It would resolve this particular contradiction, but there isn't a textual basis for it.

In an earlier post, I cited relevant evidence to provide this basis. The racial entries in the PHB state that these proficiencies are bonus feats while the MM simply states them as proficiencies.This provides enough evidence to show that WotC uses them interchangeably.



There are certainly examples of "special" lines with mechanical weight. Regardless of how much weight it has, the clause about "all classes" getting the feat is of equal weight to the rest of the "special" line, ie giving the profs as bonus feats.

Are these other special lines feats though? The PHB defines the special entry for feats and states that they are facts, not rules. Only the class entries have the authority to grant proficiencies; hence bards don't get medium armor proficiency. At the time of printing of the PHB, "all other classes" getting light armor proficiency was simply a fact as is stated by the definition of the special entry.


If I understand right, your suggestion that proficiencies and proficiency feats are always synonymous is an attempt at a different resolution to the AP problem, but I don't see evidence for it. It seems to me that those feats are granted or not on the basis of primary text applying or not, and that if it doesn't, we get an inane result (psions with LAP).

You obviously didn't read my previous post then. The MM and PHB racial entries are the exact same except for one discrepancy: proficiencies. Combined with the special entries for the armor and shield proficiency feats provides more evidence for than against proficiencies being feats. And as mentioned several times before it doesnt matter if it is relevant or not as the only actual situation in which it is relevant is with embrace the dark chaos which already has an infinite feat loop when combined with heroics.

The proficiency debate has gotten wildly off topic and my original intent for it to be an argument against the over exaggeration of the harm retraining of prerequisite feats would bring to "balance" was apparently lost to the discussion.

[Elves]

In an earlier post, I cited relevant evidence to provide this basis. The racial entries in the PHB state that these proficiencies are bonus feats while the MM simply states them as proficiencies. This provides enough evidence to show that WotC uses them interchangeably.
The threshold of "enough evidence" is subjective here. The fact that they habitually grant bonus proficiencies as bonus feats could be a sign that they see that as a fine way to do so because nothing like the chaos shuffle is on their radar. Presuming the existence of a rule that's never stated is different from presuming the nonexistence of a rule that's never stated (as in the case of DMG and prereq qualification).


Are these other special lines feats though?
Yeah. In PHB, fighter feats are designated with the Special entry, which certainly counts as rules (they're also noted in the table but we know that the feat text would take precedence over table entry so the Special line is primary rules text here).


Only the class entries have the authority to grant proficiencies
Agreed. I want to be specific about why this is true though, because I think it's far from off topic -- if mediated by primary source, then as I described above, it constitutes a strong argument for also using primary source to counter-rule CWar's statement about PRC prereqs.

[Darg]

Yeah. In PHB, fighter feats are designated with the Special entry, which certainly counts as rules (they're also noted in the table but we know that the feat text would take precedence over table entry so the Special line is primary rules text here)

This is wrong. It's the class feature that specifies which feats are fighter feats:


Bonus Feats: At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats on Table 5–1: Feats (page 90).

The class feature gives primacy to the table and the special entry is only stating a fact, not presenting a rule for you to follow. It's extra information in the place you might want it.

[Elves]

"One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry" -- text is still primary over table despite table being the shorthand used in the class text.


simpler - look at Power Attack: "Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls." special line is clearly mechanical text here

[Elves]

Summarizing my view before the thread goes necro:

The DMG is primary source for prestige classes and so would overrule CWar if primary source is invoked. The contention by the people who say it isn't invoked is that primary source can only be invoked by explicit, positively stated contradiction, not just disagreement.

But that leads to results that are not only logically self-destructive (dragon disciple) but inane. One example is the Light Armor Proficiency feat. It says "All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat." If primary source requires explicit contradiction, all non-core classes whose class descriptions don't give them any armor proficiency nonetheless receive it. That can't be the case. The solution is that those non-core classes, and the books they appear in, are primary source for themselves and overrule what the feat says. That's a necessary example of primary source applying to rules that are not fundamentally incompatible. With that admitted, there's no legal barrier to DMG invoking primary source over CWar.

To argue that "disagreement" requires contradiction is also unlinguistic. The word is "dis-agree", failure to agree. It's a negatively defined word. The word used isn't "contra-dict", which is actively defined.

The fact that there's an explanation for why CWar and CArc would carry this rule erroneously (they were written during 3e when that was the rule in the DMG) doesn't have mechanical import, but is important in interpreting the text because it means intent can't be presumed one way or the other.

The logic here is against disqualification. In practice, the community runs with the other assumption. My challenge to that is, what does the prerequisite cramming minigame really add to the game? You still have to qualify to enter the class, so we're not suddenly having characters enter archmage at 2nd level.

Edit: Also, too often, the less permissive argument gets the benefit of the doubt even when it's more dubious. Certainly as far as RAI goes, it's easier to believe that the boilerplate PRC section text from 3.0 got accidentally carried over into books written during that era but published during 3.5 than that the devs stealth-errata'd the DMG in a splatbook yet didn't include that rule in the official DMG errata or mention it in any other 3.5 book ever again.

The idea that the rule in CWar/CArc only applies to classes in that book doesn't work either, because it's generally stated. So it's either generally true or generally wrong.