PDA

View Full Version : Losing PrC Class Features: Does it happen?



AKA_Bait
2008-01-14, 04:38 PM
This discussion started on a different thread but I'm moving it here to avoid derailing the other one.

The rule at issue is that in Cwar and CArc it states that if you fail to meet the prereq's of a PrC after taking it that you lose all the class features except saves, BAB and HD. Some folks don't like this and argue it is invalid as below:


The problem with this rule is that it can't apply generally. Some examples of why this is the case: the Ur-Priest PrC in Complete Divine, and the Dragon Disciple in the DMG. In both cases a class feature of the prestige class causes it to not meet the requirements to join that PrC. The DMG is the primary source for rules about prestige classes. The CW page 16 rule would make a prestige class in the DMG invalid, which violates the "primary sources" errata rule.



When you find a disagreement between two D&D® 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.

There are two ways to handle this discrepancy:
The primary source wins. The page 16 CW rule is invalid, and ditto for the same in Complete Arcane. WotC screwed up, twice.
The rule listed in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane applies only to prestige classes in those two specific books, and to no others.
In any case, the general rule is that PrCs don't work like feats. You can fail to meet the requirements for most PrCs and still obtain all their class benefits.

I take issue with this. The language in CW and CA is written such that it applies to all PrC's, so option 2 there doesn't work. Either those sections of CW and CA are invalid everywhere or valid everywhere.

Now, let's take a look at the actual language of the Primary Source Rules. It specifically states if there is a 'disagreement' between the text someplace else and the text of the rule in the primary source then the primary source governs. Here is what the SRD has to say about prestige classes:




Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. 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. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.


Note, it says NOTHING about what happens to class features gained from a PrC if you later fail to meet the requirements for entry. It doesn't say that you keep them, it doesn't say that you lose them. As such, there is no rule governing that scenario in the Primary Source to disagree with one way or the other.

The argument that there are two prestige classes that would no longer work optimally if that were the case doesn't fly.

Dragon Disciple is among the most poorly worded prestige classes in the game and probably should have been fixed with some errata by now but the fact that it hasn't doesn't present a 'rule' about entry into PrC's. It just means that, given the explicit rules, that once you reach 10th level in the PrC, you lose all the class features thereof. Basically, DD sucks even more now that it did before by RAW.

Ur-Priest has the same problem. You get the class features except spell casting, since those are forsaken forever.

Note, that both of these problems could be fixed with pretty simple editing. Two cases, totaling 4 sentences of problematic text in PrC's (not rules explanation sections) do not speak louder than 2 entire rules explanation sections. PrC's are frequently written poorly. That there are two that if they'd been read more closely would be fine but were not and have huge problems should surprise no one and does not invalidate the rules under which the problems arise.

If someone can give me more examples of where that rule makes PrC's as weak as the two above, or ones that specifically note the loss of class features which were published after CDiv or CWar I might be wrong. However, I don't know of any.

tyckspoon
2008-01-14, 06:46 PM
If someone can give me more examples of where that rule makes PrC's as weak as the two above, or ones that specifically note the loss of class features which were published after CDiv or CWar I might be wrong. However, I don't know of any.

The Swiftblade, as presented on the Wizard's website. If you are required to continue meeting all of the prerequisites in order to keep the benefits of the class, then the only 3rd level spell you can ever cast again is Haste.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-14, 06:56 PM
I don't think it is much of a problem.
Just rule that prestige classes that by their class features results in failure to meet their own prerequisites are exception to the general rule.

Renegade Paladin
2008-01-14, 08:06 PM
Frankly, I think that in many cases losing all class features because of a loss of prerequisites is silly, particularly non-mechanical ones such as alignment.

Take the assassin, for instance. If an assassin becomes non-evil then... what? He forgets how to use poison, make sneak attacks, and cast arcane spells? The only ways such a restriction makes sense is for the prerequisites to in some way directly enable the class's abilities, or in the case of alignment restrictions for it to be a divinely (or at least externally) powered class whose patron would withdraw the powers if the prerequisites ceased to be met.

Look at how the base classes handle alignment restrictions and the violation thereof: Clerics and paladins lose their powers if they violate their alignment restrictions, because their patron deities/cosmic forces simply refuse to grant them their divine abilities if they're no longer working in said deities'/forces' interests. Meanwhile, the monk doesn't lose abilities, because all that stuff is stuff the monk was trained to do and comes from within himself: He just can't learn more because he's lost the necessary discipline and focus. The bard doesn't lose class abilities; he just can't advance for... some undefined reason. Barbarians lose rage because supposedly it can't live within a lawful soul, but keep everything else. Knights simply lose their knight's challenge, and so on. There's no particular reason to handle prestige classes differently.

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-15, 02:31 AM
This discussion started on a different thread but I'm moving it here to avoid derailing the other one.

The rule at issue is that in Cwar and CArc it states that if you fail to meet the prereq's of a PrC after taking it that you lose all the class features except saves, BAB and HD. Some folks don't like this and argue it is invalid as below:



I take issue with this. The language in CW and CA is written such that it applies to all PrC's, so option 2 there doesn't work. Either those sections of CW and CA are invalid everywhere or valid everywhere.

Well, it's worth noting that the text you are referring to in Complete Warrior falls under the heading 'Martial Prestige Classes.' If you take it as an excerpt, then maybe it would mean 'all PrC's in general' but in it's context in the book it seems to clearly indicate only the martial PrC's in CW.

A careful reading of the entry in Complete Arcane is similiar. It seems to be making a reference only to arcane PrC's. It even uses the phrase 'most of the classes in this book' a paragraph before.

Personally, I don't think this rule would work in general. It doesn't make logical sense for people to simply forget their skills. Assassins, Duelists, Hulking Hurlers, Reaping Maulers, etc... should a PC forget these because an ability they had was drained to the point where they don't qualify for a required feat? Plus, there's already a mechanic to handle this situation, the "Ex-PrC" section. If they wanted to include a section on losing a PrC, that would have been a lot more clear.

Also, there are PrC's where you are literally in a state of transformation, like Green Star Adept. What happens when you lose your class features? Do you suddenly revert to normal? What about Racial Paragon levels if you're say, bitten by a vampire and changed to type Undead? Here's a good one: What about Ronin? Do they get back their Samurai levels if they become lawful again? (not that they would want them. Samurai is yuck!)

Not to mention that it sort of destroys a character if they had a lot of levels in that PrC before they lost it. How is the player supposed to react or have fun when they lose a majority of the powers and abilities they worked hard to earn the XP for? It feels like a case of penalizing the PC so bad they might as well reroll. D&D is not supposed to have situations like that designed in.

Talic
2008-01-15, 02:37 AM
Or perhaps you follow the simple rule that a PrC cannot invalidate itself unless by specific text that allows it (such as the paladin text).

With that one little ruling, you resolve everything, and apply common sense to the game (much better than physics).

hewhosaysfish
2008-01-15, 06:24 AM
Frankly, I think that in many cases losing all class features because of a loss of prerequisites is silly, particularly non-mechanical ones such as alignment.

One possible justification motivation for this could be that, while an Assassin who becomes non-Evil still remembers how to Death Attack he is no longer willing to do so (and similarly for other PrCs).

Of course, this is using mechanics (what you are able to do) to replace what should be a roleplaying choice (what you choose to do). And it doesn't explain why you might not be willing to stab somebody in the back after studying them for 18 seconds (death attack) but are perfectly fine with stabbing them in the back immediately (sneak attack, sudden strike) or just stabbing them in the face.

Thus I offer this only as a reason for why this rule might exist, rather than as support for its continued existence.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-15, 09:00 AM
The Swiftblade, as presented on the Wizard's website. If you are required to continue meeting all of the prerequisites in order to keep the benefits of the class, then the only 3rd level spell you can ever cast again is Haste.

You don't think that was the intention of the requirement? Why wouldn't it just say 'ability to cast haste' if you only needed to prepare all of your third level spells as haste once?


I don't think it is much of a problem.
Just rule that prestige classes that by their class features results in failure to meet their own prerequisites are exception to the general rule.

Oh, I don't find the poor wording of the PrC's above to be a problem for exactly that reason. Because the errors are so small and easily fixable I just houserule them away, as you suggest. This only came up as a dispute about if you retain your PrC class features if you fail to meet the prereq's by RAW or RAI.


Frankly, I think that in many cases losing all class features because of a loss of prerequisites is silly, particularly non-mechanical ones such as alignment.

In some cases I agree with you, in some cases not. Where I do, I houserule a change in the class. Assassin happens to be one of those classes. Cleric does not. However, the issue on this thread isn't one of how we would like it to be but what it actually is under the existing rules.


Well, it's worth noting that the text you are referring to in Complete Warrior falls under the heading 'Martial Prestige Classes.' If you take it as an excerpt, then maybe it would mean 'all PrC's in general' but in it's context in the book it seems to clearly indicate only the martial PrC's in CW.

That's because the only prestige classes in that book are Martial. You should note that it talks about creating your own martial prestiege classes at the end of the section. A clear indication that it doesn't just mean the PrC's therein.


A careful reading of the entry in Complete Arcane is similiar. It seems to be making a reference only to arcane PrC's. It even uses the phrase 'most of the classes in this book' a paragraph before.

Way to take half a sentence out of context. The actual quote is "Most of the classes in this book have stringent requirements that will require several levels of careful advancement to achieve." i.e. the classes in this book have prerequisites. I fail to see how that implies a narrowed scope to the next full paragraph.



Personally, I don't think this rule would work in general. It doesn't make logical sense for people to simply forget their skills.

Depends upon the class. It makes perfect sense for a Blackguard to lose their abilities if they become good. Not so much for an assassian. In the case of a required feat, it makes total sense. They may know how to do it, but be unable to anymore. I understand the technique of many a physical feat I cannot perform.


Plus, there's already a mechanic to handle this situation, the "Ex-PrC" section. If they wanted to include a section on losing a PrC, that would have been a lot more clear.

If there is a specific mechanic in a specific class that would govern. Short of that there are two pretty darn clear paragraphs in two different WotC publications. How much clearer would you like?


Also, there are PrC's where you are literally in a state of transformation, like Green Star Adept. What happens when you lose your class features? Do you suddenly revert to normal? What about Racial Paragon levels if you're say, bitten by a vampire and changed to type Undead? Here's a good one: What about Ronin? Do they get back their Samurai levels if they become lawful again? (not that they would want them. Samurai is yuck!)

Yes. You lose the benefits of being a x paragon since you aren't an x anymore. I don't know because I don't know exactly what it says about Samuri and they suck so much I don't care to look.


Not to mention that it sort of destroys a character if they had a lot of levels in that PrC before they lost it. How is the player supposed to react or have fun when they lose a majority of the powers and abilities they worked hard to earn the XP for? It feels like a case of penalizing the PC so bad they might as well reroll. D&D is not supposed to have situations like that designed in.

I really don't see this. D&D does have that designed in. It's called level loss. The only way I can come up with that this really penalizes a character in a way much more signifigant than regular old level drain is if the player makes a choice to make a signifigant change in the character that negates the PrC. The player will be aware of what they are doing before they do it, I don't see the problem.

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 09:08 AM
You don't think that was the intention of the requirement? Why wouldn't it just say 'ability to cast haste' if you only needed to prepare all of your third level spells as haste once?

The requirement is "must have spent the previous level only ever using 3rd-level spell slots to cast haste" (or close enough). The argument, if it's the same as what I've seen before on this topic, is that this applies to each level of the class and not just the first, so that you have to spend the entirety of your first Swiftblade using only haste in your 3rd-level slots if you want to take the second level, and so on. However, it's a different issue from "losing PrC features if you no longer meet the prerequisites". I suppose, though, that the same argument about taking new levels could be applied to keeping features from previous levels.

Theodoxus
2008-01-15, 10:04 AM
Y'all must enjoy playing D&D in ways I'd never want to. Loose your abilities because you could no longer enter a class? WTF. They're pre-requisites, not co-requisites. As a DM, there's no way I'd rule you couldn't continue in a prestige class that altered you from what it required you to join. As a player, I'd leave a game if a DM was that lacking in common sense.

The game already has enough harshness added in that artifically ruling that simply continuing in a PrC will negate your ability to actually be that PrC is ludicrous.

To answer the OP Title question... No.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-15, 10:06 AM
I suppose, though, that the same argument about taking new levels could be applied to keeping features from previous levels.

Especially since it explicitly says so in two sources.

Telok
2008-01-15, 10:19 AM
The English language is fun. Bugger stretches and bends like warm taffy.

I believe what's being missed, for the Swiftblade at least, is that you have to continue to qualify to take the first level of the PrC in order to continue taking the class. The requirement for Swiftblade is that you must use Haste as your only third level spell for a whole character level. Once you've done that you meet the requirement to take the first level of Swiftblade, and always will meet that requirement as long as you took the Swiftblade level as your next level. You qualify for the first level because you spent the whole previous level using only one spell, therefor you will always qualify (short of time travel and history rewrites) for that first level.

I think the situation would be clearer if there were PrCs that had more requirements that kicked in halfway through the class. In that case the rules about not meeting requirements would have been better written and edited. But there aren't any PrCs like that (thank gods).

This means that the only ways to violate PrC requirements are retraining, Psychic Reformation and similar effects, and alignment changes. Using the character remake methods you can stop qualifying by means of feats, skills, and spells/powers known. In these cases it's reasonable to lose all the class features because you lost the skills and knowledge to be able to do those things. Alignment is a lousy cop out of a requirement for a PrC, it should be roleplay requirements that fit with the alignment and the class. Assassin is actually a decent example of this, the RP requirement implies some sort of assassin organization that trains and manages the assassins. In order to join this group you're ordered to go out and murder someone you've never met or heard of. It's an evil act, and you're following orders. Congratulations, you're LE.

Really this whole thing is just weak writing of the PrC rules and a lack of good examples.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-15, 10:36 AM
This means that the only ways to violate PrC requirements are retraining, Psychic Reformation and similar effects, and alignment changes. Using the character remake methods you can stop qualifying by means of feats, skills, and spells/powers known. In these cases it's reasonable to lose all the class features because you lost the skills and knowledge to be able to do those things.

There is an additional case, where you qualify for a PrC or a Feat (which gets you into the PrC) because of a magical item or enhancement. I've never seen losing class features because one based their whole build on keeping that Belt of Giant Stregnth forever as unreasonable though.

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 11:34 AM
Y'all must enjoy playing D&D in ways I'd never want to. Loose your abilities because you could no longer enter a class? WTF. They're pre-requisites, not co-requisites. As a DM, there's no way I'd rule you couldn't continue in a prestige class that altered you from what it required you to join. As a player, I'd leave a game if a DM was that lacking in common sense.

The game already has enough harshness added in that artifically ruling that simply continuing in a PrC will negate your ability to actually be that PrC is ludicrous.

To answer the OP Title question... No.

A discussion of what the rules actually state on an issue has little or nothing to do with whether the participants think the rules are sensible or fun to play under or whether they houserule them or rule differently in their own games. Please don't try to impugn the validity of an argument solely on the basis that the consequences if it's right don't sound fun.

The_Werebear
2008-01-15, 11:52 AM
I had this problem with a base class.

I was DMing Tomb of Horrors. Our NE warlock stepped through a gate he shouldn't have, and ended up as a NG warlock, which according to the book you can't be. However, it says nothing about ex warlocks anywhere in that section that we could find. I eventually just shrugged and let him keep doing what he was doing, because I couldn't think of anything better. After all, he only has to start off with that mindset and alignment, and it didn't say he had to keep it.

Craig1f
2008-01-15, 12:09 PM
Just for clarification on this thread, the original conversation that prompted this thread was that I am creating a gnomish beguiler, that needs to take a one level dip of a PrC, so I can delay getting my 7th level of beguiler, so I can get a 4th level spell for advanced learning instead of 3rd level.

I was going to take the Mindbender class, and roleplay that my character had become evil (or at least neutral, evil-curious) with power, and had begun to harm innocent people. After joining the PC party, and realizing they fight for a cause more important than self-interest, he would start to gravitate back towards good.

The argument was, that the second he goes from being Neutral to being Good, he would lose Telepathy, and a caster level.

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 12:17 PM
The argument was, that the second he goes from being Neutral to being Good, he would lose Telepathy, and a caster level.

Which I have to say I think would be pretty stupid; I would rule otherwise were I your DM. Actually I'm kind of sorry I brought the whole thing up. :smalltongue:

It seems to me that most of what people find egregiously stupid about the idea of losing PrC features could be resolved if such prerequisites as alignment restrictions didn't count. If you somehow lose a feat that you used to qualify, it seems reasonable that you might lose features, but losing a learned skill just because you see the world differently is pretty damn foolish. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not what the RAW states... just that a sensible DM should rule otherwise.

Theodoxus
2008-01-15, 12:19 PM
A discussion of what the rules actually state on an issue has little or nothing to do with whether the participants think the rules are sensible or fun to play under or whether they houserule them or rule differently in their own games. Please don't try to impugn the validity of an argument solely on the basis that the consequences if it's right don't sound fun.

Why, golly golly gosh, you're right. Sorry to get your panties in a bunch.

Let me reiterate my actual point...

The requirements for entering a PrC are pre-requisites. That means you have to have them before you can enter them. They are not Co-requisites. That means if there is a change, so that you would no longer qualify for the class, you're already grandfathered in. (regardless of what caused you to lose qualification.)

So, to answer the OP topic question, once again. No.

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 12:24 PM
Why, golly golly gosh, you're right. Sorry to get your panties in a bunch.

Such civility is always appreciated.


Let me reiterate my actual point...

The requirements for entering a PrC are pre-requisites. That means you have to have them before you can enter them. They are not Co-requisites. That means if there is a change, so that you would no longer qualify for the class, you're already grandfathered in. (regardless of what caused you to lose qualification.)

So, to answer the OP topic question, once again. No.

That makes sense. In several cases, it would indeed be pretty stupid for your class features to disappear because of prerequisite issues. However, it doesn't address the actual argument being made, given the rules being cited by AKA_Bait.

You can argue that the rules in CWar and CArc don't apply in the general case and several people have done so. Since there are explicit statements that for at least the PrCs in those books, though, prerequisites do need to continue to be met in perpetuity, your "common-sense" argument is a non-starter.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-01-15, 01:06 PM
My 2 cp is simply that they can't advance any further in the PrC. not nessasarliy loosing there PrC abilities they have already gained, Unless those wheregranted by an outside source(aka demons god etc)

Aquillion
2008-01-15, 01:56 PM
I think you're really, really stretching it when you try to argue that the DMG and CW/CA aren't in direct conflict. Read the DMG again:

Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. 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. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing. Anyone who just read that paragraph from the DMG would know, without any doubt, that you don't need to worry about prerequisites after taking the first level; nobody could come away with any doubts or serious arguments from that. According to the DMG, prerequisites apply to taking the first level only, period, end of argument, fullstop, finis. There is nothing to discuss on this point, so let's move on.

You are arguing, essentially, that CW and CA add a new requirement that wasn't there before; as I noted above, you simply cannot read the DMG text and think that it was there already, since the wording is so clear. You're arguing, furthermore, that because there is nothing in the DMG specifically bars the way CW and CA invented a requirement to continue fulfilling PRC perquisites, the rules are not in conflict; you say CW and CA can radically rewrite the rules for PRCs as long as it "writes between the lines", inventing any new restrictions they want and making them the primary rules for PRCs as long as it doesn't specifically disagree with any individual sentence in the DMG. If CW said "In order to take any PRC, you must be level 10", for instance, you would argue that that doesn't disagree with the DMG rules and therefore takes precedence.

This is absurd. The DMG and CW/CA describe different and non-compatible rules for PRCs; under your interpretation, simply deciding whether to use CA and CW in a game (since, of course, not every game uses every sourcebook, and plainly the CW/CA additions to the rules for PRC do not apply when they aren't used) would radically change one of the underlying rules of the game. This is exactly the situation that the rule on disagreement between sources was intended to prevent!

The rules for PRCs are set out, completely, in the DMG; any new 'general' rules, worded to apply to all PRCs, are in contradiction with them. Sourcebooks are not supposed to change the core rules, particularly not one like this; WOTC realized, correctly, that that would cause other sourcebooks, depending on those core rules, to be 'left in the lurch' (as we see with Ur-Priest, or, to a lesser extent, with the absurdity of an Assassin who loses all class abilities by becoming non-evil.)

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 02:18 PM
Anyone who just read that paragraph from the DMG would know, without any doubt, that you don't need to worry about prerequisites after taking the first level; nobody could come away with any doubts or serious arguments from that. According to the DMG, prerequisites apply to taking the first level only, period, end of argument, fullstop, finis. There is nothing to discuss on this point, so let's move on.

You make a good point, which I won't argue, though I will point out that I read that paragraph as primarily saying "you can't use the first level of a PrC to qualify for itself" - the question that occasionally crops up here.

However, and I can't believe I didn't notice this earlier - as far as the question which originally sparked this topic, Mindbender is in CArc, and therefore subject to the "changed alignment causes PrC feature loss" clause anyway! Not that this affects the question of whether that rule applies more generally - I just find it amusing.

As far as the general point, I concede; now that I've been directed to and checked the exact rules that I was half-remembering, I see that they are certainly worded as if they apply generally, but doing so is just too troublesome. In this case I think the authors overreached, and core overrules them. I also think, looking at how they're worded, that these rules are too damn restrictive and general even for the classes to which they certainly do apply, and would heavily modify them in my game.

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-15, 05:15 PM
However, and I can't believe I didn't notice this earlier - as far as the question which originally sparked this topic, Mindbender is in CArc, and therefore subject to the "changed alignment causes PrC feature loss" clause anyway! Not that this affects the question of whether that rule applies more generally - I just find it amusing.

What's odd though is the section in Complete Arcane in question only says the player would lose all special abilities (not hit dice, base attack bonus, or base saves.) It does not refer to class features at all, like Complete Warrior does. Since spellcasting is a class feature, not a special ability, you would keep that but not any of the other class features from Mindbender, since they are all special abilities (Ex, Sp, or Su).

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 05:33 PM
What's odd though is the section in Complete Arcane in question only says the player would lose all special abilities (not hit dice, base attack bonus, or base saves.) It does not refer to class features at all, like Complete Warrior does. Since spellcasting is a class feature, not a special ability, you would keep that but not any of the other class features from Mindbender, since they are all special abilities (Ex, Sp, or Su).

That's fortuitous for Craig1f. He gets to keep the spellcasting, so the delay-the-Expanded-Knowledge Beguiler trick still works. It's just Telepathy that goes.

Still, I think it'd be an entirely reasonable move for the DM to let Telepathy stay, regardless. But yeah, the distinction between "class features" and "special abilities" is a very odd one to make here.

Roderick_BR
2008-01-15, 06:03 PM
Quoting a general from one of those extreme Marvel comics: "One hand have no idea of what the other is doing". In other words, they say contradictory stuff all the type, probably because someone didn't bother checking others books first.
Dragon Disciple is a good example. You must be a non-dragon race to enter it. By level 10, you turn into a half-dragon (a dragon race), meaning that you lose the condition that makes you qualify for it in the first place. The guys from CWar and CAdv simply didn't think about it. That's a case where DM will have to interpret the non-stupid version of the rules.

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-15, 06:28 PM
That's because the only prestige classes in that book are Martial. You should note that it talks about creating your own martial prestiege classes at the end of the section. A clear indication that it doesn't just mean the PrC's therein.

You said it yourself "creating Martial Prestige Classes"... much like the one found in the book itself. If it meant creating PrC's in general, why does it qualify them with Martial? Other than the PrC's in Complete Warrior, what other PrC's are considered martial?


Way to take half a sentence out of context. The actual quote is "Most of the classes in this book have stringent requirements that will require several levels of careful advancement to achieve." i.e. the classes in this book have prerequisites. I fail to see how that implies a narrowed scope to the next full paragraph.

Not out of context, in context. The entire section was about the PrC's in CW. It even had a header that said "Martial Prestige Classes" and not "New Prestige Class Rules" or "Prestige Classes." The arguement that it applies universally doesn't make sense if the section it was written under obviously meant to refer only to it's included PrC or any homebrew derivatives thereof.


Depends upon the class. It makes perfect sense for a Blackguard to lose their abilities if they become good. Not so much for an assassian. In the case of a required feat, it makes total sense. They may know how to do it, but be unable to anymore. I understand the technique of many a physical feat I cannot perform.

I won't say it doesn't make sense for some PrC's to lose some of their class features. It is all PrC's losing all class features that makes no sense. However, let's use your example.

A fallen Blackguard should definately lose Aura of Evil, Smite/Detect Good, Command Undead, and Dark Blessing. No arguements here. But what about Poison Use and Sneak Attack? You see, it doesn't make sense to be sweeping with this.

My point is that a rule causing PrC's to lose all class features can't possibly work smoothly because it clearly wasn't designed into D&D and that's why it can't be intended as RAW. You'd be homebrewing Ex-PrC rules on a case by case basis in order to get this to work.


If there is a specific mechanic in a specific class that would govern. Short of that there are two pretty darn clear paragraphs in two different WotC publications. How much clearer would you like?

Paragraph's that refer only to the classes presented in their books. Ones that would serve only to create headaches and more paperwork for everyone involved if they were made general. If those two paragraph's clearly set the rules from then on for all future RAW, then they should have appeared in a sidebar in every single book they apply to, like the rules for swift and immediate actions always do.


Yes. You lose the benefits of being a x paragon since you aren't an x anymore. I don't know because I don't know exactly what it says about Samuri and they suck so much I don't care to look.

Which benefits? The entire class, or only the class features? It makes a difference because a lot of Paragon abilities are just enhanced/awakened racial ones.


I really don't see this. D&D does have that designed in. It's called level loss. The only way I can come up with that this really penalizes a character in a way much more signifigant than regular old level drain is if the player makes a choice to make a signifigant change in the character that negates the PrC. The player will be aware of what they are doing before they do it, I don't see the problem.

So it's not possible a player ever put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment without knowing? Or had Dexterity drained or damaged below 13 and could no longer use Dodge (or it's many branch Feats)? Or Strength sapped below 13 and lost Power Attack? I think these things stand a fair chance of happening, actually. Level loss penalties are pretty generic, and don't become a lot of book-keeping as long as they are healed before the 24 hour mark. You even keep your class features during that time!

This PrC change would become a pain *immediately.* That's likely the most important difference. There are others, too.

Curmudgeon
2008-01-15, 07:39 PM
Gee, I didn't think I was going to be stirring up such a debate. I would like to thank Aquillion for referencing the DMG language on PrCs that I alluded to when I said the CW page 16 rule conflicted with the DMG, the primary rule source for prestige classes.

kamikasei, I did indeed realize that Mindbender is in Complete Arcane. That's why in the context of Craig1f's character discussion I pointed out the only two possibilities that I saw.
There are two ways to handle this discrepancy:

The primary source wins. The page 16 CW rule is invalid, and ditto for the same in Complete Arcane. WotC screwed up, twice.
The rule listed in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane applies only to prestige classes in those two specific books, and to no others.
The distinction matters precisely because Mindbender is a PrC from Complete Arcane, so Craig1f's DM will need to decide which way to go. For prestige classes outside these two books I see no distinction at all: there cannot be any valid rule for continuing to meet entry requirements in a PrC.

This means that the only ways to violate PrC requirements are retraining, Psychic Reformation and similar effects, and alignment changes. No, Telok, there are many other ways. AKA_Bait already mentioned losing a magic item that bumps up an ability. Additionally I can think of the following:
Getting ability drain so that you no longer qualify for a feat that's a prerequisite.
Negative levels. Because negative levels don't exactly undo what you gained for those last n levels, you may indirectly lose a prerequisite such as BAB.
Losing a feat through a lost or destroyed magic item. Mobility may be obtained as an armor enhancement, for instance.
Magic that changes your race. Polymorph, for example, changes your creature type.
Using up all your <x> level spells, for prerequisites of the form "ability to cast <x> level spells".
Having your casting ability damaged and/or penalized to the extent that it's not high enough to meet prerequisites of the form "ability to cast <x> level spells".
Casting all your available instances of a particular spell, for prerequisites of the form "able to cast <spell>".
Taking a new class or level that changes you. A human Monk who takes 20th level in that class loses their entry qualification for Chameleon, for instance.
If you take all of these prerequisites literally, you'd be losing qualification for lots of casting PrCs just because you failed to prepare their required spells every single day, forever after. If a prepared caster hasn't readied a particular spell, they can't cast it. Similarly if they cast all instances of a particular prepared spell, they are unable to cast it until the next day.

The CW page 16 rule is very poorly thought out. Trying to add house rules to try to make it work seems to me a continuation of short-sighted thinking.

Narsham
2008-01-16, 02:32 AM
It's really worse than you think. One of the prerequisites for Mindbender is "Arcane caster level 5th." Once you take Mindbender, your caster level increases, and you have a caster level of 6th, not 5th. So not only does Mindbender have to be your 5th level, but you also have to find some way to lose a caster level every other level in order to keep the special abilities. It might help convince your GM to allow you to change alignment after taking the prestige class if you point out the absurdity of this argument. Then again, your GM might point out the pedantry of this argument.

Alternatively, you could point out the sentence under Requirements. "To qualify to become a ..." The sentence about losing the abilities if you lose the requirements may have been put in for a prestige class that was removed before publication.

If this doesn't convince your GM, tell him/her/it/them that your next character will be a fifth level fighter who enters the Assassin and Blackguard prestige classes, before switching alignments and becoming a Paladin. If the GM insists on using the rules as written, you'll have a Paladin who can use a death attack, detect good or evil, and gives off auras of both good and evil! Oh, and if you take Blackguard and Paladin to level 5, you get two mounts, have double your Cha bonus to saves, etc.

Frankly, they should have mentioned what happens to Ex-Assassins, Ex-Blackguards, and to every other prestige class that you could theoretically lose, just as they did with Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Paladins. That would have put Ex-___ into the template they used for the 'Complete' prestige classes. (Anyone want to buy some Goggles of Useless Hindsight?)

Talic
2008-01-16, 02:45 AM
Anyone who just read that paragraph from the DMG would know, without any doubt, that you don't need to worry about prerequisites after taking the first level; nobody could come away with any doubts or serious arguments from that. According to the DMG, prerequisites apply to taking the first level only, period, end of argument, fullstop, finis. There is nothing to discuss on this point, so let's move on.

Wrong. The DMG entry states that you must meet prerequisites before taking the first level of a class. It does NOT state that this is the only time you must meet it. It doesn't make any claim whatsoever in regards to anything other than the acquisition of your first PrC level.

If the bank said you must have a credit score of 750 to be approved for a 4%interest Auto Loan, and later published a notice stating that if your credit score ever dropped below 750, the bank would raise the rate to 9%, they didn't contradict the first statement. The first statement failed to outline any consequences at all for later loss.

And a failing to say that something does exist is not proof positive that it doesn't. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.


Taking a new class or level that changes you. A human Monk who takes 20th level in that class loses their entry qualification for Chameleon, for instance.

And that same monk who advances to level 21 becomes a Level 1 fighter, what's the point?

Stephen_E
2008-01-16, 06:15 AM
Wrong. The DMG entry states that you must meet prerequisites before taking the first level of a class. It does NOT state that this is the only time you must meet it. It doesn't make any claim whatsoever in regards to anything other than the acquisition of your first PrC level.

It gives the full rules for prestige classes. Those rules specify the only time that they require you to have the prereqs.


1) Two amongst the dozens of later books have a note about losing abilitys if you don't have the prereqs after having achived the 1st level. None of the others do.

2) The two books that have the notes are the 1st and 3rd books.

3) The 3rd book is an exact replica of the 3.0 DMG except for 3 words which are rephrased. The 1st book is written differently but again carefully covers everything in the 3.0 DMG.

4) The 1st few splat books are known to have been written with a lack of editors. WotC admitted as much and apologised for it.

5) Also note that the 3.5 DMG completely rewrote the stuff about prestiges, massively reworking the stuff about them.

6) There is nothing in the errata of FAQs about the prestige classes needing prereqs forever.

If after all that you can sincerely say that you beleive the 3.5 DMG with its changed view of prestige classes forgot to mention one crucial way they remanined the same as 3.0, and that the worst edited books saw the missing note added, but all the following better edited books failed to do so, then all I can say is that I have several bridges I'd like to sell you.:smalltongue:


And a failing to say that something does exist is not proof positive that it doesn't. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.


Actually in DnD rules it often is. When you consider the limits involved in writing a book of rules this is to be expected. To meet your requirement they'd have to more than double the pages.

Stephen

Talic
2008-01-16, 06:52 AM
There is an additional case, where you qualify for a PrC or a Feat (which gets you into the PrC) because of a magical item or enhancement. I've never seen losing class features because one based their whole build on keeping that Belt of Giant Stregnth forever as unreasonable though.

Example, Power Attack is a prerequisite for a PrC. Power Attack has a requirement of Str: 13.

During a fight, you get hit with a Strength draining spell, that lowers your strength to 10. You lose access to Power Attack. Thus, you've lost a feat that you have as a PrC prereq.

Also, you could lose a virtual feat, such as the ranger's TWF feat, due to wearing a heavier armor than allowed.

Kioran
2008-01-16, 07:27 AM
There is an additional case, where you qualify for a PrC or a Feat (which gets you into the PrC) because of a magical item or enhancement. I've never seen losing class features because one based their whole build on keeping that Belt of Giant Stregnth forever as unreasonable though.

I´ve always played it the way that one can only qualify for a PrC or Feat due to inherent Abilties, Feats etc. - if it can be dispelled or stripped from you, it doesn´t qualify you for jack. Conversely, you don´t lose any Class Features you have once you´ve acquired them, unless explicitly stated. But in the end, RAW is, once again, inconclusive on these matters, and actually requires a houseruling to work properly (like this nasty death thing, with dead being undefined).
Sometimes these rulings are easy, sometimes they aren´t. I hate to say it, but it comes down to the DM. Try to convince him the Telepathy is an intrinsic ability gained through specific training and thus independent of continued goodwill by any outside force or your alignment. If he doesn´t swallow, well, too bad.

daggaz
2008-01-16, 10:57 AM
Keep in mind, the whole point of the limitation is almost certainly to stop munchkin players who PrC dip for cool abilities, and quickly move on, dumping all the fluff and ideas behind it for purely gamebreaking mechanical reasons.

Letter of the law, or the spirit. I like to keep them both in mind.

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-16, 11:23 AM
Keep in mind, the whole point of the limitation is almost certainly to stop munchkin players who PrC dip for cool abilities, and quickly move on, dumping all the fluff and ideas behind it for purely gamebreaking mechanical reasons.

Letter of the law, or the spirit. I like to keep them both in mind.

My thoughts exactly!

This would be a good thing to have in 4E, a way to lose specific granted class features if you intentionally break the fluff. A Radiant servant of Pelor should not, for example, be able PrC over to Thrall of Demogorgon and keep all their Pelor granted special abilities. However, now that I think of it there could be situations where that would work, for example if the cleric was being planted in a demonic cult in order to be a spy.

So maybe the current 3.5 is pretty good after all, as long as you have a good DM require a reasonable explanation when incompatible PrC's appear on the same characters list of classes.

Craig1f
2008-01-16, 11:27 AM
That's fortuitous for Craig1f. He gets to keep the spellcasting, so the delay-the-Expanded-Knowledge Beguiler trick still works. It's just Telepathy that goes.

Still, I think it'd be an entirely reasonable move for the DM to let Telepathy stay, regardless. But yeah, the distinction between "class features" and "special abilities" is a very odd one to make here.

Well, if Mindbender turns out to be too much trouble, I'ma just take a level of Fatespinner. Adding 1 to the DC of a spell once a day isn't great, but it could come in handy. And the 2nd level of Fatespinner could be taken at some point too, which also looks incredibly useful. I can allow any of my allies to reroll a save, or force an enemy to reroll a save. However, Fatespinner is unclear as to whether or not I'm allowed to know the result of the roll before using this power. Most abilities that allow a reroll, specifically say that you must make the decision before you know if your roll is a success or a failure. Fatespinner doesn't say that.

Jayabalard
2008-01-16, 11:50 AM
I don't think it is much of a problem.
Just rule that prestige classes that by their class features results in failure to meet their own prerequisites are exception to the general rule.I agree completely with this interpretation/ruling.

Stephen_E
2008-01-16, 08:37 PM
Example, Power Attack is a prerequisite for a PrC. Power Attack has a requirement of Str: 13.

During a fight, you get hit with a Strength draining spell, that lowers your strength to 10. You lose access to Power Attack. Thus, you've lost a feat that you have as a PrC prereq.

Also, you could lose a virtual feat, such as the ranger's TWF feat, due to wearing a heavier armor than allowed.

If you have Power Attack and get hit with a strength draining effect dropping your strength below the minimum required for gaining Power Attack you don't lose the feat. You merely lose the ability to use the feat. You still have the feat for meeting prereqs.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2008-01-16, 08:44 PM
I´ve always played it the way that one can only qualify for a PrC or Feat due to inherent Abilties, Feats etc. - if it can be dispelled or stripped from you, it doesn´t qualify you for jack. Conversely, you don´t lose any Class Features you have once you´ve acquired them, unless explicitly stated. But in the end, RAW is, once again, inconclusive on these matters, and actually requires a houseruling to work properly (like this nasty death thing, with dead being undefined).


I'd point out that that the FAQ specifically says you can qualify for feats through magically gained stats. There is also a prestige class, the Mindspy, in the Complete Warrior (one of the 2 books with the "lose prereqs, lose abilities" note) that specifically says you can qualify for the prestige class by using a Helm of Telepathy to give you detect thoughts.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2008-01-16, 08:50 PM
Keep in mind, the whole point of the limitation is almost certainly to stop munchkin players who PrC dip for cool abilities, and quickly move on, dumping all the fluff and ideas behind it for purely gamebreaking mechanical reasons.

Letter of the law, or the spirit. I like to keep them both in mind.

The whole point of a limitation that almost certainly isn't an actual limitation in 3.5, but was something slipped in by accident in a couple of under edited books. And it should be noted that the books make quite clear, repeatedly, that the fluff in prestige classes isn't to be considered binding and that it should be altered to suit the campaign. i.e. They're mechcanics for giving a character a set of abilities.

Stephen

Craig1f
2008-01-18, 10:32 AM
FYI, since this thread was started on account of my character in question.

My DM ruled that I would lose Telepathy if my character turned Good. I thought it was rubbish, but that's that. It's an extremely low-magic world anyway, and Telepathy is probably a bit overpowered. I mean, we're level 9 now, and I have a +1 axe and 450gp. Any cool items we have we got from defeating enemies that expected to be able to escape.

The thing that sucks is, he's not allowing most things from Races of Stone. He'll allow Whispergnomes, but he says he has to look at Shadowcraft Mage, Earth Sense, and Earthspell.

Oh well.

This is easily the most engrossing campaign I've had though. You would not believe what happened this last Wednesday.