Why are PRC entry requirements treated as a build constraint?

[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). 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). 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! )

[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 ;) )