I'd suggest going Here as reference.
...I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct, but the answer seems to be No, despite Sean K Reynold's personal opinion on the matter. ( The reason it was allowed there was due to proficiency, not the ability to temporarily meet the prereq).
If anyone has a more up to date reference, do share.
I make a case for it in this thread. Short version: Yes, because prerequisites require you to have the substance of the ability in question, not the exact label.
@Bane Wraith, your link points to a post mainly about ability scores and SKR's ideas about taking feats before you qualify.
@Bane Wraith, your link points to a post mainly about ability scores and SKR's ideas about taking feats before you qualify.
As the discussion in my link goes on, it touches on feat prerequisites that you can only meet Some of the time. Since the Swashbuckler's evasion is dependent on them having pinache points, and their class feature doesn't explicitly state that it qualifies as a feat prereq all the time, I'd say it falls under that category. The discussion does indeed touch on ability scores, and the natural weapons bit, but the most important details are in Sean's second post.
Forgive me if I'm reading you incorrectly, I'm only briefly skimming over, but it seems you're making a case for certain class features that are active All the time once acquired.
Forgive me if I'm reading you incorrectly, I'm only briefly skimming over, but it seems you're making a case for certain class features that are active All the time once acquired.
Oh, ok, I see where you're going now.
As SKR tells it in that post, Jason was obviously having a bad brain day and we really shouldn't put too much stock in that.
I'd suggest going Here as reference.
...I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct, but the answer seems to be No, despite Sean K Reynold's personal opinion on the matter. ( The reason it was allowed there was due to proficiency, not the ability to temporarily meet the prereq).
If anyone has a more up to date reference, do share.
Just a note, some of the points SKR declares official here have been reversed by this FAQ:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbg
Now temporary ability bonuses apply to anything a permanent bonus does.
Oh, ok, I see where you're going now.As SKR tells it in that post, Jason was obviously having a bad brain day and we really shouldn't put too much stock in that.
Unfortunately, after a bit of searching, I still can't seem to find anything more recent... Any ideas if a second call was made on that? It'd be fairly important.
Also, I read further into the post you linked. Thank you, was quite interesting, and good to know.
Oh, ok, I see where you're going now.As SKR tells it in that post, Jason was obviously having a bad brain day and we really shouldn't put too much stock in that.
Unfortunately, after a bit of searching, I still can't seem to find anything more recent... Any ideas if a second call was made on that? It'd be fairly important.
Also, I read further into the post you linked. Thank you, was quite interesting, and good to know.
as for "officialness", it's SKR recounting a discussion he had with Jason, not any kind of statement from Jason to the community. So it has zero official standing. Also, let me repeat, Jason was obviously having a bad brain day, so it's realLy the wrong second-hand quote to use in support of interpretation. Seriously, "16 hours of flying per day, every day, is not reliable enough to train your Fly skill".
Very well then. Do you have any positive evidence that a temporarily acquired prerequisite is enough to qualify for a feat?
Edit: I want to emphasize that the flying quote is for the purpose of the feat prereq, not training the skill.
Regardless of whether or not it's actively benefiting you, you still have the class feature as a rogue. In the Swashbuckler's case, it's a separate class feature that grants you it based on a condition. It's a deed, that grants the benefits of those class features. And ONLY when you have panache points.
As Pupsocket posted earlier, yes, it seems arguable enough that this qualifies as having the evasion feat. However way you look at it though, it's still only a temporary or conditional acquirement.
If it can be supported and officially ruled that a feat can be taken regardless of its prereqs (Or only temporarily met prereqs), and its benefits reaped only when qualified, this wouldn't be an issue.
If not, then similar to the Flyspeed dilemma, this conditional class feature does not meet the prereqs.
Regardless of whether or not it's actively benefiting you, you still have the class feature as a rogue. In the Swashbuckler's case, it's a separate class feature that grants you it based on a condition. It's a deed, that grants the benefits of those class features. And ONLY when you have panache points.
As Pupsocket posted earlier, yes, it seems arguable enough that this qualifies as having the evasion feat. However way you look at it though, it's still only a temporary or conditional acquirement.
If it can be supported and officially ruled that a feat can be taken regardless of its prereqs (Or only temporarily met prereqs), and its benefits reaped only when qualified, this wouldn't be an issue.
If not, then similar to the Flyspeed dilemma, this conditional class feature does not meet the prereqs.
The post you linked was the official ruling in Jan 2012:
Here's the official word:
1. The game differentiates between permanent ability score bonuses (such as +1 every 4 character levels and wearing a +2 belt of giant strength for 24 hours) and temporary ability score bonuses (such as from barbarian rage, an alchemist mutagen, or a bull's strength spell).
2. Permanent ability score bonuses do count for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
3. If you lose a permanent ability score bonus, you still have the feat, you just can't use it until your ability score qualifies again.
4. Temporary ability score bonuses do not count for the purpose of qualifying for feats. (My earlier statement contradicting this point was my opinion of how it should work.)
5. I personally believe that differentiating between permanent and temporary scores in this fashion is needlessly complex and only hinders player choices in a metagaming way.
6. I personally believe that you could revise the feat prerequisite system so characters could select feats before they actually meet the prerequisites, but wouldn't be able to use the feat until they do, which would allow (for example) monks and rogues to take Weapon Focus at level 1 in anticipation of having the required BAB +1 at level 2.
7. Implementing points 5 and 6 as official game rules would require making revisions to language elsewhere in the game (such as qualifying for a prestige class), similar to how the discussion about revising the Stealth skill is a significant change that affects other parts of the rules (such as scent and hide in plain sight).
8. The design team hasn't discussed implementing 5 and 6 as official game rules.
The official ruling from Oct 2013 completely reversed it:
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
There is now no difference between temporary and permanent for qualification purposes. If you can temporarily qualify for a feat you can take the feat but can't use it when you don't have the ability.
Unfortunately, what you're quoting seems to be a long stretch away from the question at hand. It's a good correction when it comes to ability scores, but it seems to Only directly address ability scores. I can see the logic, though.
All the better to FAQ this issue...
I think it depends on the ability, but as long as it has the same wording and one works just like the other it should be ok. As an example I think there is feat calling for you to have another weapon prereq as a feat, but I am sure getting it from a class ability will also work.
I think it depends on the ability, but as long as it has the same wording and one works just like the other it should be ok. As an example I think there is feat calling for you to have another weapon prereq as a feat, but I am sure getting it from a class ability will also work.
The key issue seems to revolve around it's Temporary availability. Not sure what you're saying here. Could you clarify?
I think the idea of it being temporary and therefor not counting makes sense. Otherwise we would have a problem where a character who can mimic a class feature by spending a pool of sorts, and then spend all of his pool, as he would not be able to trigger it at his choosing. So a character would qualify for a feat because of a prerequisite he cannot use because it is mentioned somewhere within another ability he cannot use.... Call me cynical but I don't think that sounds very RAI.... or RAW for that matter.
I think the idea of it being temporary and therefor not counting makes sense. Otherwise we would have a problem where a character who can mimic a class feature by spending a pool of sorts, and then spend all of his pool, as he would not be able to trigger it at his choosing. So a character would qualify for a feat because of a prerequisite he cannot use because it is mentioned somewhere within another ability he cannot use.... Call me cynical but I don't think that sounds very RAI.... or RAW for that matter.
It DOES happen, though. Induce enough negative levels, deal some ability damage, you'll often knock out a character's ability to use a feat. That's in the rules.
Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
Once acquired, everything's fine and dandy. The issue is whether you can select a feat at all with a class feature that only conditionally grants you the prereqs of a feat.
If we were to take OldSchoolRPG's example to the extreme, and suggest that anything else temporary works in the same way as temporarily granted ability scores, then there *IS* potential to take a feat you only temporarily meet the prereqs for.
I'd say that's ambiguous at best, and requires an official word or FAQ.
Unfortunately, what you're quoting seems to be a long stretch away from the question at hand. It's a good correction when it comes to ability scores, but it seems to Only directly address ability scores. I can see the logic, though.
All the better to FAQ this issue...
You are the one who posted a link to the SKR quote about ability scores in response to the OP. Now you are dismissing a FAQ that reverses everything in that post as not an answer to the question at hand? Then why did you originally give it as an answer? You never even mentioned SKRs second post until after the one on ability scores was challenged though you now claim it is the only one that is relevant.
Yes the FAQ directly addresses ability scores but SKRs post on temporary abilities, feats, etc... was an extrapolation of the previous posts ruling on ability scores which has now been reversed.
Sorry if there's some confusion, but I'm not sure of what you're saying, or its relevance. What is it I seem to be dismissing?
The FAQ you quoted Does indeed suggest, with a little logical effort, that a temporary ability score bonus would allow you to select a feat you wouldn't meet the prerequisites for otherwise.
It still does not answer the original question, unless you're suggesting that Other temporarily accessed features are treated in the same way as temp ability score bonuses. I think that's ambiguous at best.
The second post linked to is indeed quite significant. It shows Jason's judgement at the time that post to be that temporarily acquired abilities (In the given example, a Fly speed), do not qualify for a feat with those prereqs.
Sorry if there's some confusion, but I'm not sure of what you're saying, or its relevance. What is it I seem to be dismissing?
The FAQ you quoted Does indeed suggest, with a little logical effort, that a temporary ability score bonus would allow you to select a feat you wouldn't meet the prerequisites for otherwise.
It still does not answer the original question, unless you're suggesting that Other temporarily accessed features are treated in the same way as temp ability score bonuses. I think that's ambiguous at best.
The second post linked to is indeed quite significant. It shows Jason's judgement at the time that post to be that temporarily acquired abilities (In the given example, a Fly speed), do not qualify for a feat with those prereqs.
Again, you are the one that posted about ability scores in the first place. So I don't understand your confusion as to their relevance now. Why did you make that first post if you though it was irrelevant?
Let me walk you through it. SKR posted that temporary ability score bonuses could not be used to qualify for feats. In response to that post someone asks if the same thing goes for temporary abilities like the Fly spell. SKR comes back and said he discussed it with Jason and yes the same thing goes. The response on abilities and features was directly tied to the discussion on ability scores. You can't just pull one post out of context in the discussion and use it as evidence. So now the answer to the first post has changed and so since the second post was directly related to the first the logical conclusion is that it has similarly changed.
Let me walk you through it. SKR posted that temporary ability score bonuses could not be used to qualify for feats. In response to that post someone asks if the same thing goes for temporary abilities like the Fly spell. SKR comes back and said he discussed it with Jason and yes the same thing goes. The response on abilities and features was directly tied to the discussion on ability scores. You can't just pull one post out of context in the discussion and use it as evidence. So now the answer to the first post has changed and so since the second post was directly related to the first the logical conclusion is that it has similarly changed.
Ah, I think I understand.
However, I would say that is Not the logical conclusion. That's assuming the two judgements go together. The FAQ you referenced directly answers the temp ability scores bit, but nothing else. Nothing seems to suggest that minds were changed about other temporarily acquired abilities or features.
If you could pull something else up that might suggest that having only a reliable means to meet a prereq (or not meeting the prereq at all) still allows you to take the feat, that'd be lovely. Unfortunately, there still seems to be rules that contradict that.
Let me walk you through it. SKR posted that temporary ability score bonuses could not be used to qualify for feats. In response to that post someone asks if the same thing goes for temporary abilities like the Fly spell. SKR comes back and said he discussed it with Jason and yes the same thing goes. The response on abilities and features was directly tied to the discussion on ability scores. You can't just pull one post out of context in the discussion and use it as evidence. So now the answer to the first post has changed and so since the second post was directly related to the first the logical conclusion is that it has similarly changed.Ah, I think I understand.
However, I would say that is Not the logical conclusion. That's assuming the two judgements go together. The FAQ you referenced directly answers the temp ability scores bit, but nothing else. Nothing seems to suggest that minds were changed about other temporarily acquired abilities or features.
If you could pull something else up that might suggest that having only a reliable means to meet a prereq (or not meeting the prereq at all) still allows you to take the feat, that'd be lovely. Unfortunately, there still seems to be rules that contradict that.
First the two judgments do go together. One was a direct result of the other. If the devs decide Wizards can't wear blue hats and someone asks well what about blue headbands and the devs respond we talked it over and the same restriction on hats applies to headbands. If the devs later reverse the decision on hats they don't necessarily have to address the headband issue again because it was the result of the decision on hats.
Second, please cite the rules that contradict it.
Unfortunately, it seems we may have to agree to disagree then. The FAQ have no direct statement on prerequisites (It's by inference only), but the quotes from Sean seem fairly clear to me, and go uncontradicted in any category save ability scores. The rules I refer to are simply the core rulebook's feat rules:
Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.
Unfortunately, it seems we may have to agree to disagree then. The FAQ have no direct statement on prerequisites (It's by inference only), but the quotes from Sean seem fairly clear to me, and go uncontradicted in any category save ability scores. The rules I refer to are simply the core rulebook's feat rules:
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
That rules quote says nothing about temporary vs permanent bonuses or features. It just says you have to have the prereq without even an implication whether you have to have it permanently.
Furthermore the FAQ about ability scores shows that nothing about a temporary prereq violates this rule. If one temporary prerequisite is acceptable then there is no reason any temporary prerequisite would not be acceptable.
If you have the prereq at any point in time, temporary or permanent, you can take the feat if you then lose it you lose the ability to use the feat and if you gain it again you can once again use the feat.
It seems pretty clear to me.
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.
If you're going to waste your wish on that,.... well, I suppose it's up to you. Given how busy the design team generally is, and how clearly the existing rulings cover this situation, I think that the odds of your getting official clarification are about the same as of your winning the Powerball.
And given my choice, I'd rather have the lottery winnings.
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.
If you're going to waste your wish on that,.... well, I suppose it's up to you. Given how busy the design team generally is, and how clearly the existing rulings cover this situation, I think that the odds of your getting official clarification are about the same as of your winning the Powerball.
And given my choice, I'd rather have the lottery winnings.
You're going to have to share because I keep wishing for the same thing! Unfortunately I think I have a sadistic GM that is twisting my wish because I haven't won the lottery yet!
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.
If you're going to waste your wish on that,.... well, I suppose it's up to you. Given how busy the design team generally is, and how clearly the existing rulings cover this situation, I think that the odds of your getting official clarification are about the same as of your winning the Powerball.
And given my choice, I'd rather have the lottery winnings.
Out of curiosity, which side do you think the existing rulings support best, and why?
Edit: I'm still inclined to disagree, though I'd like for feats to work that way. Perhaps if we found other examples of this being officially accepted? An Alchemist w/ Feral Mutagen qualifying for Multiattack for example. A wizard or alchemist or sorcerer with limited access to a flyspeed, being able to take Flyby attack. Anything like that, unrelated to the ability score ordeal.
Out of curiosity, which side do you think the existing rulings support best, and why?
I hope we can both agree that getting official clarification on the matter would be of benefit to us both.
If you're going to waste your wish on that,.... well, I suppose it's up to you. Given how busy the design team generally is, and how clearly the existing rulings cover this situation, I think that the odds of your getting official clarification are about the same as of your winning the Powerball.
And given my choice, I'd rather have the lottery winnings.
That you can gain feats based on temporary attributes, but you can only use them conditionally.
There are several reasons for this: First, the explicit concept of "temporary" only applies to ability scores; there's no rules-text calling out anything temporary bonuses to anything but ability scores as being treated differently from permanent ones. In particular, the rules for gaining feats explicitly say you need the prerequisite, but do not say you need it "permanently," and also explicitly allow for the possibility of losing the prerequisite and therefore losing the ability to use a feat.
The one analogous case actually singled out in the rules -- gaining the fly skill -- explicitly allows you to use temporary abilities to gain a permanent skill (you only need the ability to fly "every day," but not at will, so a spell allowing me five minutes of flight per day still allows me to have the skill twenty-four hours per day).
SKR's post, upon which you rely, does not discuss temporary attributes other than ability scores -- he mentions that you can't take feats for which you don't qualify (e.g taking a feat before you have the necessary BAB), but not feats for which you qualify temporarily, and to the best of my knowledge there's no way to temporarily increase your BAB. It's therefore disingenuous to suggest that SKR's post says addresses the issue.
If you're going to suggest that SKR's post implies that other attributes should be treated analogously to ability scores, then that implication directly implies that the reversal of SKR's "no" also reverses any limitations on other attributes. If you're going to suggest that because the reversal doesn't address other attributes, then neither does SKR's and both posts are irrelevant. In which case, absent any rules to the contrary, you can still take feats for which you qualify temporarily.
That you can gain feats based on temporary attributes, but you can only use them conditionally.
The one analogous case actually singled out in the rules -- gaining the fly skill -- explicitly allows you to use temporary abilities to gain a permanent skill (you only need the ability to fly "every day," but not at will, so a spell allowing me five minutes of flight per day still allows me to have the skill twenty-four hours per day).SKR's post, upon which you rely, does not discuss temporary attributes other than ability scores -- he mentions that you can't take feats for which you don't qualify (e.g taking a feat before you have the necessary BAB), but not feats for which you qualify temporarily, and to the best of my knowledge there's no way to temporarily increase your BAB. It's therefore disingenuous to suggest that SKR's...
Please, for love of goodness, just look at the second post. If All this confusion was based on me quoting the First statement he makes in that thread rather than the second, I'll be sure not to repeat it.
...but he does Explicitly address the Flyspeed issue, sharing Jason's judgement on the matter. At maximum, one could argue that Jason in this context is simply wrong when he claims that a temporary flyspeed is not a "reliable" enough one for feat prereqs. Or that he's changed his mind about That.
This is why I'm vehemently against the Ability Score ordeal being used to declare that Any conditional/temporarily acquired feature is fair grounds to take a feat.
Show me some other ruling, like the examples edited into my last post, and I'll happily withdraw my opinion on the matter. It makes many character builds viable. Until then, it doesn't seem to me that the rules are clear on the matter at all.
That you can gain feats based on temporary attributes, but you can only use them conditionally.
The one analogous case actually singled out in the rules -- gaining the fly skill -- explicitly allows you to use temporary abilities to gain a permanent skill (you only need the ability to fly "every day," but not at will, so a spell allowing me five minutes of flight per day still allows me to have the skill twenty-four hours per day).SKR's post, upon which you rely, does not discuss temporary attributes other than ability scores -- he mentions that you can't take feats for which you don't qualify (e.g taking a feat before you have the necessary BAB), but not feats for which you qualify temporarily, and to the best of my knowledge there's no way to temporarily increase your BAB. It's therefore disingenuous to suggest that SKR's...
Please, for love of goodness, just look at the second post. If All this confusion was based on me quoting the First statement he makes in that thread rather than the second, I'll be sure not to repeat it.
...but he does Explicitly address the Flyspeed issue, sharing Jason's judgement on the matter. At maximum, one could argue that Jason in this context is simply wrong when he claims that a temporary flyspeed is not a "reliable" enough one for feat prereqs. Or that he's changed his mind about That.
This is why I'm vehemently against the Ability Score ordeal being used to declare that Any conditional/temporarily acquired feature is fair grounds to take a feat.
Show me some other ruling, like the examples edited into my last post, and I'll happily withdraw my opinion on the matter. It makes many character builds viable. Until then, it doesn't seem to me that the rules are clear on the matter at all.
If those posts were a verbal conversation you would not have any issues at all realizing that they are all one discussion. It is only because you are taking the second post out of its context and treating it as an isolated discussion of its own that you are having confusion and as long as you keep viewing it that way no one is going to be able to convince you differently. We can't force you to keep it in context, but as they say, text without a context is just a pretext.
If those posts were a verbal conversation you would not have any issues at all realizing that they are all one...
No offense, but I disagree strongly. They Are two separate points, in my view; One simply provoked the other. At the time, they were accepted together. Then, however many months later, the FAQ show quoted addresses one of them (indirectly). If the other were also falsified and/or ruled out, then there Should be evidence elsewhere. I did my part of the research, bringing up the most relevant quotes I could find.
If you can show other examples, that'd be thoroughly appreciated, and I would drop my argument. It'd let my Alchemist take Multiattack =P.
As far as I can tell, there wouldn't be that much conflict in the rules if you were right, or not. So far as I see, most other cases in the rules are quite directly addressed. Fighters can't replace combat feats that others have as prereqs. Likewise, with Retraining. At the very most, one could say that ruling 'temp prereq is sufficient until lost' Might have some issue with bonus feats acquired without meeting the prereqs.... but that's a long stretch.
So an FAQ Would clear it up for good, if there were another directly related to feat prereqs. I'm searching now for threads or FAQs that would support either side. I'd ask others to do the same.
Please, for love of goodness, just look at the second post.
That you can gain feats based on temporary attributes, but you can only use them conditionally.
The one analogous case actually singled out in the rules -- gaining the fly skill -- explicitly allows you to use temporary abilities to gain a permanent skill (you only need the ability to fly "every day," but not at will, so a spell allowing me five minutes of flight per day still allows me to have the skill twenty-four hours per day).SKR's post, upon which you rely, does not discuss temporary attributes other than ability scores -- he mentions that you can't take feats for which you don't qualify (e.g taking a feat before you have the necessary BAB), but not feats for which you qualify temporarily, and to the best of my knowledge there's no way to temporarily increase your BAB. It's therefore disingenuous to suggest that SKR's...
Looked at and disregarded, for reasons amply discussed upthread and therefore not worth repeating.
So an FAQ Would clear it up for good,
So would my buying Paizo and rewriting the rule book. You'll get the second before you get the first, probably.
Does everyone agree that a druid can take improved natural attack (claw) even if he doesn't normally have claws?
Does everyone agree that a druid can take improved natural attack (claw) even if he doesn't normally have claws?
Hmm... that seems to meet the criteria of something that'd prove feats can be taken with only temporarily met prereqs.
Showing positive evidence for that would work. My stance would be that no, they cannot. They can take Weapon Focus, because they are proficient with natural attacks, but not multiattack or improved natural attack. Showing proof otherwise would hammer out all similar arguments.
Rangers can select the Natural weapon style from APG. It allows them to take improved natural weapon as a bonus feat. They do not have to have claws to take it.
(Granted, all ranger combat bonus feats ignore prereqs... but the precedent is there, that they can take the feat for sometimes having claws).
Unfortunately, I'd say that the sheer fact they negate the feat's prereqs does not qualify it for this thread's purposes =P
...I'm looking, and I see a lot of close calls, still haven't found anything particularly proof-y.
No offense, but I disagree strongly. They Are two separate points, in my view; One simply provoked the other.
You can disagree strongly and have whatever view you want but that is like someone disagreeing strongly the earth is round.
When you read through that entire thread Sean was asked "Do temporary means of gaining the prerequisite count for the purposes of taking feats?" That is a direct quote. Notice it contained no references to ability scores at all. Sean's answer to that question was the post you linked about ability scores. He felt that adequately answered the question. Then the next post asked just to be sure, because Sean had posted about ability scores in relation to prerequisites in general, whether or not that same thing applied to other temporary abilities or features. Sean then responded basically that the same thing applied. All of it was in response to the question "Do temporary means of gaining the prerequisites count for the purpose of taking feats?" All one conversation to fully answer one question. The answer then was no. The FAQ now says yes.
Sorry you disagree but there really is no question or ambiguity.
Unfortunately, I'd say that the sheer fact they negate the feat's prereqs does not qualify it for this thread's purposes =P
...I'm looking, and I see a lot of close calls, still haven't found anything particularly proof-y.
All the proof necessary is there. You have simply refused to accept it. No one else has a problem seeing it. Just you.
How about this: Could a Savage Barbarian take Improved Natural Armor after 7th level assuming he had the Con 13 met?
The natural armor bonus is conditional on not wearing armor.
"Natural Toughness (Ex): At 7th level, the savage barbarian gains a +1 natural armor bonus to AC when wearing no armor (shields are allowed). This bonus increases by +1 for every three levels beyond 7th. This ability replaces damage reduction."
"Improved Natural Armor
This creature's hide is tougher than most.
Prerequisites: Natural armor, Con 13.
Benefit: The creature's natural armor bonus increases by +1.
Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the creature takes the feat, its natural armor bonus increases by another point."
You keep defending your point. I can see how the FAQ you reference can be interpreted to mean that temp ability score bonuses can qualify you for feats as well as permanent ones can. What, though, is your justification that this also relates to everything else conditional or temporary qualifying you for a feat? I'm sorry, but no matter how much you keep repeating it, the FAQ seems to only show that Ability scores are the one exception in this question. Is there something I'm missing to make it a viable bridge other than the supposition that "If this works, then everything should?"
If you manage to find Something, one other thing as proof (which there should be if the rules, correctly interpreted, are as you say), that should clear things up well. That, or show what it seems I'm missing; a bridging argument that that FAQ applies to feat prereqs other than temporary ability score bonuses.
@Tarantula : Indeed, that seems like another solid example. Again, by my interpretation, no. If you find otherwise, please kindly share it.
Would a phylactery of positive energy, which increased channel by 2d6, let you qualify for feats that have a minimum channel Xd6 as a requirement?
You keep defending your point. I can see how the FAQ you reference can be interpreted to mean that temp ability score bonuses can qualify you for feats as well as permanent ones can. What, though, is your justification that this also relates to everything else conditional or temporary qualifying you for a feat? I'm sorry, but no matter how much you keep repeating it, the FAQ seems to only show that Ability scores are the one exception in this question. Is there something I'm missing to make it a viable bridge other than the supposition that "If this works, then everything should?"
If you manage to find Something, one other thing as proof (which there should be if the rules, correctly interpreted, are as you say), that should clear things up well. That, or show what it seems I'm missing; a bridging argument that that FAQ applies to feat prereqs other than temporary ability score bonuses.
@Tarantula : Indeed, that seems like another solid example. Again, by my interpretation, no. If you find otherwise, please kindly share it.
The justification is that SKR thought the same thing. When asked about temporary prerequisites in general he answered with a response about ability scores. He felt that answered the question "Do temporary means of gaining the prerequisite count for the purposes of taking feats?".
You yourself felt it answered the question because that was the post you linked to in response to the OP. You say if you would have known that linking that post would have caused contention you wouldn't have. Well why did you? If only SKRs second response was relevant then why didn't you respond with the relevant post instead of the one you now claim is irrelevant. The reason you wish now you hadn't posted it and view it as a mistake is because it makes your flip flop on the applicability of the ability score issue obvious.
You began thinking that SKRs comments on temporary ability scores proved that you couldn't use any temporary features to qualify. When you discovered that due to the FAQ temporary ability scores did qualify for prereqs you wanted to reverse that opinion and argue that that is irrelevant.
No one is buying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are some more relevant examples out than the temporary vs. permanent ability scores.
For example, there are several magic items that grant the user a feat or feature, and these will not work under specific conditions (anti-magic field, dispelled, user removes them, etc.).
(from here) In addition, the belt grants the wearer the constrict ability (Bestiary 298) for 1d6 points of damage plus the wearer’s Strength modifier.
I've seen a lot of people use this item to qualify for the Final Embrace feat, and I haven't heard anyone suggest this doesn't work.
There are several ioun stones with this feature, also:
Scarlet and Green Cabochon: Endurance feat
Dark Blue Rhomboid: Alertness feat
Orange Thorny: Alertness or Acrobatic (resonant power)
Deep red sphere: Improved Unarmed Strike (resonant power)
Incandescent blue sphere: Blind fight (resonant power)
Again, I've seen players use these items to qualify for feats, even though they are less "permanent" than a belt (can be target by enemies, removed from the wayfinder, etc.), and I've never seen them questioned.
Also, now we have the Brawler's martial flexibility feature, where a Brawler can learn a new feat for one minute and use that as the prerequisite for another temporary feat. Granted, the Brawler can learn that feat for one minute and then choose a new level feat, however, I would argue that the "persistence" or "permanence" of the swashbuckler's evasion is much closer in nature to the magic items than to the martial flexibility.
I think there are enough examples of "non-permanent" feats and features used to qualify for another feat that I would allow swashbuckler's evasion to count as a prerequisite for something.
Would a phylactery of positive energy, which increased channel by 2d6, let you qualify for feats that have a minimum channel Xd6 as a requirement?
Only if you can already channel positive energy.
This item allows channelers of positive energy to increase the amount of damage dealt to undead creatures by +2d6. This also increases the amount of damage healed by living creatures.
So you only get the benefit if you already channel positive energy. However, if your channel isn't strong enough wearing the phylactery will let you qualify but you can only use the feat while wearing the phylactery.
But note that since Evasion is a prerequisite for the Twist Away feat, you do lose access to the Twist Away feat when you have no panache points (since that is a requirement for you to have Evasion).
But note that since Evasion is a prerequisite for the Twist Away feat, you do lose access to the Twist Away feat when you have no panache points (since that is a requirement for you to have Evasion).
What he said.
I was aiming my question towards Bane Wraith. Since it's temporary and not a stat if he'd say yes or no.
I think there are enough examples of "non-permanent" feats and features used to qualify for another feat that I would allow swashbuckler's evasion to count as a prerequisite for something.
I'm looking it up now. It seems there's a general consensus that certain magic items do count as a feat prereq. I'm not seeing anything definingly official quite yet, or quotes to rules explicitly allowing it. But it seems the majority would agree, and that would apply to this scenario.
Still researching.
@Chess Pwn : As far as I can see, it all falls into the same category. If one can achieve a feat prerequisite temporarily, but only keep it conditionally, then my argument thus far has been "no, it doesn't count".
Alch w/ multiattack. Magic items. This particular swashbuckler case. Druid's wild shape. Whatever.
Everything else is fine. Way early on, Pupsocket provided a relevant link that shows if you have the 'substance' of a class ability, you qualify for feats that have it as a prerequisite. Others have shown that at least in terms of ability scores, Temp = Perm for most every case. Basically, at this point, it's arguing whether having other features and/or abilities, even just temporarily, counts as it being 'reliable' enough for a feat prereq. It'd be pointless to differentiate between something semipermanent, like an item's bonuses, or something you can gain only temporarily, like a 1 minute fly speed... so it all seems to lump together.
So far, consensus is pointing towards "yes it counts", and I'm personally just looking for the proper evidence to clean it all up.