|
I imagine the feats would qualify as a special ability for purpose of meeting a feat's prerequisites, yes. I have never seen any actual rules to back this up, mind you, but it's a pretty sound conclusion I believe. If you've already allowed an undead PC then you might as well give them access to the feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so the undead type states, "Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC)."
If an undead character wanted to take a feat which had a con of 13 or con 18 etc. as a prerequisite, would this allow the undead to use their Cha in its place?
They have no con ergo they do not qualify for feats needing con. No exception was provided for it.
Undead use their Charisma score in place of constitution for all constitution dependent abilities.
Normally I see such things with some leeway. But as pathfinder tends to ready things like that rather strictly I tend towards: Bad luck to the undead.
One example is scarred witchdoctor int for bonus spells. That way of reading things doesn't make the game better but if you start being rigorous you should stay that way.
..and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC)
A feat is a special ability so yes i would use CHA instead of CON but on a case by case descision. Some feats with CON as prerequisite 'require' a living body (=have a CON score) by fluff, others not.
Why should an undead monk not qualify for 'Punishing Kick' as an example?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW and RAI no, but feel free to houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feat prerequisites are a very real thing that get called out if you can subvert or substitute something for them. Seeing as they're not called out for undead and constitution, I agree with wraithstrike.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is, is the list a comprehensive list, or is it merely examples?
Are there any undead NPCs published that use CHA to qualify for CON feats?
If there is a lack of published examples, is that proof that it's not allowed, or merely that none have been created yet?
EDIT: FWIW, there are no feats in the CRB that have CON as a pre-req; they don't appear until the APG. How many times have the devs said something to the effect of "at the time the CRB was written, 'xxx' didn't exist yet, and so the CRB doesn't mention 'xxx'".
I'm not necessarily saying that's how it is in this case, but you definitely have to keep that point in mind when proclaiming RAW!
The real question is, is the list a comprehensive list, or is it merely examples?
Are there any undead NPCs published that use CHA to qualify for CON feats?
If there is a lack of published examples, is that proof that it's not allowed, or merely that none have been created yet?
Looking at the stuff that is published in APs is not really a way to undestand the rules. There is both exceptions and mistakes, in the APs.
I do not agree that feats are special abilities by themselves. I see no support for it in the rules, nor have i seen any examples in statblocks that list feats as special abilities. I might have missed something though.
|
|
Looking at the stuff that is published in APs is not really a way to undestand the rules. There is both exceptions and mistakes, in the APs.The real question is, is the list a comprehensive list, or is it merely examples?
Are there any undead NPCs published that use CHA to qualify for CON feats?
If there is a lack of published examples, is that proof that it's not allowed, or merely that none have been created yet?
Yes, yes, a lot of people like to bring this up, especially the "there are mistakes" part. That doesn't invalidate my point.
If there was more than one published case of an undead creature (bestiary or AP) using cha for prereqs that would be a strong indication it works. If there arent any cases, that isnt evidence in either direction.
|
If there was more than one published case of an undead creature (bestiary or AP) using cha for prereqs that would be a strong indication it works. If there arent any cases, that isnt evidence in either direction.
Not really. They might have had the feat before becoming undead, and no longer having the prereqs sould mean they keep the Feat but cant use it. So most of the time neither would really show anything, as Paizo often gives NPCs suboptimal choices on purpose.
In another thread on a similar topic people mentioned examples in published adventures of undead (which are immune to morale bonuses) using barbarian rage. So published adventures are not necessarily a good guide to a scrupulous interpretation of the rules.
(Not to imply that you shouldn't use raging ghouls, it doesn't ring at all false, just because of a rules technicality you couldn't do it without GM fiat).
karosii I'm curious what is the feat in question you are wanting to use?
There's precedent for Feats being an ability or an effect. Much like Half-Orcs can take Human and Orc Feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a Feat a special ability? Not exactly.
Feats are Feats; Abilities are defined as Extraordinary, Supernatural, and/or Spell-Like. Feats are not classified as such, so how can they be the same? Because they both can offer an advantage that one would otherwise not have if they didn't possess the ability?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're not even talking about the feats themselves, but rather qualifying for a feat. Which is definitely not an ability or effect.
|
|
Is a Feat a special ability? Not exactly.
Feats are Feats; Abilities are defined as Extraordinary, Supernatural, and/or Spell-Like. Feats are not classified as such, so how can they be the same? Because they both can offer an advantage that one would otherwise not have if they didn't possess the ability?
The 3.5 FAQ stated that all feats were (Ex) unless otherwise specified. That is how I would rule in PFRPG unless shown proof that the designers meant to change this.
CHA-ka-CON
(Undead Racial Trait)
Benefit: For purposes of all class abilities, feats, and magical items, you use your Charisma bonus (or penalty) in place of your Constitution bonus (or penalty). Additionally, you may count all morale bonuses as untyped bonuses instead.
While that racial trait may "rock you" I suspect it isn't in the book...
The 3.5 FAQ stated that all feats were (Ex) unless otherwise specified. That is how I would rule in PFRPG unless shown proof that the designers meant to change this.Is a Feat a special ability? Not exactly.
Feats are Feats; Abilities are defined as Extraordinary, Supernatural, and/or Spell-Like. Feats are not classified as such, so how can they be the same? Because they both can offer an advantage that one would otherwise not have if they didn't possess the ability?
I suppose one could, though it's not defined in the Pathfinder book.
Keep in mind that, as VRMH says, it's for how abilities you currently possess affect you. It doesn't change the pre-requisite ability score needed to fulfill in order to take the feat (which is what adjusts it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not agree that feats are special abilities by themselves. I see no support for it in the rules, nor have i seen any examples in statblocks that list feats as special abilities. I might have missed something though.
They can be special abilities but the poster did not quote the entire text. The text is saying cha is used to calculate special abilities, then it goes to list things like hit points, and DC of supernatural abilities. Figuring out the math for how an ability works is not the same as saying Cha can be used to qualify for something. Constitution is for things that are alive, and undead are not alive. They could simply errata that line to include the word "qualify" in some form if that was the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was more than one published case of an undead creature (bestiary or AP) using cha for prereqs that would be a strong indication it works. If there arent any cases, that isnt evidence in either direction.Not really. They might have had the feat before becoming undead, and no longer having the prereqs sould mean they keep the Feat but cant use it. So most of the time neither would really show anything, as Paizo often gives NPCs suboptimal choices on purpose.
Once you lose the prereq for a feat you lose access to that feat.
In Pathfinder unmarked abilities (not ex, sp, or su) are natural abilities. Given how feats give you a new trick that's essentially always on or bonuses and assuming the 3.5 material is meant to fill this gap in that they are "abilities," feats being a natural ability would be the correct designation under the Pathfinder rules.
|
|
Once you lose the prereq for a feat you lose access to that feat.If there was more than one published case of an undead creature (bestiary or AP) using cha for prereqs that would be a strong indication it works. If there arent any cases, that isnt evidence in either direction.Not really. They might have had the feat before becoming undead, and no longer having the prereqs sould mean they keep the Feat but cant use it. So most of the time neither would really show anything, as Paizo often gives NPCs suboptimal choices on purpose.
That's he point I was making. You loose access to the Feat, or more specifically you loose the ability to USE/BENEFIT from the Feat, but you do not actually loose the Fat itself, you just can't use it.
So if the idea is to look through published material for proof, (if an Undead creature has a Feat that requires Con, then that must mean it's proof that it's ok) is not correct. All it means is that they might have had the Feat before becoming Undead, and still have it, but can not us it, or basically does not prove anything one way or the other.
This would be similar to an Ex-Cleric. They would still have Feats like Selective Channel. They would still possess the Feats, just couldn't use them as they can not Channel Energy.
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.
While that racial trait may "rock you" I suspect it isn't in the book...
Yeah it's just my own suggested houserule. If you don't want to use unofficial content in your game, I feel for you.
I do not agree that feats are special abilities by themselves. I see no support for it in the rules, nor have i seen any examples in statblocks that list feats as special abilities. I might have missed something though.They can be special abilities but the poster did not quote the entire text. The text is saying cha is used to calculate special abilities, then it goes to list things like hit points, and DC of supernatural abilities. Figuring out the math for how an ability works is not the same as saying Cha can be used to qualify for something. Constitution is for things that are alive, and undead are not alive. They could simply errata that line to include the word "qualify" in some form if that was the intent.
I would say that certain feats (such as stunning fist) may grant special abilities. I would not say that a feat such as skill focus or lightning reflexes grants a special ability. Of course, since "special ability" is undefined, this is mostly on a gut feeling, but whatever :3
|
|
Once you lose the prereq for a feat you lose access to that feat.
That's true, but you don't lose the feat itself. It would still be listed on your, or the NPC's, sheet/stat block. If you somehow regained the prereq, you would then have access to the feat, again. I'm pretty sure that's what DM Beckett was pointing out with:
Not really. They might have had the feat before becoming undead, and no longer having the prereqs sould mean they keep the Feat but cant use it. So most of the time neither would really show anything, as Paizo often gives NPCs suboptimal choices on purpose.
It doesn't get much more suboptimal than feat slots being filled with feats you no longer have access to because you lost the prereqs when you became undead...
All that being said, wraith is right with his statement that you can't use CHA as a CON prereq for feats just because you're undead. That's certainly not RAW, and I doubt it was RAI, though I could see how it could have been overlooked. Regardless, I don't see it as being broken, so I see no reason not to houserule it. Let the vampire monks have punishing kick...
@Sarcasmancer - I have no big problem with house rules, but I had completely forgotten the title which went with those lyrics - good reference!
I'm not sure how anyone here is determining that a feat isn't a special ability.
And since a feat is an ability, undead use CHA in place of CON.
The RAI is perfectly clear too, Undead lack a CON score, so to make the system even function, they use CHA in place of CON. They are animated by evil intent and negative energy.
I'm not sure how anyone here is determining that a feat isn't a special ability.
And since a feat is an ability, undead use CHA in place of CON.
I'm not sure how anyone here is determining that a feat IS a special ability.
Generally in pathfinder, something is only X if it states it is X.
The RAI is perfectly clear too, Undead lack a CON score, so to make the system even function, they use CHA in place of CON. They are animated by evil intent and negative energy.
No, if that was the intent it'd just state "you use CON instead of CHA for everything". Right now it's quite precise in that it only affects special abilities, and thus, what constitutes a special ability or not is very relevant.
|
|
I'm not sure how anyone here is determining that a feat isn't a special ability.Feats are special abilities, but the pre-reqs of a feat are not part of the ability.
If we assume for a moment that feats ARE special abilities (a case that was certainly true in 3.5, but that I don't believe has ever been explicitly declared for PF...but I'm not arguing either way on that, as I don't believe it has any bearing on this discussion), James is absolutely correct: The pre-req for a feat is NOT a special ability (unless the pre-req is an actual Ex, Su, or Sp ability called out elsewhere as a special ability).
So, if a feat description tells you that its effect is X+CON, and undead would substitute X+CHA for that effect, provided it still meets all the pre-reqs for that feat. If the feat requires CON X to use, an undead is not able to use that feat via CHA. Because the rules don't say, "Undead treat their CHA score as their CON score for all purposes."
If some of your feats stop working when you become undead that's not really that strange since many creatures which turn into undead lose all of their former feats and class abilities. Undeath isn't always fair - being an undead Wizard is ok, but being an undead sorcerer is great
While that racial trait may "rock you" I suspect it isn't in the book...Yeah it's just my own suggested houserule. If you don't want to use unofficial content in your game, I feel for you.
I just loved the name of the ability.