It doesn't say thaty they don't , so they do.
Actually this works the other way -- if it doesn't specifically state they don't have to meet the prerequisites then they do.
Everyone with bonus feats that gets to skip the prerequisites has that fact specifically stated in the write up for the bonus feats.
So unless you have a reason (specific reason in writing) to not play by the regular rules you still play by those rules.
For example you can't take weapon specialization at level 1 with your bonus fighter feat since you don't meet the prerequisites -- namely fighter level 4 and weapon focus.
Which would imply the opposite - that if you do NOT have the line about meeting the prerequisites in the text for bonus feats, then you do NOT have to meet them.
Mind you, I'm not weighing in either way on this - I just want the rules clarified by a Paizo representative, so as to avoid any rules lawyering nonsense in the future.
Except that the feats section specifically states you have to meet the prerequisites -- and unless something tells you otherwise you must do so.
It's not a matter of "oh it didn't tell me to follow the rules so I don't have to" it's a matter of "I have nothing telling me to not follow the rules so I must."
So again, it is true -- follow the rules unless told to do otherwise.
Every case of bonus feats that don't require you to meet prerequisites state as much -- meeting prerequisites must be done unless stated otherwise.
Indeed doing any less means it is pointless to say you must be a level 4 fighter to take weapon specialization since you could do it at first level with a bonus feat.
Also with 1 exception, the fighter is the only one who can take Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus, and a couple of others, why give them prereq. if you do not need to meet them?
|
this one has had me curious also. Taking a look at only the base book core classes (since there are some errors in the APG) there is a mixed message:
Fighter = Does not state if you need to meet the prerequisites or not.
Monk = states that you do not need to meat the prerequisites.
Ranger = In the ability Combat Style, it states that they do not need to meet the prerequisites.
Rogue = In the talent 'feat' it states that they must meet the prerequisites, while in the talent 'combat trick' it does not state anything about needing to meet any prerequisites.
Sorcerer = For the bloodline feats they get it states that they need to meet the prerequisites.
Wizard = states that they need to meet the prerequisites.
So, in this case we have the following:
States that you can avoid the prerequisites = 2
states that you must meet the prerequisites = 3
does not state either way = 2
Personally, I would say that if it is not specified, that you have to meet the prerequisites, but I can see how it is fuzzy either way. At least until you read this line from the Feats section of the core book:
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.
So in the case for the ones that do not specify, the general feat rules fall into place.
They are only unclear if you completely forget the following:
1. Follow the rules.
2. The rules state meet the prerequisites.
3. Unless you have something telling you to ignore rule 2, obey it.
What you have is an omission but without something specifically telling you to disregard rule 2 you still follow it since you follow the rules and the rules say meet the prerequisite.
It isn't even FAQ worthy.
Abraham spalding wrote:
They are only unclear if you completely forget the following:
1. Follow the rules.
2. The rules state meet the prerequisites.
3. Unless you have something telling you to ignore rule 2, obey it.What you have is an omission but without something specifically telling you to disregard rule 2 you still follow it since you follow the rules and the rules say meet the prerequisite.
It isn't even FAQ worthy.
I'm sorry, but no. This isn't satisfying to me. For one, you don't appear to be a Paizo rep or employee. And for another, you're just saying the same thing for the third time as if somehow, this time, it will be different.
The rules are unclear because they have omissions. Omissions make things unclear. If you cannot understand this, I'm sorry, but there's really nothing else I can say.
Oh, wait, I can say the same thing a third time, I guess.
Leaving something out of the rules makes it difficult to understand the intention of the rules that have been left out.
There, did that help?
When one asks for help, one should not get snarky when help is offered. You have been provided with plenty of evidence, and opinions all pointing the same direction to answer your question.
Also, it was a stupid fighter question as advertised.
I'm sorry, but no. This isn't satisfying to me. For one, you don't appear to be a Paizo rep or employee. And for another, you're just saying the same thing for the third time as if somehow, this time, it will be different.
The rules are unclear because they have omissions. Omissions make things unclear. If you cannot understand this, I'm sorry, but there's really nothing else I can say.
Oh, wait, I can say the same thing a third time, I guess.
Leaving something out of the rules makes it difficult to understand the intention of the rules that have been left out.
There, did that help?
Absolutely -- I'm not saying what you want so you don't want to hear what is being said.
If you are waiting on an employee -- you are unlikely to get a response -- they don't bother with this sort of stuff often.
It hardly counts as an omission even -- they simply didn't tell you what you already know which is to follow the rules that say do this not that unless told otherwise.
It's not left out you simply don't want to read it.
For one, you don't appear to be a Paizo rep or employee. .....
There, did that help?
Since when does being an employee=know the rules or not being an employee=don't know the rules. Nothing has changed in what Abraham has said since 3.5 which is when some of started playing.
This is a exception based game. What that means is until told not to do something you follow a general rule. The general rule is what Abraham just printed. There is not even a precedent for bonus feats being treated differently without a special clause.The snark is not needed.
The rules are actually very clear on this. If you don't meet the prerequisites, then you can't take the feat. It's that simple. You know it as well as everyone else. There isn't anything that states that halflings can't turn invisible at will yet no one thinks that they can just because it was omitted. The rules are not vague on fighters qualifying for feats. You want them to be so that you can trick your GM into letting you take more powerful feats at inappropriate levels. You know it as well as everyone else.
Oh, and if you wanted a Paizo employee to answer, then you should have just emailed Paizo. Instead you asked on their message boards where you knew that you would be getting a ton of answers from non-employees.
as an aside allowing it would be utterly broken :p
Actually either is not within scope of the rules -- the rules state you must meet the prerequisites. The fighter bonus feats do not say you can avoid the prerequisites, as such you must still meet the prerequisites since you must meet prerequisites before choosing feats.
Something has changed since 3.5. The line was present in 3.5, stating that fighters had to meet requirements. The line is gone now. It is left out. It is very much left out. The line was in 3.5, it's not there now. That is confusing, and unclear, no matter how hard you try to deny that.
Yes, there is a general rule... for non-bonus feats... but there is precedent for assuming that the general rule is to apply (since certain classes say it doesn't), and precedent for assuming it's not (since certain classes say it does).
So, yes, the logical thing is to assume that the general rule applies.
But the logical thing is to also assume that the general rule does not apply.
Either is within the scope of the rules right now, because both are specifically called to attention at other points and in other books.
But, fine. You're right, Bob, I should have just sent an e-mail. My fault for doing this instead. Shows what being tired does, I guess.
It is frustrating, but a lot of lines were omitted from 3.5 to pathfinder. It does not mean the rule changed. They just cut certain lines out. I have no idea why. What has generally been discovered is that if they don't have a line that directly contradicts the 3.5 ruling nothing changed. This bonus feat thing and other issues have come up before, that is why a lot of us know the answers already.
Something has changed since 3.5. The line was present in 3.5, stating that fighters had to meet requirements. The line is gone now. It is left out. It is very much left out. The line was in 3.5, it's not there now. That is confusing, and unclear, no matter how hard you try to deny that.
Yes, there is a general rule... for non-bonus feats... but there is precedent for assuming that the general rule is to apply (since certain classes say it doesn't), and precedent for assuming it's not (since certain classes say it does).
So, yes, the logical thing is to assume that the general rule applies.
But the logical thing is to also assume that the general rule does not apply.
Either is within the scope of the rules right now, because both are specifically called to attention at other points and in other books.
But, fine. You're right, Bob, I should have just sent an e-mail. My fault for doing this instead. Shows what being tired does, I guess.
I apologize if I came across as a bit of a jerk. I had a rough day at work and it may have translated over to my post. If I did come across that way, please accept my apology.
To Bob_Loblaw: No you didn't come off as a jerk, he did and I did, but your's seems neutral.
???
this is the "3.5 rogues can take epic feats at 10th level" argument all over again...
LOL, I remember that one.
What is it with people lately and not willing to accept the answers given to them?!? Honestly if your not gonna accept the answer, don't bother asking...sheesh.
I think many times they have already made their mind up, and they are looking for yes men. Some times intentionally, and other times not. The only thing I hate is the "only a developer can convince" me when the answer is right in the book.
|
|
???
Long story short, in 3.5 rogues could take a "bonus feat" as a talent at 10th, the only place "bonus feat" is (sort-of) defined is in the MM where it mentions creatures don't need to meet the pre-reqs for them. So at 10th you could take perfect 2 weapon fighting and effectively get the whole twf tree for 1 class ability.
It was very vague, but the whole argument hinged on the same method of thought as this discussion
Thank you for the explanation.