Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The advanced talent Feat lets rogues gain *any* bonus feat. Like the 3.5 rules before this, a rogue can still select feats they don't qualify for, which is bizarre. Text to the effect of "may gain any feat they qualify for as a bonus feat" would limit this abuse, and would be a simple fix to make.
I've never viewed that as a bug. In the absence of *permission* to take a feat they don't qualify for (like you see under the monk's bonus feats), I see it as pretty clear they need to meet the prereqs.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
This has long been regarded as an undocumented feature (re:bug) of 3.5, and is widely known. (I seem to recall a WotC CharOp thread in which it was proposed a halfling rogue should take the feat (whose name i'm forgetting - has to do with snakes iirc) which lets you swallow whole large creatures and smaller, or something like that. Tagline "I will eat you". And that was mostly a demonstration of how silly the lack of limitation was.)
Something appearing on those boards doesn't make it so, however. The number of rules errors made by "character optimizers" is nothing short of staggering. The base rule for a feat, bonus or not, is meet the prereqs, and sans documentation of being able to skip prereqs, you must either meet them or not take the feat.
This has long been regarded as an undocumented feature (re:bug) of 3.5, and is widely known. (I seem to recall a WotC CharOp thread in which it was proposed a halfling rogue should take the feat (whose name i'm forgetting - has to do with snakes iirc) which lets you swallow whole large creatures and smaller, or something like that. Tagline "I will eat you". And that was mostly a demonstration of how silly the lack of limitation was.)Something appearing on those boards doesn't make it so, however. The number of rules errors made by "character optimizers" is nothing short of staggering. The base rule for a feat, bonus or not, is meet the prereqs, and sans documentation of being able to skip prereqs, you must either meet them or not take the feat.
Truth Russ, truth.
Do you notice that the Fighter has the "that he qualifies for" prerequisite on his bonus feat list? There's precedence for there not to be a limit on what feat you get when it says "choose any feat" unless the text says otherwise.
How is it a bad thing to add four simple words?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Do you notice that the Fighter has the "that he qualifies for" prerequisite on his bonus feat list? There's precedence for there not to be a limit on what feat you get when it says "choose any feat" unless the text says otherwise.
How is it a bad thing to add four simple words?
There's precedence the other way, under the monk's bonus feats (which say you don't need to meet the prereqs). I don't object to the extra text, but it isn't needed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why would any DM in her right mind allow a halfling to take a monster feat that clearly doesn't make sense? The rules simply don't allow it: he doesn't qualify. And even if they did, who would let something like that wreck her game??
A reasonable response is, "Hey, you're right, that would be funny. But I'm not allowing it in my campaign." Boonk. Done.
D&D with all the bells and whistles is a lot like CHAMPIONS. Do you remember, in CHAMPIONS 2nd edition, when the designers came up with all sorts of ridiculously overpowered character concepts based on taking the rules to extreme levels? There was the guy who took a lair, with a bunch of minions. No, more than that; 3 billion minions, the population of the Earth. There was the character who had shrunk planets down to the size of marbles, and threw them at opponents, turning off the shrinking as he did so: go 'head, try to dodge a planet.
The moral of that story is that the rules allow ridiculous things, but you don't have to allow them in your campaign.
Jason, for my money, please feel free to presume that gamemasters, even gamemasters in Pathfinder Society organized play, have the wisdom and strength of will to disallow tom-foolery that hurts the game.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Why is adding four simple words so hard? Seriously, game rules should aspire to be airtight. That way we don't need to rely on 'designer's intent' arguments and can just rely on the letter of the rules. And when its so simple, there's no reason *not* to do it.
Wow, no they should not aspire to be airtight. They should aspire to be concise and clear. First, the amount of verbiage you'd have to add to make the rules proof against misreading would be absolutely staggering. Rulebooks already cost quite enough without inflating the page counts another 20-40%, thank you very much. Second, lengthening the rules to try and close loopholes of misinterpretation will just add even more opportunities to get things - questionable readings increase by page count, rather than decrease.
The advanced talent Feat lets rogues gain *any* bonus feat. Like the 3.5 rules before this, a rogue can still select feats they don't qualify for, which is bizarre. Text to the effect of "may gain any feat they qualify for as a bonus feat" would limit this abuse, and would be a simple fix to make.
Just curious -- where in the SRD does it say that, in general, you don't need to meet the prerequisites when picking a bonus feat (other than the specific case of the monk)?
The fact that people are ARGUING AGAINST CLARIFYING THE RULES is infuriating. Yes, most GMs have a modicum of common sense. However, to the rules lawyers and munchkins, the fact that fighters have the aforementioned text sets a precedent that allows rogues to take them without meeting the requirements. (Technically, the rogue might be left in the middle somewhere because of the monk's bonus feat list, but ambiguity is the rules-killer.)
Fix this. Add the four words. It's not hard. Anyone who argues against this should have his or her opinions completely disregarded because he or she is a hindrance to the game playtesting stage.
Here, here.
The fact that people are ARGUING AGAINST CLARIFYING THE RULES is infuriating. Yes, most GMs have a modicum of common sense. However, to the rules lawyers and munchkins, the fact that fighters have the aforementioned text sets a precedent that allows rogues to take them without meeting the requirements. (Technically, the rogue might be left in the middle somewhere because of the monk's bonus feat list, but ambiguity is the rules-killer.)
Fix this. Add the four words. It's not hard. Anyone who argues against this should have his or her opinions completely disregarded because he or she is a hindrance to the game playtesting stage.
I completely agree, you're utterly right, the Fighter text sets the precedent.
So remove the Fighter text.
|
The fact that people are ARGUING AGAINST CLARIFYING THE RULES is infuriating. Yes, most GMs have a modicum of common sense.
Yes it is infuriating and I recently went through this on 2 different other abilities. :)
Common sense often goes out the window in D&D discussions though. People try to bend wording on the page to exploit it to work the way they want it to, just like people use exploits in video games.
An honest player's common sense isn't the same as a cheaters. In most cases I see exploiters a very small step above cheaters.
You're absolutely right, and that's the problem. Has anyone arguing against the inclusion of this text actually been to the CO boards? Has anyone actually argued over the letter of the RAW versus the rules-as-intended? The letter of the law wins out in theoretical optimization. Which is why the ardent (CPsi) doesn't actually have to have a minimum class level to learn higher-level powers but rather a minimum manifester level. It's idiotic and annoying, and I almost always go with the RAI, but it's something that needs to be fixed.
MonstersFeats
The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.
-------------------------------
Don't you (in the general sense) think it would make sense just to put those four words in the line about bonus feats to clear it up and reduce confusion or abuse of the rule. This very thread proves that this needs to be added to the entry.
I don't have a problem with clarifying things, but I think it should be done in the right place. For instance, if the text under "Monsters --> Feats" (that you quote above) made it clear that racial bonus feats don't need to meet prerequisites, that's better than having to make sure that every single place that mentions "bonus feats" has to have some boilerplate overriding what it says under "Monsters --> Feats".
Why not change something in one place rather than (potentially) many different places?
I would rename this thread "Known Bug in Monsters --> Feats". (Personally it's clear to me that the text in "Monsters --> Feats" is referring to racial bonus feats in monster entries, but I can see that someone might deliberately misinterpret it.)
Hmmm... Actually, even if you specify that RACIAL bonus feats don't need to meet prerequisites, that actually just makes the human's first level bonus feat insane. Yes, I'll take Weapon Mastery at 1st level, thanks.
I suppose this should be cleared up, though I would have never even considered this as a problem because the "I don't need to qualify for a bonus feat's prereqs" line of reasoning never crossed my mind.
Hmmm... Actually, even if you specify that RACIAL bonus feats don't need to meet prerequisites, that actually just makes the human's first level bonus feat insane. Yes, I'll take Weapon Mastery at 1st level, thanks.
At any rate, the place it should be "fixed" is in the place that (supposedly) says "all bonus feats ignore prerequisites" when it really means "certain racial bonus feats in monster entries".
Hmmm... Actually, even if you specify that RACIAL bonus feats don't need to meet prerequisites, that actually just makes the human's first level bonus feat insane. Yes, I'll take Weapon Mastery at 1st level, thanks.Doesn't the human entry say you need to qualify for it?
Nope. All it says is that a human gets a bonus feat at first level. Of course, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone try and take an epic feat via this racial feature, but I guess it's a problem with some groups that really like to stretch the rules.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Whenever a fictional persona, either controlled by a player, or the DM (the "Character") gains an ability designated as a feat (but not an ability marked as either a supernatural, extraordinary or spell-like that merely duplicates the effect of a feat), regardless of the means of that acquisition, that character must meet the restrictions applying for selecting said feat. These restrictions, commonly but not necessarily applying to either ability scores, alignment, base attack bonus, caster level, total character level or posession of other feats may be waived by some means of acquiring feats. In such a case, the waiver of prerequisites shall be noted explicitly in the description of the means of acquisition.
Here, print that out and glue it to the inside cover of your rulebook. Anyone of their right mind knows that unless you are specifically allowed to sidestep a rule, you have to obey it. Constructing some argument from monster rules, an overly verbose phrase somewhere else and a lot of bad faith just is a waste of perfectly good bytes, and making the system "waterproof" would be a waste of perfectly good wordcount.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hmm, ad hominem?
Ok, reading this again, the wording could have gone better. But i consider it pretty self-evident, and really feel that a lot of bad faith is involved in these "interpretations". That was what i wanted to express, no more and no less.
So, let me rephrase that. "I certainly hope anyone seriously considering this knows and agrees, ..." Better?
|
|
Alpha 3 seems to have gotten rid of the fighter's "must meet the prerequisites" wording.
The words "gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement" would seem to indicate that it's only an additional "feat slot", rather than a permission to "ignore the prerequisites".
3.5
Bonus Feats
At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.
These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.
Alpha 3, p. 27
Bonus Feats: At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These bonus feats must be selected from either fighter bonus feats or combat feats (see the Feats chapter).
Instead of clarifying everywhere that you have to meet the prereqs, or don't, or sometimes do... why not state a general rule, in the into text of the "Feats" chapter, that says, "Unless otherwise specified, in order to select a bonus feat, all of that feat's prerequisites must be fulfilled."
Then, specific cases where they don't (e.g., the monk) can be spelled out as special exceptions to that one general rule.