So, two-ish feats in the ACG require EVEN-numbered ability scores as prerequisites (Improved Studied Combatant [Int 14], Kick Up [Dex 12], and Counterpunch [Dex 18]).
The entry for Improved Studied Combatant lists the requirement as Int 13, but the other two feat entries are consistent with the even numbers presented in the table.
...is this by design? I don't think I've ever encountered an even-numbered ability score prerequisite for a feat in previous Pathfinder materials. The lack of a precedent, at least as far as I can recall,and the inconsistency with Improved Studied Combatant lead me to think that these numbers are incorrect.
Thoughts?
Probably a typo. Once the book is officially out, an errata thread will be started.
It was one of the original design guidelines in 3.0 that all feats have odd ability score requirements. I'm guessing these will be corrected.
I certainly hope they are fixed. It's one of the few reasons in the game to have an odd ability at all.
Wait, what? Why would you want this "fixed"? The odd-numbered prereq's are terrible, costing you point buy value for no reason other than to qualify a stinking feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? 'Cause I'm a grognard that's why!
Wait, what? Why would you want this "fixed"? The odd-numbered prereq's are terrible, costing you point buy value for no reason other than to qualify a stinking feat.
That is exactly why there's an unwritten design rule in d20 systems that attribute prerequisites are always at an odd number – so every possible value of an attribute is good for something. Even values get you a new bonus, odd values qualify you for feats or prestige classes. Without this rule, there would be no reason at all to take an odd value, and the attribute range would, in fact, be halved.
I don't think this is something errata-worthy, so long as it doesn't set a trend.
I do think it's errata-worthy, to prevent the start of such a trend in the first place.
Isn't the whole point of an errata to fix a mistake in a published work? If this is a mistake, it needs an errata solely on that basis.
Wait, what? Why would you want this "fixed"? The odd-numbered prereq's are terrible, costing you point buy value for no reason other than to qualify a stinking feat.That is exactly why there's an unwritten design rule in d20 systems that attribute prerequisites are always at an odd number – so every possible value of an attribute is good for something. Even values get you a new bonus, odd values qualify you for feats or prestige classes. Without this rule, there would be no reason at all to take an odd value, and the attribute range would, in fact, be halved.
Huh? What about all the attribute odd scores that don't qualify you for anything?
I've always seen the odd number prerequisites to be an unnecessary distraction from a game that only grants bonuses based on even numbers.
I see this as a good thing.
Isn't the whole point of an errata to fix a mistake in a published work? If this is a mistake, it needs an errata solely on that basis.
Is doing something outside an unwritten rule for the last rules set REALLY a mistake? Not in my book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with the upcoming release of Unchained, more sacred cows like this can be led to the slaughter as far as I am concerned.
You won't miss them when they're gone.
prototype00
Isn't the whole point of an errata to fix a mistake in a published work? If this is a mistake, it needs an errata solely on that basis.Is doing something outside an unwritten rule for the last rules set REALLY a mistake? Not in my book.
Which would be why I said "If this is a mistake..." If it's just a case of the developers changing design philosophies and throwing out one of common design paradigms of Pathfinder, then that's not a mistake.
There are a lot of things in the book that aren't exactly as the designers intended them to be that aren't worth publishing an errata. Errata is for for things that affect game play.
I'm pretty sure feat prerequisites do affect gameplay.
I'm pretty sure feat prerequisites do affect gameplay.
With the game-wrecking power of even requirements? If anything, I think it'd be a positive effect...
With the game-wrecking power of even requirements? If anything, I think it'd be a positive effect...
I'm pretty sure feat prerequisites do affect gameplay.Ok, so Dodge now has an even numbered Dex requirement. Do you move it down to 12 or up to 14? Same thing with Combat Expertise and Spell Specialilzation.
What do these feats have to do with retroactively changing other feats to even requirements? I don't understand the point.
If you are asking what my thought are on what the requirements should be, then I'd lower everyone by 1. The requirement should be a certain bonus (like a +2 dex bonus) rather than some lame 1/2 bonus. Why would a 12 fail and a 13 make it when you DO the exact same thing?