Show
I'll tell you NO and say you're acting like a munchkin. There are some board members who see absolutely nothing wrong with stuff like that and will say my thought has no merit what so ever and that you should completely ignore everything anyone has to say that is contrary to his belief. This does assume there isn't an active ban.
I know it is incredibly munchkiny, but that is beside the point. I am purposely trying to abuse the rules, why is also irrelevant to the question. Now, by my reading of the two feats it does work. Is there any reason it wouldn't?
Sanctum is one of those feats that leads to nothing but arguments, but those of us who would say no are on shakier mechanical ground than those who would say yes.
Still, look up the 3e version of the feat and you can see some of the developer's intent.
Also, be advised that your DM may perfectly well say that once a feat's benefit stops applying - you leave your sanctum - you lose things you qualified for with that feat. Good luck adventuring in an immobile circle.
- You have 3rd-level spell slots which you can use to cast spells.
- You can cast at least one spell whose spell-level (when you actually cast it) is 3rd level or higher, but still meet the prerequisite when you are unable to cast it.
- As 2, but you don't meet the prerequisites when you're unable to actually cast a 3rd-level spell.
#1 is the only one that outright prevents the trick from working (making it the choice for a DM trying to prevent early entry shenanigans), #2 leaves it wide open, and #3 allows it, but only while in your sanctum.
Technically speaking, #1 is a DM's ruling on what the prerequisite is intended to mean, since it's not clarified by the rules.
For the rest I'd agree with T_S. It might work as long as you stay in the area.
But in general something like this will get he DMG thrown at you.
That aside, Precocious Apprentice does not work. Be a Naenhoon Illumian and take a dip in cloistered cleric, instead.
Precocious apprentice is definitely more shaky, that I can agree on.
For example, both of these statements are correct in English:
- "I have the ability to play a piano even when I lack a piano."
- "I do not have the ability to play a piano when I lack a piano."
Ultimately, it's up to the DM to decide what they think the prerequisite requires.
"Ability" can mean either the personal competence required to perform a task or the current capacity to actually perform that task. They're both valid uses of the word
No, they aren't.
On a more serious note though there has definately been precidence set re:soft prereqs (Those you only meet some of the time) and essentially if you don't meet the prereqs then you lose the benefit of any feats or class features that you've gained due to having those prereqs.
This is quite different from say having no 3rd level spells left for the day as a Sorc or Wiz (6+ or 5+ respectively) as you're still recognized as having the ability to cast those spells due to class features you posess (it's on paper!) They're just used up for the day (or until you replinish them by some means other than rest).
Seriously though CJ you don't need to attempt to demean anyone with an opinion different from your own. At the end of the day I can say that RAW you're right, but it's a silly DM who doesn't somehow put the ban hammer down on that method of qualifying. There ARE silly DM's though.
Or simplified for readability, "I can A when B":
- "I can ride when I have a horse."
- "I can use Power Attack when wearing my gauntlets of ogre power."
- "I can cast 3rd-level spells when in my sanctum."
- "I can cast 2nd-level spells when affected by Imbue with Spell Ability."
Consider examples 2 and 4; why is being magically imbued with strength by gauntlets any more valid than being magically imbued with spells by a cleric?
I'd like to know where I said you qualify for feats with magic items. Just curious.
Do you disagree with being able to qualify for feats with magic items? I'm addressing it as an example of the basic logic being used in the statement. If you prefer, consider examples 2 and 3:
Why is being able to cast spells in a specific place that you've lived for three months more valid than being magically imbued with strength by gauntlets?
You'll also notice in the first 3 examples that it is by your own doing that you are able to do those things. No help from PCs or NPCs.
Indeed, that is one difference. But it's not a difference that is stated to be required in the RAW, so why use that specific difference?
Simply, it says that you have to be able.
In example 2, you cast the 3rd-spells, in example 3, you cast the 2nd-level spells. The only spell there that you don't cast is imbue with spell ability, which isn't being used to fulfill the requirement.
In example 3, you may get the spell you're casting from someone else, but it's only the ability to cast it that's described in the requirement, not any particular source.
Even reading Imbue with Spell Ability, you are using someone elses spell slots to cast the spell still. It's really not much different than activating a spell off of a scroll at that point. Everything is based on their level, and uses their spell slots.
Yes, though the requirement doesn't state that the spell you're able to cast has to come from any particular source. You just need to be able to cast. I did consider using casting from a scroll as an example, but it opens an argument about whether you're casting or simply activating a magical item, whereas imbue with spell ability explicitly grants casting ability for the transferred spells.
The only way you don't have the required casting ability with imbue with spell ability is if the "ability to cast" requirement needs something more than just being able to activate the completed spell.
Why you'd ever waste a feat on Improved Two Weapon if your group allows Gloves of the Balanced Hand is beside the point.
Also I can't find the article that addresses virtual feats right now but I recall it allowing a Druid with Wild Shape Large to get feats that require Large size but they can only use them when Large. Similarly a Bear Warrior with Brown Bear form would also qualify for a virtual Large and in Charge if they wanted it.
Why you'd ever waste a feat on Improved Two Weapon if your group allows Gloves of the Balanced Hand is beside the point.
Double Hit is the only dcent reason I can think of.
Sanctum does work. There've been no coherent arguments against it that don't boil down to "I DUN LIEK IT!" Slagger's #2 example is the only correct one.
Pretty much.
That said, I DUN LIEK IT! is a perfectly valid reason for your DM to tell you not to bother. As is "Thats clearly against RAI, don't be an idiot of course you can't do that".
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.