Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 01:09 PM	I said: You should always lose prestige class abilities from losing pre-reqs. The question from a Core rules point of view isn't if you lose, but how much do you lose. In a sense, the books that spell things out are a benefit to the player, because they give you BAB, skill points, saves, etc...that in theory could be taken away. Prerequisite: A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained This is in the context that feats spell precisely what happens when you don't have a prerequsite(you can't use the feat). You should simply swap out the word feat with prestige class as they use the same term - prerequisite. At which point spellcasting PrC's the require the ability to cast spells of X level, or X type of spell of X level have some major issues. I have asked Britt in the LG Questions/Answers thread if we are supposed to use this rule in LG, but have yet to get an answer. But this is not the point of this thread. If anyone wants to debate this with me, feel free to start a thread ;)[/hijack] I don't think that's relevant - a Wizard 5 with a 13 Int, regardless of whether or not he has 3rd level spells memorized or not, is able to cast 3rd level spells. He might not be able to cast one at that precise moment in time, but that's not the requirement. If it were, as an example, a caster casting a 5th level spell usually can't cast a 3rd level spell in the same round. A Bard 2 with an 8 Cha is not class capable of casting arcane spells spontaneously. If he uses a device to therefore qualify for Dragon Disciple, then if that gets turned off for some reason, he will no longer be able to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Which means he no longer meets the prereq.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 01:18 PM	So you are saying that sometimes the inability to fulfill a prereq for PrC revokes the PrC features, but sometimes it doesn't? I don't think that's relevant - a Wizard 5 with a 13 Int, regardless of whether or not he has 3rd level spells memorized or not, is able to cast 3rd level spells. He might not be able to cast one at that precise moment in time, but that's not the requirement. If it were, as an example, a caster casting a 5th level spell usually can't cast a 3rd level spell in the same round. At X point in time said caster cannot currently cast a 3rd level spell. Thus the caster no longer qualifies for Y PrC. At future time Z, the caster can cast a 3rd level spell and thus qualifies for Y PrC again. A Bard 2 with an 8 Cha is not class capable of casting arcane spells spontaneously. If he uses a device to therefore qualify for Dragon Disciple, then if that gets turned off for some reason, he will no longer be able to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Which means he no longer meets the prereq. At F point in time (say, when the item is not functioning for whatever reason), said Bard cannot currently cast arcane spells spontaneously. Thus the Bard no longer qualifies for Dragon Disciple. At future time G, the Bard can cast arcane spell spontaneously (say, because he put a cloak of CHA+4 on). This means he once again qualifies for DD. Either apply it equally to both, or not at all.
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 02:08 PM	At X point in time said caster cannot currently cast a 3rd level spell. Thus the caster no longer qualifies for Y PrC. At future time Z, the caster can cast a 3rd level spell and thus qualifies for Y PrC again. You're mistaking class feature for the literal ability to actually use X at that moment. The character does still have the actual ability to cast 3rd level spells. A class feature that grants the ability to cast 3rd level spells and a spellcasting stat high enough to qualify the character to use that class feature. In the exact same way that a character with the Smite Evil class feature is a person with the ability to Smite Evil, even if he's used it up that day. At F point in time (say, when the item is not functioning for whatever reason), said Bard cannot currently cast arcane spells spontaneously. Thus the Bard no longer qualifies for Dragon Disciple. At future time G, the Bard can cast arcane spell spontaneously (say, because he put a cloak of CHA+4 on). This means he once again qualifies for DD. And that's different - when he loses the Cloak +4, while he does have a class feature that grants spontaneous arcane spells, he doesn't actually have the spellcasting stat that qualifies him to use it. He is not a person capable of spellcasting.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 02:50 PM	You're mistaking class feature for the literal ability to actually use X at that moment. Nowhere in PrC section of the DMG is a distinction like this made. There are some PrC's that do require a class feature however, Theif-Acrobat for example. The character does still have the actual ability to cast 3rd level spells. A class feature that grants the ability to cast 3rd level spells and a spellcasting stat high enough to qualify the character to use that class feature. In the exact same way that a character with the Smite Evil class feature is a person with the ability to Smite Evil, even if he's used it up that day. And that's different - when he loses the Cloak +4, while he does have a class feature that grants spontaneous arcane spells, he doesn't actually have the spellcasting stat that qualifies him to use it. He is not a person capable of spellcasting. I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Either a character can, or can not do something, right now. If you consider the ability to cast X spell tomorrow, or Smite Evil tomorrow enough to qualify for a PrC, why not the ability to put on an item next round?
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 03:38 PM	Nowhere in PrC section of the DMG is a distinction like this made. There are some PrC's that do require a class feature however, Theif-Acrobat for example. You don't need to make the distinction. They say the ability to cast, not can cast at this very moment. Being absolutely literal about the game of D&D produces extremely odd rulings. I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Either a character can, or can not do something, right now. If you consider the ability to cast X spell tomorrow, or Smite Evil tomorrow enough to qualify for a PrC, why not the ability to put on an item next round? Because without the item, you don't have the ability to cast spells period.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 04:18 PM	You don't need to make the distinction. They say the ability to cast, not can cast at this very moment. Being absolutely literal about the game of D&D produces extremely odd rulings. You mean things like ILW/CLW either being turning attempts, or requiring turning attempts? I agree that the text should not always be read literally, however in the case of PrC requirements, I think it means what it says. Ie. 'Can X character do Y?' 'Yes, but not till tomorrow.' You're adding to what was written, in order to interpret it in a different way. Because without the item, you don't have the ability to cast spells period. Then what about a wizard without his spell book? If a wizard is unable to cast spells because he cannot prepare them, should we revoke all class features from say Fatespinners, Io7Vs, Mindbenders, Shadowcraft Mages, etc?
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 05:05 PM	You mean things like ILW/CLW either being turning attempts, or requiring turning attempts? Yes. But it doesn't involve just that - if you read something literally and get weirdness like that popping up, it means the initial read is incorrect. I agree that the text should not always be read literally, however in the case of PrC requirements, I think it means what it says. Ie. 'Can X character do Y?' 'Yes, but not till tomorrow.' You're adding to what was written, in order to interpret it in a different way. I'm not adding anything. You think they mean literal ability to cast a spell right this instant. I think it means the person is capable of using a class feature to generate that spell. Most of the time, they're the same thing. Then what about a wizard without his spell book? If a wizard is unable to cast spells because he cannot prepare them, should we revoke all class features from say Fatespinners, Io7Vs, Mindbenders, Shadowcraft Mages, etc? A Wizard 7 with a 14 Int has the class feature(spellcasting) that lets him prepare and cast 4th level spells. Because of his 14 Int, he qualifies to use the class feature. That's all he needs. Yes, without his spellbook, he can't rememorize spells at that moment, but that's not the same thing as not qualifying to use the class feature...you don't need the spellbook to cast spells once you've memorized them...
LachlarlanIII 03-29-07, 05:31 PM	So any Wizard that takes a PrC that requires him to cast 3rd level spells ceases to qualify for that class when he has run out of 3rd level spells for the day? Hmm...
bitznarf 03-29-07, 05:39 PM	Yes. But it doesn't involve just that - if you read something literally and get weirdness like that popping up, it means the initial read is incorrect. At which point we have 2 options: 1) drop your interpertation of the PHB and losing PrC prereq's or 2) drop mine and use rules outside of those binding in LG to qualify your interpertation of the PHB I'm not adding anything. You think they mean literal ability to cast a spell right this instant. I think it means the person is capable of using a class feature to generate that spell. Most of the time, they're the same thing. Thats not quite what I mean. What I mean is that when reading the PrC requirements using plain English, I see something like this: "Can I do this? Yes, check." (Mindbender - cast Charm in some fashion) "Do I have this? Yes, check." (Many PrC's - X ranks in Y skill) "Have I done this? Yes, check." (Contemplative, Reaping Mauler) What I was getting at, is that if you require those to be 'yes' at all times in order to maintain access to PrC class features, we get weirdness popping up. As for adding something, sure you are. Instead of X meaning X, you are saying X means Y. Edit: and apparently not using anything outside of class features either to qualify, no feats, etc. A Wizard 7 with a 14 Int has the class feature(spellcasting) that lets him prepare and cast 4th level spells. Because of his 14 Int, he qualifies to use the class feature. That's all he needs. Yes, without his spellbook, he can't rememorize spells at that moment, but that's not the same thing as not qualifying to use the class feature...you don't need the spellbook to cast spells once you've memorized them...
haferka 03-29-07, 05:49 PM	I would agree that a player that is using a +X Stat bump item to the point that he becomes capable of casting X level spells to qualify for a prestige class that requires X level spells will loose his prestige class abilities when he looses the prerequisits.. Dragon Disciple.. is a special case.. becouse the class physically changes your character.. Removing the stat bump item would NOT turn you back into your base race.. you have changed.. In this case it is possible to exploit this rule system to equip a particular magic item to qualify for the prestige class.. and level... then switch out the item for something better during combat... That character would loose all (Su) abilities.. including Breath weapon and bonus spells.. but would maintain (Ex) abilities... including Natural Armor, Claws, Bite, Ability Boosts, blindsense, Wings & Dragon Apotheosis.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 05:51 PM	I would agree that a player that is using a +X Stat bump item to the point that he becomes capable of casting X level spells to qualify for a prestige class that requires X level spells will loose his prestige class abilities when he looses the prerequisits.. Dragon Disciple.. is a special case.. becouse the class physically changes your character.. Removing the stat bump item would NOT turn you back into your base race.. you have changed.. In this case it is possible to exploit this rule system to equip a particular magic item to qualify for the prestige class.. and level... then switch out the item for something better during combat... That character would loose all (Su) abilities.. including Breath weapon and bonus spells.. but would maintain (Ex) abilities... including Natural Armor, Claws, Bite, Ability Boosts, blindsense, Wings & Dragon Apotheosis. In a home game, sure, not LG.
Fleetfang 03-29-07, 06:01 PM	At which point we have 2 options: 1) drop your interpertation of the PHB and losing PrC prereq's or 2) drop mine and use rules outside of those binding in LG to qualify your interpertation of the PHB Or you can go with the third option: 3) use some common sense, think about the intent of the authors, and ultimately recognize that the D&D rulebooks, while containing lots of technical words and stuff, are not written as legal documents where technicalities need to be debated to divine the exact and precise wording of every eventuality or possibility. Bitznarf, there is no point in debating uber-technical interpretations of the rules pertaining to a hobby game that is written to be accessible to 13-year-olds. The authors of the D&D books assume a certain amount of reasonableness and common sense when people apply the rules to practice. Not an unwavering command of semantics and logistical proofs. I'm going to go with option 3.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 06:04 PM	Or you can go with the third option: 3) use some common sense, think about the intent of the authors, and ultimately recognize that the D&D rulebooks, while containing lots of technical words and stuff, are not written as legal documents where technicalities need to be debated to divine the exact and precise wording of every eventuality or possibility. Bitznarf, there is no point in debating uber-technical interpretations of the rules pertaining to a hobby game that is written to be accessible to 13-year-olds. The authors of the D&D books assume a certain amount of reasonableness and common sense when people apply the rules to practice. Not an unwavering command of semantics and logistical proofs. I'm going to go with option 3. So where exactly does option 3 leave us? Lay something out for me. Edit: In a home game, I wouldn't use option 1 or 2 either. I would use common sense on a case by case basis.
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 06:41 PM	Thats not quite what I mean. What I mean is that when reading the PrC requirements using plain English, I see something like this: "Can I do this? Yes, check." (Mindbender - cast Charm in some fashion) "Do I have this? Yes, check." (Many PrC's - X ranks in Y skill) "Have I done this? Yes, check." (Contemplative, Reaping Mauler) What I was getting at, is that if you require those to be 'yes' at all times in order to maintain access to PrC class features, we get weirdness popping up. Except I don't actually require them to be yes at all times. Only if you completely lose the capability to answer yes do you lose it. And if your magic item is off or not working for some reason, that counts as completely losing the capability in my eyes. The writers of Complete Arcane looked at it the same way. I'm not alone here...
haferka 03-29-07, 06:53 PM	This whole thread is a 'Core Rules' issue. Perhaps everyone should spam the wizards people with a clarification request. The most logical solution is to detail a 'Default' Ex-CLASS rule. When prerequisites are lost, all (SU) class abilities are lost. Regaining those prerequisits restores all lost abilities. Bottom line = Expect table variation.
bitznarf 03-29-07, 07:18 PM	This whole thread is a 'Core Rules' issue. Perhaps everyone should spam the wizards people with a clarification request. The most logical solution is to detail a 'Default' Ex-CLASS rule. When prerequisites are lost, all (SU) class abilities are lost. Regaining those prerequisits restores all lost abilities. Bottom line = Expect table variation. Yeah, I know its 'Core Rules'. I enjoy this sort of a debate, if only as an intellectual exercise. I know that short of a DC saying 'LG uses the rule from CAr/CWa' we will get lots of table variation, and even then it won't be gone. As for the actual debate, I see 2 issues. 1: Do the Core rules actually say you lose PrC features if you lose the prereqs? 2: If (1) above is 'yes', under what conditions are you considered to have lost the prereqs? I started off attacking item 1, through item 2, and we have now moved to 'reading/meeting PrC requirements'. I like to take a 'plain english' reading of the rules, whereas MwaO appears to be trying to interpret what is said in some fashion As for what was actually said last... Except I don't actually require them to be yes at all times. Only if you completely lose the capability to answer yes do you lose it. And if your magic item is off or not working for some reason, that counts as completely losing the capability in my eyes. Well, in D&D I can't think of a single thing, at the moment, that is truly permanent. Thus, you never completely lose the capability to answer 'yes'. As such, some other criteria needs to be used, if we are going to use this rule. However, I don't think there is a middle ground here that can be reached between the 2 of us, nor can either of us prove the other wrong. The writers of Complete Arcane looked at it the same way. I'm not alone here... Hardly the best defence: 'a non LG source says something' and 'more people agree with me'? :(
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 08:38 PM	I like to take a 'plain english' reading of the rules, whereas MwaO appears to be trying to interpret what is said in some fashion Funny, I can say the same thing ;) It may seem obvious to you that they're referring to spells in the caster's head at that moment, but it can also mean the actual ability to cast spells of level X. I've always seen it as them trying to take a shortcut to writing out, "Must be a Wizard 5, Sorcerer 6, Bard 7(or one of those classes advanced by a PrC), or some other arcane spellcasting class(or PrC) that is capable of casting 3rd level spells through a spellcasting class feature." That gets kind of ugly, though. The only way someone who uses a magic item to qualify has that ability is through the magic item. Whereas the Wizard who has a spellbook didn't need to use it to qualify. He burns his spellbook and then doesn't cast another 3rd level spell for a year - he can still cast that 3rd level spell. Take away the magic item and the person who qualifies using it simply can't. Well, in D&D I can't think of a single thing, at the moment, that is truly permanent. Thus, you never completely lose the capability to answer 'yes'. That's not a useful criteria - assuming a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 survives, he should qualify for Unseen Seer - should I therefore be able to qualify right now? Hardly the best defence: 'a non LG source says something' and 'more people agree with me'? :( Actually, it is an LG source, it just isn't clear that it applies globally to all books. But I'm more referring to the intent of the writers - they could easily have thought - we clarified this twice, and some people are upset with us for reprinting the boilerplate. I remember some people actually complaining about that...
bitznarf 03-29-07, 09:43 PM	Funny, I can say the same thing ;) It may seem obvious to you that they're referring to spells in the caster's head at that moment, but it can also mean the actual ability to cast spells of level X. I've always seen it as them trying to take a shortcut to writing out, "Must be a Wizard 5, Sorcerer 6, Bard 7(or one of those classes advanced by a PrC), or some other arcane spellcasting class(or PrC) that is capable of casting 3rd level spells through a spellcasting class feature." That gets kind of ugly, though. The only way someone who uses a magic item to qualify has that ability is through the magic item. Whereas the Wizard who has a spellbook didn't need to use it to qualify. He burns his spellbook and then doesn't cast another 3rd level spell for a year - he can still cast that 3rd level spell. Take away the magic item and the person who qualifies using it simply can't. I see what you are saying. How then do we deal with applying this rule? In the case of the issue that sparked this debate, the DD PrC, what happens should a character no longer qualify for some reason, be it loss of a magic item, or being hit by something such as Touch of Idiocy? Does the player suddenly become weaker, have less natural armor, lose wings if they have them, become not quite a smart, lose blindsense, etc? Its situations like these that make me question the rule. That's not a useful criteria - assuming a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 survives, he should qualify for Unseen Seer - should I therefore be able to qualify right now? No, its not useful criteria, this is why I said "as such, some other criteria needs to be used, if we are going to use this rule." 'This rule' being the whole losing of PrC special abilities 'thing.' Actually, it is an LG source, it just isn't clear that it applies globally to all books. But I'm more referring to the intent of the writers - they could easily have thought - we clarified this twice, and some people are upset with us for reprinting the boilerplate. I remember some people actually complaining about that... How so? Where is it said that the rule as laid out in CAr is used in LG?
Mommy was an Orc 03-30-07, 08:38 AM	How so? Where is it said that the rule as laid out in CAr is used in LG? CAr is a legal LG book. The language on PrCs in the book is therefore legal and binding. The question isn't whether or not it applies to PrCs from CAr - it does. The question is whether or not it applies to all PrCs in all books.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 09:33 AM	CAr is a legal LG book. The language on PrCs in the book is therefore legal and binding. The question isn't whether or not it applies to PrCs from CAr - it does. The question is whether or not it applies to all PrCs in all books. Nope. I asked basically this question in the LG Questions/Answers thread. What I got is a big 'maybe, ask me on specific cases.' There are some LG legal sources that cannot be used without campaign documentation, such as alternate uses of handle animal. There are some that are to be used, such as swift/immediate actions. And there are some that I have no idea. And by the way, what happens the the Dragon Disciple that I described above if this rule is used?
KShaver 03-30-07, 10:07 AM	As for the actual debate, I see 2 issues. 1: Do the Core rules actually say you lose PrC features if you lose the prereqs? 2: If (1) above is 'yes', under what conditions are you considered to have lost the prereqs? If you lose the prereqs to a class you can't advance any further in the class, this has nothing to do with abilities gained/lost, but simply the fact that you can't pick to level in a class that you don't meet the prereqs for (whether it would be your first level in the class or not). If you lose class benefits because you don't meet the prereqs to be the class anymore, you get some really freakish situations. Blackguard requires a number of feats that take 13 str. So lets pretend a half-orc blackguard gets reincarnated as a halfling and after losing 4 str no longer has 13 str. Should he lose all his spellcasting and other abilities? There is no loss of class abilities because you have already trained in those abilities while you were capable of learning them. Now that you can no longer learn those abilities you can't take the PrC anymore, that is the downside to not meeting the prereqs anymore.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 10:28 AM	If you lose the prereqs to a class you can't advance any further in the class, this has nothing to do with abilities gained/lost, but simply the fact that you can't pick to level in a class that you don't meet the prereqs for (whether it would be your first level in the class or not). According to MwaO, it does. And according to a rule in CAr, it does. According to the Core, this is correct. If you lose class benefits because you don't meet the prereqs to be the class anymore, you get some really freakish situations. Blackguard requires a number of feats that take 13 str. So lets pretend a half-orc blackguard gets reincarnated as a halfling and after losing 4 str no longer has 13 str. Should he lose all his spellcasting and other abilities? There is no loss of class abilities because you have already trained in those abilities while you were capable of learning them. Now that you can no longer learn those abilities you can't take the PrC anymore, that is the downside to not meeting the prereqs anymore. This is the problem as I see it, yup. The rule in CAr says nothing like what you just did. You've come up with your own solution that would work in a home game, not in LG.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 10:33 AM	.. double post
KShaver 03-30-07, 11:22 AM	According to MwaO, it does. And according to a rule in CAr, it does. According to the Core, this is correct. This is the problem as I see it, yup. The rule in CAr says nothing like what you just did. You've come up with your own solution that would work in a home game, not in LG. Assuming CAr is Complete Arcane, I am far less familiar with it. I don't see why the CAr would have any rulings on PrCs in general (though rules on its own PrCs is fine), since it is not a core rulebook. Also since the CAr is not a core rulebook you can't expect everyone to own one, meaing if LG wanted to adopt rules from it as core they would have to include this ruling in the LGCS. In regards to the MwaO, I have no idea what that stands for. My ruling is based off core rules and the LGCS rules on reincarnate. Find me a ruling in a core rulebook, official PHB or DMG FAQ or Errata, or as an offical rule for LG, particularly if it is in the LGCS. Only when it appears in one of those sources should it be used in LG. As far as home games go, use any alternative rules source you want, or even make it up if you want.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 11:31 AM	Assuming CAr is Complete Arcane, I am far less familiar with it. I don't see why the CAr would have any rulings on PRCs in general, since it is not a core rulebook. Also since the CAr is not a core rulebook you can't expect everyone to own one, meaing if LG wanted to adopt rules from it as core they would have to include this ruling in the LGCS. In regards to the MwaO, I have no idea what that stands for. Yes, CAr is Complete Arcane. MwaO is shorthand for Mommy_was_an_Orc, the other main poster in this thread. My ruling is based off core rules and the LGCS rules on reincarnate. Find me a ruling in a core rulebook, official PHB or DMG FAQ or Errata, or as an offical rule for LG, particularly if it is in the LGCS. Only when it appears in one of those sources should it be used in LG. I see what you are saying, and it is pretty much in line with how I think it works in LG. As far as home games go, use any alternative rules source you want, or even make it up if you want. Ayup.
KShaver 03-30-07, 11:46 AM	Yes, CAr is Complete Arcane. MwaO is shorthand for Mommy_was_an_Orc, the other main poster in this thread. With this knowledge in hand, and now rereading the above posts, everything is much clearer. One more note: Legal Source =/= Rules Source. This is why you can use all sorts of interesting things from a Legal Source (PrCs, Gear, and feats), but you can't use any of the rules in them that alter the core rules. The LGCS has the specific restriction that all rules for LG are to be from the PHB, DMG, MM, or the LGCS itself (LGCS-597 pg 5 - Campaign Rules).
JamesMaissen 03-30-07, 11:54 AM	Nope. I asked basically this question in the LG Questions/Answers thread. What I got is a big 'maybe, ask me on specific cases.' There are some LG legal sources that cannot be used without campaign documentation, such as alternate uses of handle animal. There are some that are to be used, such as swift/immediate actions. And there are some that I have no idea. Just as an aside, aren't the rules for swift/immediate actions reprinted in the FAQ? That would be the rules legal source for LG, James
bitznarf 03-30-07, 11:57 AM	Just as an aside, aren't the rules for swift/immediate actions reprinted in the FAQ? That would be the rules legal source for LG, James You know, I have no idea. But that would explain why they are used in LG, but others from the same book are not.
Mommy was an Orc 03-30-07, 12:02 PM	This is why you can use all sorts of interesting things from a Legal Source (PrCs, Gear, and feats), but you can't use any of the rules in them that alter the core rules. The LGCS has the specific restriction that all rules for LG are to be from the PHB, DMG, MM, or the LGCS itself (LGCS-597 pg 5 - Campaign Rules). Core rules are more restrictive than CAr. The definition of a prerequisite in PHB page 311: "A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained." Gaining bonus Strength from Dragon Disciple is a benefit. You don't meet the prereq for it when your Cloak of Charisma is off if you're a Bard with an 8 Charisma. You don't qualify to become a Dragon Disciple. So you lose the benefit of being a Dragon Disciple. i.e. BAB, the skill points, the bonus to saves, etc...you lose them all by Core rules. Reincarnation is a specific exception to the Core rules. It doesn't apply here.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 12:18 PM	Core rules are more restrictive than CAr. The definition of a prerequisite in PHB page 311: "A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained." The character already gained the benefit. Gaining bonus Strength from Dragon Disciple is a benefit. You don't meet the prereq for it when your Cloak of Charisma is off if you're a Bard with an 8 Charisma. You don't qualify to become a Dragon Disciple. So you lose the benefit of being a Dragon Disciple. i.e. BAB, the skill points, the bonus to saves, etc...you lose them all by Core rules. So your saying that if a Dragon Disciple gets hit with Touch of Idiocy.. his wings can fall off? Reincarnation is a specific exception to the Core rules. It doesn't apply here.
KShaver 03-30-07, 12:25 PM	Core rules are more restrictive than CAr. The definition of a prerequisite in PHB page 311: "A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained." This doesn't seem to be covered in the SRD, so I can't read the section you are referring to right now, and I don't plan on being home anytime soon so it will be awhile before I can look this up. Gaining bonus Strength from Dragon Disciple is a benefit. You don't meet the prereq for it when your Cloak of Charisma is off if you're a Bard with an 8 Charisma. You don't qualify to become a Dragon Disciple. So you lose the benefit of being a Dragon Disciple. i.e. BAB, the skill points, the bonus to saves, etc...you lose them all by Core rules. And this is only one possible problem of having used an attribute item to qualify for something. I'd prefer if one couldn't even meet prereqs with attribute boosting items, but some feats were written with prereqs assuming you had such an item. The moral is that if it is true that you lose all such abilities, you're taking a huge risk by using an attribute increasing item to meet prereqs. Reincarnation is a specific exception to the Core rules. It doesn't apply here. Yet, it does specifically relate to not being able to meet prereqs. It is one of the few examples available.
Paul H 03-30-07, 12:43 PM	Hi So.... 1) Elf Druid loses proficency with some weapons in Wildshape. 2) Human Druid with Track as Racial Feat can NEVER become Nature's Warriors 3) Human Druids with skill point prereqs for PrC's must amend their skill point totals whilst Wildshaping. (Possibly negating some feats/PrC's/ability synergies, etc). 4) Druids wildshaping into creatures with Str 12 or less lose Pwr Attack feat. (Plus Cleave, etc). These are just some examples off top of my head. Cheers Paul H
Sieylianna 03-30-07, 12:44 PM	My ruling is based off core rules and the LGCS rules on reincarnate. Find me a ruling in a core rulebook, official PHB or DMG FAQ or Errata, or as an offical rule for LG, particularly if it is in the LGCS. Only when it appears in one of those sources should it be used in LG. Wrong. If you read the LGCS, you will learn that Sage Advice and WotC Customer Service can be used to clarify rules. The same can be extended to the non-variant rules from other materials. Ed
bitznarf 03-30-07, 12:45 PM	Wrong. If you read the LGCS, you will learn that Sage Advice and WotC Customer Service can be used to clarify rules. The same can be extended to the non-variant rules from other materials. Ed Actually, to be precise, they can be used as guides but are not binding.
Mommy was an Orc 03-30-07, 01:02 PM	Yet, it does specifically relate to not being able to meet prereqs. It is one of the few examples available. It is a specific exception to Core rules. Such exceptions don't extend past themselves. If anything, it is an argument that the Core rules do operate in the way I suggest because they feel the need to make just such an exception.
bitznarf 03-30-07, 01:03 PM	It is a specific exception to Core rules. Such exceptions don't extend past themselves. If anything, it is an argument that the Core rules do operate in the way I suggest because they feel the need to make just such an exception. So at your table, if a DD gets hit with Touch of Idiocy, is it possible for his wings to fall off?
KShaver 03-30-07, 01:47 PM	Wrong. If you read the LGCS, you will learn that Sage Advice and WotC Customer Service can be used to clarify rules. The same can be extended to the non-variant rules from other materials. Ed You said it...and as we know all to well, sometimes the answers given by the sage and CS make one question if they have even ever played D&D, yet alone own any rule books. It is a specific exception to Core rules. Such exceptions don't extend past themselves. If anything, it is an argument that the Core rules do operate in the way I suggest because they feel the need to make just such an exception. The only item in there that looks like an exception, is that they allow the character to rechoose racial feats. The rest of it looks like a clarification to me, the closest the SRD gets to this when talking about reincarnate is: "It’s possible for the change in the subject’s ability scores to make it difficult for it to pursue its previous character class. If this is the case, the subject is well advised to become a multiclass character." Now as far as prerequisites go: The character already gained the benefit. This seems be the correct ruling, the wording is specific to gaining benefits, not losing them. Some other items that have prereqs on the other hand are specific about losing the ability to use them, such as feats in the SRD: "A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite."
Mommy was an Orc 03-30-07, 02:14 PM	So at your table, if a DD gets hit with Touch of Idiocy, is it possible for his wings to fall off? No. The character is simply unable to cast until the spell wears off in that case. It is a penalty to your spellcasting stat, not the complete inability to have cast spells in the 1st place.
solbergb 03-30-07, 02:28 PM	Hi So.... 1) Elf Druid loses proficency with some weapons in Wildshape. 2) Human Druid with Track as Racial Feat can NEVER become Nature's Warriors 3) Human Druids with skill point prereqs for PrC's must amend their skill point totals whilst Wildshaping. (Possibly negating some feats/PrC's/ability synergies, etc). 4) Druids wildshaping into creatures with Str 12 or less lose Pwr Attack feat. (Plus Cleave, etc). These are just some examples off top of my head. Cheers Paul H #1-3 actually don't apply anymore now that the wildshape erratta works in LG. Wildshape = alternate form = your type doesn't change and you keep all your racial stuff (and do NOT gain any racial stuff of the form you assume) #4 is covered...you have the feat, you can't use it. I think there is a FAQ ruling on this topic...you don't lose the feat chain just because you lose the ability to use the feat. (cleave also has a 13 str requirement though)
bitznarf 03-30-07, 02:35 PM	No. The character is simply unable to cast until the spell wears off in that case. It is a penalty to your spellcasting stat, not the complete inability to have cast spells in the 1st place. How is this any different from Ray of E making people unable to power attack?
Samwise 03-30-07, 03:43 PM	No. The character is simply unable to cast until the spell wears off in that case. It is a penalty to your spellcasting stat, not the complete inability to have cast spells in the 1st place. Well actually, if a spellcaster has too low an ability score, they don't have a complete inability to cast spells in the first place. They simply can't cast any spells, as absurd as that sounds. They've still got the "Spells" class feature, a spell list, and a caster level. They just can't learn, prepare, or cast any spells because their ability score is too low. They could still use spell completion or spell trigger items. (Oddly enough, as that seems to contradict the PHB text.) So while this might apply for other combos, a bizarre bard/dragon disciple with Charisma 8 and a now absent cloak of charisma +2 would not lose their prestige class abilities. Gaining bonus Strength from Dragon Disciple is a benefit. You don't meet the prereq for it when your Cloak of Charisma is off if you're a Bard with an 8 Charisma. You don't qualify to become a Dragon Disciple. So you lose the benefit of being a Dragon Disciple. i.e. BAB, the skill points, the bonus to saves, etc...you lose them all by Core rules. You don't lose the BAB or save bonus by the Core rules. Or your HD. Skill points would be an issue, since Complete Arcane reads: ". . . loses all special abilities (but not Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or base save bonus) gained from levels of the prestige class." Now if that list in parentheses is absolute, you do lost skill points and spellcasting progression. If it is not, and the operative words are "special abilities," then you keep your skill points, which is not a special ability, and spellcasting advancement, if it not listed as such.
Sieylianna 03-30-07, 06:39 PM	Actually, to be precise, they can be used as guides but are not binding. If your judge uses it, it's binding. Unless you appeal to the Senior DM, which is usually a bad idea unless it's life or death. Designing a PC who relies on a favorable ruling in a relatively common situation for survival, is a poor idea. Ed
bitznarf 03-30-07, 06:56 PM	If your judge uses it, it's binding. Unless you appeal to the Senior DM, which is usually a bad idea unless it's life or death. Designing a PC who relies on a favorable ruling in a relatively common situation for survival, is a poor idea. Ed Ah, I see what you are saying.
Morgen 04-02-07, 01:06 PM	Well it does say this in the complete warrior... Meeting Class Requirements: It's possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of that class. An alignment change, levels lost because of a character deal, or the loss of a magic item that granted an imporant ability are examples of evens that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirements foa prestige class, he or she loses the benefits of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that class provided.
Zanzibax 04-02-07, 01:19 PM	If a character no longer meets the requirements foa prestige class, he or she loses the benefits of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that class provided. Argentwing...your wings fell off! "You've been hit with a Touch of Idiocy spell or you're diseased, or suffering from some other ability drain/damage effect!" :evillaugh
Morgen 04-03-07, 12:28 AM	Pretty much, but it works both ways too. There are a number of times where we've nailed something and lowered it's strenght/dex/int/wis to make it completely worthless. Be extremely careful with Dodge. If you loose dodge your whole character's build can fall appart.
haferka 04-03-07, 01:51 AM	This issue really should be addressed by wizards.. give us a consistanct policy on Ex-CLASS effects... (where it isn't explicitly stated in the Class description)... The "spirit" of all Ex-CLASS modifications is to maintain all (Ex) abilities and loose all (Su). Which makes complete sense.. Look at Ex-Paladin or Ex-Monk.. The paladins special abilities are mostly Su so the go away.. but the monks abilities are all Ex so they are maintained.
bitznarf 04-03-07, 02:01 AM	Pretty much, but it works both ways too. There are a number of times where we've nailed something and lowered it's strenght/dex/int/wis to make it completely worthless. Be extremely careful with Dodge. If you loose dodge your whole character's build can fall appart. Ah, but losing the prerequisite for Dodge does not make you lose Dodge, you merely lose its benefit. You still have the feat, you merely can't use it. You can however, use feats that require it as a prerequisite. For example, the 'Cause Overreach' portion of Elusive Target would still work. Mobility however, would not work as it also has a 'Dex 13' requirement, whereas Elusive Target does not. This being said, its when something like touch of idiocy makes the wings of a Dragon Disciple fall off then we need to re-examine the base premise, and make sure it all makes sense. As Britt has said in the LG Questions/Answers thread, we may or may not use the rule in LG, he can't say.
Morgen 04-03-07, 03:50 AM	Eh? I meant in general if you loose dodge somehow, didn't just mean if you lost your dex. So many PrCs have dodge or a dodge feat as a pre-req thought I'd point that out. And it's a decent enough way to moderate things as it is. Sure certain classes might not make the most sense, but when you've got a few hundred PrCs you tend to have to think broadly.
bitznarf 04-03-07, 09:54 AM	Eh? I meant in general if you loose dodge somehow, didn't just mean if you lost your dex. So many PrCs have dodge or a dodge feat as a pre-req thought I'd point that out. And it's a decent enough way to moderate things as it is. Sure certain classes might not make the most sense, but when you've got a few hundred PrCs you tend to have to think broadly. I see what you are saying about Dodge, I just have no idea how one would go about losing that feat, without also losing levels.
Samwise 04-03-07, 11:53 AM	This being said, its when something like touch of idiocy makes the wings of a Dragon Disciple fall off then we need to re-examine the base premise, and make sure it all makes sense. As Britt has said in the LG Questions/Answers thread, we may or may not use the rule in LG, he can't say. It doesn't make their wings fall off. Spellcasting as a class ability is not dependant on being able to cast any spells. You still get the class spell list, you still have the ability to use magic items that require spellcasting ability, you are simply unable to actually use it. So what if you only have a 9 or less in the relevant ability score? You haven't lost that class ability. If you were crazy enough to pull a KotDT, you could go out and make a full blown cleric with only an 8 Wisdom. You'd get every single ability, turning undead, domain powers, and spellcasting, you just could never prepare or cast any spells. But you still have the ability to cast spells! Ridiculous, but so is assuming Touch of Idiocy causes the wings to fall off a Dragon Disciple.
RanielK 04-03-07, 02:12 PM	This being said, its when something like touch of idiocy makes the wings of a Dragon Disciple fall off then we need to re-examine the base premise, and make sure it all makes sense. As Britt has said in the LG Questions/Answers thread, we may or may not use the rule in LG, he can't say. Eh, that's nothing. If you really want to go too far, getting to 10 in DD and getting wings makes your wings fall off (to get them back, to loose them, lather, rinse, repeat). As a preq of DD is Dragon type:No and getting Dragon Apophysis is Dragon type:yes. ;-)
pedr 04-03-07, 02:20 PM	Eh, that's nothing. If you really want to go too far, getting to 10 in DD and getting wings makes your wings fall off (to get them back, to loose them, lather, rinse, repeat). As a preq of DD is Dragon type:No and getting Dragon Apophysis is Dragon type:yes. ;-)Which (though I've not been following these rules discussions) is evidence that the CAr/CW rules on PrCs are not universal. There's a strong argument to the effect that they apply to CAr/CW PrCs, but not to PrCs from other sources. Silly? Yes. But 'silly' and 'correct' are not mutually exclusive in D&D rules!
Jay_Ibero_911 04-03-07, 03:50 PM	This issue really should be addressed by wizards.. give us a consistanct policy on Ex-CLASS effects... (where it isn't explicitly stated in the Class description)... The "spirit" of all Ex-CLASS modifications is to maintain all (Ex) abilities and loose all (Su). Which makes complete sense.. Look at Ex-Paladin or Ex-Monk.. The paladins special abilities are mostly Su so the go away.. but the monks abilities are all Ex so they are maintained. Actually Monks DO have their share of supernatural abilities, like Ki Strike. And yet Monks still retain this if they become ex-monks. Same goes for Bards.
haferka 04-03-07, 10:18 PM	Actually Monks DO have their share of supernatural abilities, like Ki Strike. And yet Monks still retain this if they become ex-monks. Same goes for Bards. Correct.. but Monks specificly list Ex-Monk abilities unlike most classes. Anytime I see a class with Ex-CLASS details listed ... I assume that something slightly abnormal is happening when you become an Ex- member of that class... The standard rule (at least for me).. is EX-CLASS retains (Ex) abilities and looses (Su) abilities. Arcane Spellcasting is the one (Su) ability that I would allow an Ex-CLASS to retain. In very rare circumstances..
Reylance 04-04-07, 09:52 AM	The designers of D&D really opened a can of worms by allowing item-provided stat increases to meet feat prerequisites. While without said ruling, you'd still have a few problem situations (the sorcerer's Charisma is drained to 9), it would be rarer. Perhaps the game designers could be clearer in future rules engines: 1. For actively using feats, casting spells, and the like, current status is used. A fighter whose Strength is reduced to 10 can't use Power Attack; a sorcerer whose Charisma is reduced to 14 can't cast spells of 5th level or higher. 2. For qualifying for prestige classes, base status is used. Even if a prestige class requires Power Attack, the PC benefits from all aspects of the class if his natural, no magical effects, no damage status has Power Attack and a 13 Str. (The obvious exception would be abilities like "The XXX Champion adds 2 to the damage when using Power Attack," which still require the ability to Power Attack.) With these rules, the only problems would come with Reincarnation.
bitznarf 04-04-07, 11:04 AM	The designers of D&D really opened a can of worms by allowing item-provided stat increases to meet feat prerequisites. While without said ruling, you'd still have a few problem situations (the sorcerer's Charisma is drained to 9), it would be rarer. Perhaps the game designers could be clearer in future rules engines: 1. For actively using feats, casting spells, and the like, current status is used. A fighter whose Strength is reduced to 10 can't use Power Attack; a sorcerer whose Charisma is reduced to 14 can't cast spells of 5th level or higher. 2. For qualifying for prestige classes, base status is used. Even if a prestige class requires Power Attack, the PC benefits from all aspects of the class if his natural, no magical effects, no damage status has Power Attack and a 13 Str. (The obvious exception would be abilities like "The XXX Champion adds 2 to the damage when using Power Attack," which still require the ability to Power Attack.) With these rules, the only problems would come with Reincarnation. Here's the problem: MwaO was trying to apply a section about feats from the PHB to prestige classes. If we were to accept his reading, then nothing like your item 2 is used. I'm honestly not sure where you are getting your information for item 2? What does a (N)PC's naked state have to do with anything? Regardless if a (N)PC has the feat Power Attack, but does not have 13 str, say because in his naked state he only have 12 str, he still has the feat power attack, he simply cannot use it. Abilities that build on power attack, such as the XXX Champion's are not lost, they simply cannot be used at the moment, as the base ability they build upon cannot be used. After all, if you cannot power attack, you cannot power attack for more. One final note: despite what others have suggested using; extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), and supernatural (Su) abilities all fall under the category 'special abilities'. And thus, everything of that sort would be lost. Note that spells per day/caster level/etc. do not fall into this category according to WotC CustServ (for what its worth), despite sometimes appearing as such in some monsters stat blocks.
Zanzibax 04-04-07, 11:07 AM	I believe he's offering 1 and 2 as a means for clarification/normalizing the situation.
bitznarf 04-04-07, 11:21 AM	I don't think it is a/the solution however. Take a (N)PC who qualifies for Theif-Acrobat by using a ring of evasion. By Reylance's interpertation, this is not possible, despite the character having evasion 'on' constantly. His ideas seem to spring from a 'I wish WotC had never allowed anything temporary to be used to qualify for anything' viewpoint.
Timlagor 04-04-07, 11:42 AM	Indeed: I thought it was clear from his post that he is saying what he wishes the rules were and not what he actually believes them to be.
bitznarf 04-04-07, 11:44 AM	Indeed: I thought it was clear from his post that he is saying what he wishes the rules were and not what he actually believes them to be. Personally I like to deal with the rules as written and intended (RAW, RAI), rather then the rules as I wish they were written (RAIWTWW). Re-reading his post, yeah, this is the case, he is dealing with th RAIWTWW.