If I have 3+ arms can I two weapon fight and use dex to damage?
Only with unarmed strikes because Dervish Dance says you can't hold anything in your off hand. It is using the term "off hand" as in the hand not holding the scimitar. Since it doesn't say otherwise this applies to any and all hands not holding the scimitar.
Do I add dex to damage if my other weapon is a dagger?
Can't use a dagger because your other hands must all be empty.
Can I TWF using unarmed strikes?
Yes, that is the only way you can TWF with Dervish Dance.
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?
Yes, Dervish Dance says "When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls." So that means all melee attack and damage rolls as long as you are holding a scimitar in one had and nothing in any other hands.
If I have claw attack from my offhand may I make it?
Yes, additionally you can use a cestus or spiked gauntlet if you are wearing one as long as your hand is empty.
Does it add dex?
Yes it adds dex to both hit and damage.
If I have 3+ arms can I two weapon fight and use dex to damage?
Do I add dex to damage if my other weapon is a dagger?
By strict RAW, the answer to both is no.
"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
If you have multiple off hands, then you cannot have a weapon or shield in any of them.
Can I TWF using unarmed strikes?
Yes
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?
Debatable, but probably no.
"When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.
If I have claw attack from my offhand may I make it?
Yes, but it is a natural attack(see monster rules for natural weapons) not an offhand attack.
Does it add dex?
Again, probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If they answer is no to any of the above would house ruling it to yes lead to abuse? I know that it could allow many attacks a round with dex to damage but the all require more effort then simply two weapon fighting. That extra cost might justify it.If it applies to unarmed strike then a monk could wield a scimitar and flurry as long as they did not use the scimitar. That might be bad.
Would opening up this feat to all finessable weapons be easily abused? What about limiting it to slashing finessable weapons? That way a monk would have to either use a monk weapon or find a way to do slashing damage with unarmed strikes? What about piercing weapons?
I would be inclined to not allow it because if you really want dex to damage, you can get it via the agile weapon enhancement.
An Agile Amulet of mighty fists would give a you +dex to damage for all unarmed and natural strikes, but it comes at a cost I consider to be fair.
Since all hands except your one primary are considered off-hands, and the feat says:
Benefit: When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
The answer looks like a no.
Edit: Except with unarmed strikes.
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?
Debatable, but probably no.
"When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."
While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.
I disagree. The fact that it goes from specifying wielding a scimitar with one hand but then just says the damage applies to "melee attacks" instead of saying the dex damage applies to attacks with the scimitar to me implies exactly the opposite. I think that as long as you are wielding the scimitar with one hand and have nothing in your off hand(s)then you can add your dex to all melee damage.
I don't think the rules know what to do.
Are these metaphysical hands or real hands today?
It takes an incredibly charitable reading to say that Dervish Dance gives you dex to damage to non-scimitar attacks and arguing that to your dm will probably do harm than good
Alright, let's break it down. (I would've answered earlier, but work work.)
If I have 3+ arms can I two weapon fight and use dex to damage?
No. Re-read what the feat says, especially the last part:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
If you have more than 3 or 4 hands, as per the Multi-Weapon Fighting feat, you only have a single main hand, and every other hand is classified as an "off-hand." Here's the text:
A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Do I add dex to damage if my other weapon is a dagger?
This combination isn't possible, since a dagger is a weapon, and the weapon is in your off-hand, making the feat no longer functioning. Unless you have an Agile Dagger, you can't add Dexterity to damage with it.
Can I TWF using unarmed strikes?
Yes.
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?
RAW would allow you to do that, but the obvious RAI is that the Melee Attack and Damage Rolls being based off of Dexterity only applies to the Scimitar.
If I have claw attack from my offhand may I make it?
Yes. As a Claw attack is not a weapon or shield "carried" in your off-hand, natural weapons are allowed.
Does it add dex?
See the Unarmed Strikes explanation above for this answer.
If they answer is no to any of the above would house ruling it to yes lead to abuse? I know that it could allow many attacks a round with dex to damage but the all require more effort then simply two weapon fighting. That extra cost might justify it.
Most certainly it would be. Getting 4 attacks in the early levels is extremely powerful, and it only gets worse from there when you get scaling iteratives, plus taking Improved/Greater MWF grants you an extra set of off-hand attacks. Doing all of that at your primary modifier with no drawbacks from a lowered Strength would scale into a dozen-attack/round powerhouse.
If it applies to unarmed strike then a monk could wield a scimitar and flurry as long as they did not use the scimitar. That might be bad.
Obviously it would be. Which is why the Attack and Damage Rolls scaling from Dexterity applies to Scimitars only. That being said, I thought there was a Monk feat that allowed you to treat some weapons as if they were Monk weapons; don't quote me on that.
Would opening up this feat to all finessable weapons be easily abused? What about limiting it to slashing finessable weapons? That way a monk would have to either use a monk weapon or find a way to do slashing damage with unarmed strikes? What about piercing weapons?
There is actually a legit, by-the-rules way to open the Dervish Dance feat to more than just a Scimitar; Human Fighters can allow the Dervish Dance feat to apply to all Heavy Blades via Martial Versatility/Martial Mastery, though only one-handed Heavy Blades would work, they must be properly sized for you, and it still follows the same "off-hand is free" limitations, though the only difference is an increased damage dice from maybe 1D6 to 1D8 (Scimitar to Katana) while keeping the same 18-20/X2 modifier. It's definitely neat to execute flavor-wise though, and great for Eastern-based campaigns.
However, allowing it for a weapon that is already partially applicable to the statistic you're advocating results in a much bigger damage increase (+7 tops, just from level one, the gap which only gets bigger as levels are gained), and that's per hit, whereas the other is a not-guaranteed +2, which can't possibly get any bigger than that.
You're right, the scimitar is already the best dex weapon and it having dex-to-damage has not broken the game. It can only be argued as a superior option for the Magus, who is required to have a free hand regardless of what weapon they use. And even then there are people who disagree.
TWF with a Scimitar and Unarmed Strike is already a thing. It was a popular strategy for those dipping Monk of Many Styles for Crane Wing back when Crane Wing was really good. This did not break the game.
The feat cost to get this strategy up to speed is just too great to compare with a strength build that needs Power Attack and Furious Focus and nothing else.
I am not sure how you came up with those numbers for damage simply by using a different weapon.
How would you get +7 to damage at first level and what does the +2 refer to?
The +2 is the maximum difference between rolling a 6 on a 1D6 and rolling an 8 on a 1D8; the damage dice of the Scimitar and Katana, respectively.
Let's take a player who minmaxes, and makes a character starting with a 20 Dexterity, and dumping their Strength down to 7. They want to take the Weapon Finesse and/or Dervish Dance feat(s).
If we take that character and give them some random weapon, they will have a -2 to hit from Strength modifiers, and -2 to damage from Strength modifiers.
If that weapon can be finessable and they took the Weapon Finesse feat, their to-hit modifier went from a -2 to a +5, granting a net total of +7 to their attack roll. At first level. That applies to each attack they make, though their damage will be quite pitiful, since it still uses Strength, which emits a penalty of a -2, so the bonuses to hit don't warrant that much of a concern, since at best, it will help confirm Aid Anothers, or deal minor damage which will be negated when DR comes into the picture.
Modifying one part of the equation in that manner isn't really gamebreaking. Using this formula, if the hit is good, the damage is crap. If the damage is good, the hit is crap; there is an acceptable balance of dealing damage and consistently hitting your target that it doesn't warrant issues. It is when you do it to both sides of the equation that it gets gamebreaking.
If I'm at 2nd level (the minimum level for Dervish Dance via Fighter Bonus Feats), and I take the Dervish Dance feats, I now have no penalties to attack and damage from Strength. Everything is Dexterity based. That effective-+7 conversion now applies to every damage roll I make with the respective weapon, meaning over the course of 2 levels (easy to make it without having to hit stuff, given not all encounters are combat-based), I just gained +7 to hit and damage thanks to give-or-take 2 feats. That gap will only get larger when they get a +6 Dex belt, 5 Inherent Tomes, and 5 character level advancements into that Dexterity, as well as any other subject they can possibly muster, whereas the Strength, even if scaled, will be an at-best 18 score total compared to an ~36 Dexterity.
If you take just basic iteratives, it's not as powerful as a Two-Handed Strength martial, though it's still strong, and reduces the amount of MAD you'd have. If you throw in TWF (or in this case, MWF), you have a major problem on your hands as you just made secondary attacks so much more deadly, and having that many attacks (with a -2 penalty to-hit at worst) results in one-round one-turn encounters, since you have those characters making 12 attacks, about 6 of them hitting on average. And that's not including Criticals, which, if people are using 18-20 weapons, they'll want Keen/Improved Critical feat.
But if you are the GM for a home game, the limit is as much as you want it to be. I just gave you the by-the-book answers. Feel free to change it however you want to accommodate you game, though I've given you some primary examples of the legitimate power creep that would be present if you did allow it in conjointment with other weapons, however restricted, as well as its impact on MWF.
If I'm at 2nd level (the minimum level for Dervish Dance via Fighter Bonus Feats), and I take the Dervish Dance feats, I now have no penalties to attack and damage from Strength. Everything is Dexterity based. That effective-+7 conversion now applies to every damage roll I make with the respective weapon, meaning over the course of 2 levels (easy to make it without having to hit stuff, given not all encounters are combat-based), I just gained +7...
First there is not a +7 conversion. You don't say that a Strength Based character is getting a +7 conversion just because if he dumped strength he would have a -2 to hit. That is simply an illusory numbers game to try and make it look as if this is some outrageous concept. A fighter with 20 str applying the +5 to hit and damage and a fighter with 20 dex adding +5 to hit and damage are getting the exact same bonuses and the dex based fighter who dumped strength can't take Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, etc... There is no way getting to add Dex damage to your unarmed attacks is ever going to be able to match the damage output of a full strength fighter much less unbalance the game.
Its
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
so you could have a wand, a rose, or a damsel in distress in the other hand and you're good to go.
With that said, the rules are written with the assumption of a two handed character. If you're playing peter parker, i want to see 7 jazz hands if you're using that feat.
Can I TWF using unarmed strikes?Yes.
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?RAW would allow you to do that, but the obvious RAI is that the Melee Attack and Damage Rolls being based off of Dexterity only applies to the Scimitar.
I'm not sure the RAI says no.
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls.
If the RAI was to only apply dex to attacks from only the scimitar... why not just say so? Instead they just wrote out a blanket statement "on melee attack and damage rolls", which of course means any/all melee attack and damage rolls.
If the RAI really was for this feat to apply only to the scimitar, then all they would have had to do was add two words to the end of that sentence... "with it."
But, they didn't. So, the intent seems clear enough that it should do what it says that it does... and apply to any/all melee attack and damage rolls.
From a balance perspective, allowing it to apply to unarmed strikes and/or natural attacks isn’t game breaking in any way.
|
Synthasist can do it but that archatype is already over powered. Even they are slowed down by low dex.
Synthesist is most the efficient way, 4 arms, 2 claws and a bite. It's far from optimal. A two level dip caps your base dex at 16 (no level increase) and the natural attacks will be secondary.
Even is you wanted a Spiral build, Strength based is a better option.
First there is not a +7 conversion. You don't say that a Strength Based character is getting a +7 conversion just because if he dumped strength he would have a -2 to hit. That is simply an illusory numbers game to try and make it look as if this is some outrageous concept. A fighter with 20 str applying the +5 to hit and damage and a fighter with 20 dex adding +5 to hit and damage are getting the exact same bonuses and the dex based fighter who dumped strength can't take Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, etc... There is no way getting to add Dex damage to your unarmed attacks is ever going to be able to match the damage output of a full strength fighter much less unbalance the game.
If I'm at 2nd level (the minimum level for Dervish Dance via Fighter Bonus Feats), and I take the Dervish Dance feats, I now have no penalties to attack and damage from Strength. Everything is Dexterity based. That effective-+7 conversion now applies to every damage roll I make with the respective weapon, meaning over the course of 2 levels (easy to make it without having to hit stuff, given not all encounters are combat-based), I just gained +7...
He most certainly can match it, and be much better off defensively, especially with some size-increase spells and/or Monk investments. A +5 to your AC, Reflex Saves, and Dexterity-based Skills (Acrobatics is a great combat-based skill sure to let you move around the battlefield without fear of threats) is nothing to scoff at, regardless of level, and getting abilities to synergize with that increase (Mobility feat + Evasion) only makes it that much more powerful. Sure, he can't carry much with a 7 Strength, but does he really need to, when all he has to carry is a 8 pound scimitar, and you got Wizards who can dump Strength and not have to worry about carrying capacity?
Plus, he can most certainly meet that 13 Strength requirement by getting a +6 Dex/+6 Strength belt, so it's not like he can't ever get it, especially with the Retraining Rules, though to be honest, getting it for a +8/+4 damage increase at a -4 to hit isn't really a smart way to invest in the feat.
And keep in mind that he's not just getting that on the usual 4-5 iterative attacks. He's getting that increase on that, plus 2-3 for every other arm thanks to MWF. Taking that, and the 2-3 times the number of arms (I'm gonna count 3 for simplicity), and you're rolling with 14 attacks who all get that benefit, all made at a mere extra -2. That +5 to hit and damage goes a long way each round, and it'll only get bigger for each Dex investment they make.
@ Remy Balstar: I've never seen people allow that in regards to written mechanics, since they assume the intent is that it only applies to Scimitars. There is table variance on that to say the least, and I'm telling him the most conservative option. If he wants to allow it at his tables, then fine, it's his game, he runs it how he wants. Though, many would view him running it that way as a houserule (myself included).
Plus, he can most certainly meet that 13 Strength requirement by getting a +6 Dex/+6 Strength belt, so it's not like he can't ever...
Stat bonuses from magic items don't qualify you for feats.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
Feats are neither a skill nor statistic. Even if he could that is just putting him on equal footing with the 20 strength fighter. Certainly not unbalancing.
Now I know someone is going to bring up the FAQ regarding temporary bonuses that says
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.
It is true they didn't list every single individual thing a permanent ability score would apply to. Instead of individually naming each skill and each statistic effected they just said skills and statistics. That still doesn't include feats, prestige classes, etc...
You also mentioned TWF/MWF but a strength based character can get those as well. A 20 strength fighter with TWF/MWF is going to get those same attacks.
The only real advantage you have shown that a 20 strength fighter just can't equal is the bonus to reflex saves and acrobatics which while they are nothing to scoff at, as you mentioned, are hardly game breaking.
|
Stat bonuses from magic items don't qualify you for feats.
Plus, he can most certainly meet that 13 Strength requirement by getting a +6 Dex/+6 Strength belt, so it's not like he can't ever...
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.Feats are neither a skill nor statistic.
An ability score is a statistic, and permanent bonuses "actually increase the relevant ability score." If your ability score is actually increased, then you use the actual increased number when determining whether you meet a feat prerequisite.
What temporary ability scores do is irrelevant.
Stat bonuses from magic items don't qualify you for feats.
Plus, he can most certainly meet that 13 Strength requirement by getting a +6 Dex/+6 Strength belt, so it's not like he can't ever...Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.Feats are neither a skill nor statistic.An ability score is a statistic, and permanent bonuses "actually increase the relevant ability score." If your ability score is actually increased, then you use the actual increased number when determining whether you meet a feat prerequisite.
What temporary ability scores do is irrelevant.
Yep I am sure and the ability score isn't a statistic based on an ability score it is the ability score so that point is moot. The section about bonuses actually increasing the ability score is immediately followed and modified by the statement to modify skills and statistics related to that score. The FAQ I quoted shows that word count was a concern in that entry yet then entire part about modifying skills and stats is completely unnecessary if "actually increasing the ability score" means "actually increasing the ability score for all intents and purposes" The only reason to put that phrase in there is to limit the application of the ability score increase to skills and statistics.
|
|
Yep I am sure and the ability score isn't a statistic based on an ability score it is the ability score so that point is moot. The section about bonuses actually increasing the ability score is immediately followed and modified by the statement to modify skills and statistics related to that score. The FAQ I quoted shows that word count was a concern in that entry yet then entire part about modifying skills and stats is completely unnecessary if "actually increasing the ability score" means "actually increasing the ability score for all intents and purposes" The only reason to put that phrase in there is to limit the application of the ability score increase to skills and statistics.
You may want to rethink that position:
The limited list of examples is not all inclusive.
The issue is also directly addressed by SKR here.
Yep I am sure and the ability score isn't a statistic based on an ability score it is the ability score so that point is moot. The section about bonuses actually increasing the ability score is immediately followed and modified by the statement to modify skills and statistics related to that score. The FAQ I quoted shows that word count was a concern in that entry yet then entire part about modifying skills and stats is completely unnecessary if "actually increasing the ability score" means "actually increasing the ability score for all intents and purposes" The only reason to put that phrase in there is to limit the application of the ability score increase to skills and statistics.You may want to rethink that position:
The limited list of examples is not all inclusive.
The issue is also directly addressed by SKR here.
I already commented on that FAQ in my first post. I even quoted the relevant part of the FAQ myself. As for SKR's message board post the devs have recently said that message board discussions are not official rulings. That post was made in 2011 well before the FAQ on temporary bonuses which did not change the wording of the CRB entry as far as modifying skills and statistics.
So until he puts in the FAQ or errata that a Belt of Giant Str +2 qualifies you for Power Attack that isn't the official word on it and RAW says otherwise.
|
|
So until he puts in the FAQ or errata that a Belt of Giant Str +2 qualifies you for Power Attack that isn't the official word on it and RAW says otherwise.
He's using the way a belt of strength works as a demonstration of why synthesist works.
Why would he FAQ something that he believes is already clearly apparent in the rules?
You can choose to deliberately misconstrue the rules, both RAI and RAW, but you're creating house rules when you do so.
|
|
Yep I am sure and the ability score isn't a statistic based on an ability score it is the ability score so that point is moot. The section about bonuses actually increasing the ability score is immediately followed and modified by the statement to modify skills and statistics related to that score. The FAQ I quoted shows that word count was a concern in that entry yet then entire part about modifying skills and stats is completely unnecessary if "actually increasing the ability score" means "actually increasing the ability score for all intents and purposes" The only reason to put that phrase in there is to limit the application of the ability score increase to skills and statistics.
Space being too tight to "list every single ability-score related game effect" does not mean that every 9 words are absolutely necessary.
If a permanent ability bonus doesn't allow you to use the improved score to meet feat pre-requisites, then it doesn't actually increase the relevant score - you're still using an "actual score" for prerequisites separate from the enhanced score. Therefore, your interpretation is that those 9 words seem superfluous, so they must contradict the previous sentence.
It is much more plausible that "Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability," is meant either as a reminder that actually increasing an ability score will most importantly modify all skills and stats related to that ability, or as a comparison to the limited list of things listed under temporary bonuses (whether or not that list was meant to be exhaustive).
|
|
If a permanent ability bonus doesn't allow you to use the improved score to meet feat pre-requisites, then it doesn't actually increase the relevant score - you're still using an "actual score" for prerequisites separate from the enhanced score. Therefore, your interpretation is that those 9 words seem superfluous, so they must contradict the previous sentence.
And the quote I posted from SKR is using a belt of strength enabling a character to qualify for power attack as an explicit example.
Given I've posted a developer quote giving a direct and unambiguous example of the exact point in contention, any argument to the contrary is simply being deliberately obtuse.
To put it another way: you can house-rule however you want, but if I show up at a PFS game with my book of developer quotes and rules clarifications, you have to accept it.
If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?
Debatable, but probably no.
"When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."
While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.I disagree. The fact that it goes from specifying wielding a scimitar with one hand but then just says the damage applies to "melee attacks" instead of saying the dex damage applies to attacks with the scimitar to me implies exactly the opposite. I think that as long as you are wielding the scimitar with one hand and have nothing in your off hand(s)then you can add your dex to all melee damage.
That is why I said it is debatable. You can read it your way, but I do not think that is the correct way to interpret it for the reason I already mentioned. At that point we are in a RAI debate that neither of us is qualified to say for certain.
If it does not let you qualify for feats then how is it different then a temp bonus?
Per the FAQ quoted previously there is no difference between a temp bonus or permanent bonus. Per the text in the CRB the permanent bonus changes skill and stats and feats and prestige classes are neither. Nothing I read in the FAQ suggests, at least to me, that that has changed. There was a quote by SKR in message board commentary from a couple of years ago that magic items do count for qualification but no official word. So my interpretation of the RAW is that magically boosted stats do not count toward qualification for feats or prestige classes. I seem to be in the minority on that interpretation though so I could be wrong but will play it that way until there is official word otherwise.
That seems a little weird don't you think? There are specific mechanical terms that relate to the same mechanics? Don't you think that through deductive reasoning you would be able to conclude that they must indeed be different?
If it does not let you qualify for feats then how is it different then a temp bonus?Per the FAQ quoted previously there is no difference between a temp bonus or permanent bonus. Per the text in the CRB the permanent bonus changes skill and stats and feats and prestige classes are neither. Nothing I read in the FAQ suggests, at least to me, that that has changed. There was a quote by SKR in message board commentary from a couple of years ago that magic items do count for qualification but no official word. So my interpretation of the RAW is that magically boosted stats do not count toward qualification for feats or prestige classes. I seem to be in the minority on that interpretation though so I could be wrong but will play it that way until there is official word otherwise.
It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.
Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.
Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here
That seems a little weird don't you think? There are specific mechanical terms that relate to the same mechanics? Don't you think that through deductive reasoning you would be able to conclude that they must indeed be different?
Yes that is weird but it is in the FAQ
Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.
For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.
Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.
A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.
So if a permanent ability bonus qualifies you for a feat or prestige class then so does a temporary ability bonus. So I can qualify for feats by casting Bulls Strength or using Rage to boost my strength.
My position is that feats, prestige classes, etc... are not stats or rolls or skills and aren't affected by these non-innate ability score changes.
It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.
Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here
Yes but what is to keep another player from borrowing the belt for 24hrs so he too can qualify for Power Attack and then just carrying a bunch of potions of bulls strength to chug each time he needs to actually use it. Not to mention that according to the new FAQ you can actually qualify without the belt. Any temp bonus will do.
|
|
Yes but what is to keep another player from borrowing the belt for 24hrs so he too can qualify for Power Attack and then just carrying a bunch of potions of bulls strength to chug each time he needs to actually use it. Not to mention that according to the new FAQ you can actually qualify without the belt. Any temp bonus will do.
Ongoing resource costs come to mind.
Yes but what is to keep another player from borrowing the belt for 24hrs so he too can qualify for Power Attack and then just carrying a bunch of potions of bulls strength to chug each time he needs to actually use it. Not to mention that according to the new FAQ you can actually qualify without the belt. Any temp bonus will do.Ongoing resource costs come to mind.
What about using the belt just long enough to qualify for Power Attack on my Dex based character just so I can now get the cleave feats which don't have a stat requirement themselves.
What about qualifying for feats that are situational. For all intents and purposes I can have that feat available when I need it with a temp bonus to my ability score and since I don't need it the rest of the time it doesn't matter that I can't use it most of the time.
Yes but what is to keep another player from borrowing the belt for 24hrs so he too can qualify for Power Attack and then just carrying a bunch of potions of bulls strength to chug each time he needs to actually use it. Not to mention that according to the new FAQ you can actually qualify without the belt. Any temp bonus will do.
It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.
Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here
That is actually the way I have always played it. If you can get the bonus temporarily you can take a feat, but you can't use it unless you are currently qualifying. Also, you cannot make use of any feats that rely on that feat, so no power attack, and also not improved bull rush or greater bull rush. If you are relying on temp bonuses to qualify for a key feat, then you are only 1 dispel magic away from losing it.
A similar example would be druid's and multiattack. A druid doesn't not qualify for multiattack unless they are wildshaped, which is a temporary ability.
That sounds just like the way it is intended to work. If you want to have a feat that doesn't work a lot of the time because you don't have the prerequisites, well I guess that is your choice, but it certainly is not that impressive.
Temporary in the druids case being only 36 hours a day.
Let me put it another way... meh, feats are not the things that will break your game. You need look no further than any spell list for that sort of power.
Temporary in the druids case being only 36 hours a day.
Yeah, a druid can easily get to the point where they can spend all day every day in animal form, but their animal form is still classified as a temporary polymorph effect.