Point-blank shot is a prerequisite to Rapid shot. Point-blank shot applies to ranged attacks against targets no more than 30 feet away. Is Rapid shot similarly limited?
No.
Because?
Because it does not say it does. A limitation on a prereq does not automatically pass on to the next feat unless that feat references the pre-req feat in a manner that says it does.
As an example, I do not need to be using power attack in order to cleave even though power attack is a pre-req. Cleave is its own feat, and it makes no reference to power attack when I use it.
A given feat does exactly what it says, no more, no less. Point Blank Shot specifically limits itself to a 30' range, as noted in the text. Rapid Shot requires the Point Blank Shot feat in order to be taken, but it does not work the same way. Instead, it gives a different limiter (the -2 penalty to attacks). Nature of the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nature of the system.
Heh. Okay.
Many years ago, there was an exchange in either "The Strategic Review" or in early issues of "Dragon" between Gygax and a reader regarding how magic works in D&D. Gygax would try to explain, the reader would argue, and back and forth. Eventually Gygax said something that I always remember as, but probably wasn't exactly "It's that way because I say so. Now shut up!"
I'll shut up now. :-)
<wanders off muttering "si, il mouve">
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Ed, wasn't trying to be obnoxious. I was just cutting across the long speech about Pathfinder being a system that let's you do exactly what the rules say, no more, and that well, logic is only involved infrequently. Wraithstrike might remember the exact name of the system type, but I can't remember just now.
No worries, Lathiira. I do appreciate the answers. And yeah, I understand the bit about logic, too. That was really the point of my Gygax story. That and wondering if anyone would recognize the reference in the last line of my previous post. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That and wondering if anyone would recognize the reference in the last line of my previous post. :-)
That's why I favorited it! Galileo Galilei, of course.
Sorry Ed, wasn't trying to be obnoxious. I was just cutting across the long speech about Pathfinder being a system that let's you do exactly what the rules say, no more, and that well, logic is only involved infrequently. Wraithstrike might remember the exact name of the system type, but I can't remember just now.
Pathfinder is a Permissive Ruleset, which means that things are allowed to happen because the rules give explicit permission for them to happen, and they explicitly detail how they happen.
In this case, Point Blank Shot doesn't give you +1 to attack and damage outside 30ft because point blank shot says so. Point Blank Shot's range restriction doesn't apply to Rapid Shot because nothing says it does. The only relation between the two feats is that one is a requirement for the other and the rules place no special significance on that relationship, so you disregard the restrictions on Point Blank Shot for the purpose of Rapid Shot just like you would disregard the restrictions on any totally unrelated feat or effect.
The only relation between the two feats is that one is a requirement for the other and the rules place no special significance on that relationship, so you disregard the restrictions on Point Blank Shot for the purpose of Rapid Shot just like you would disregard the restrictions on any totally unrelated feat or effect.
I'm not arguing for a different interpretation of the rules, but this logic makes no sense. It may boil down to "it's that way because we (Paizo) say so", and that's fine with me, but please don't bring in specious logic.
Also, Far Shot makes an excellent example as why rapid shot wouldn't be limited by prerequisite feats.
The problem is that Point Blank Shot is a pre-requisite for Rapid Shot, so Point Blank Shot is *not* "totally unrelated" to Rapid Shot.
Put it another way: The purpose of Rapid Shot is to get shots off fast. So a range restriction doesn't make much sense. But the purpose of Point Blank Shot is to enable you to shoot at close-range targets. So why is PBS a prerequisite for RS? *That's* what doesn't make any sense. Unless "it's that way because we say so".
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.
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Absolutely nothing that says a prerequisite effects a feats benefits. Also nothing that says a feats benefits are affected by the feats prerequisites (other than that you have to have the prerequisites to get the benefits).
The only thing a prerequisite does is require you to have it before you select a feat. It has no mechanical effect at all.
The problem is that Point Blank Shot is a pre-requisite for Rapid Shot, so Point Blank Shot is *not* "totally unrelated" to Rapid Shot.
Put it another way: The purpose of Rapid Shot is to get shots off fast. So a range restriction doesn't make much sense. But the purpose of Point Blank Shot is to enable you to shoot at close-range targets. So why is PBS a prerequisite for RS? *That's* what doesn't make any sense. Unless "it's that way because we say so".
"It's that way because we say so". Because that's how rules work.
A lot of things about the rules don't make sense. Trying to use real life logic while reading the rules will give you a headache.
Example: You can make reflex saves while paralyzed*, but reflex saves are based on your ability to dodge certain attacks(normally spells).
You do so with a -5 penalty to your dex modifier though.
Another one, unless you are an unchained rogue or someone with darkvision, your ability to sneak attack people is worse in a dark alley than attacking them where they can clearly see you. In real life getting jumped in a dark alley would be an advantage for the attacker.
Galileo wasn't a Frenchman. It is "E pur si muove!"
That's not the way I heard it, but then I don't speak Italian, and I'm guessing you do. So fair enough. :-)