This happened at my table, and although I think I found the answer in the top answer of THIS QUESTION and THIS SECTION of the CRB I thought it wise to check here in case there was a more specific/accurate ruling I could be pointed to.
A character has:
(They had 13 intelligence, until it got permanently reduced by a creature with intelligence drain, meaning they no longer qualify for combat expertise, so they can't use it - But they still have the combat expertise feat, meaning they still meet the listed prerequisites of both style feats.)
Is there anything more specific by RAW or errata/faq that prevents the character in question from continuing to use the style feats, despite not being able to use combat expertise?
If you loose access to a prerequisite, you loose access to all other abilities that rely on that prerequisite.
The player will not have access to Archon Style or Swordplay Style until they get a Restoration spell, or similar healing.
If you loose access to a prerequisite, you loose access to all other abilities that rely on that prerequisite.
The player will not have access to Archon Style or Swordplay Style until they get a Restoration spell, or similar healing.
Please quote/link source if there is one?
Im not disputing them not being able to use combat expertise, but the other two feats dont have intelligence as a prerequisite - I cant find where it says you actually lose access to related feats that you still meet all the prerequisites for. The prerequisite of each style feat is having the combat expertise feat, not being able to use it.
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't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself.
Bolded (quoted from the prerequisites section of the CRB which I linked in my original post) seems to contradict what you are saying. I'm just here to establish if theres any specific rules (or errata/FAQ) that overrule what is printed here. If there is anything to support what you say please quote/link it, it would help me out a lot.
You answered it yourself, I've bolded the appropriate part. The feats have Combat Expertise as a requirement, and they no longer have access to Combat Expertise.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't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself.
But they dont need to be able to use combat expertise, that's what i'm saying. The rules clearly say they dont lose the feat, and its the feat that's required to meet the prerequisites of Archon style etc. (Just as you bolded for me)
To implant the situation into the RAW:
"A character can't use <combat expertise> if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the <combat expertise> feat itself."
"Your character must have the <combat expertise> feat in order to select or use <Archon Style>"
The RAW clearly dictates that they keep the combat expertise feat and therefore meet the prerequisites of (and can keep using) the style feats.
I'm asking if there's any other rules that prevent this from being the case.
You cant use the feat so it no longer counts as available for other feats until you do.
Combat Expertise doesn't need to be used for archon style to have an effect.
If it had to be used to qualify as being a feat that would mean you would have to be using it any time you wanted to use a style feat.
The rules only say that you need to have the combat expertise feat to use the style feats (check) and that the combat expertise feat isnt lost if you dont meet it's prerequisites (check).
That means that you have the combat expertise feat but cant use its effect, it does not prevent you from using style feats whose only requirement is that you have the feat.
The only thing we can quote is the work you've already done.
Which does not support the idea you lose access to style feats when not using combat expertise.
SOME feats have int 13 as a prerequisite alongside combat expertise and would be lost when int was lowered, these however, do not.
I asked the same question some time ago, trying to circumvent the dexterity requirement of Two-Weapon Defense, which I only needed because it was a feat tax.
I'd say that RAW, it works. But it's obviously not meant to be done.
So yeah. Feat taxes sucks, especially when they mess up your ability scores.
You cant use the feat so it no longer counts as available for other feats until you do.Combat Expertise doesn't need to be used for archon style to have an effect.
But you need to have access to Combat Expertise in order to use Archon Style.
If you lose access to one (e.g. no longer meet the requirements), you also lose access to the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forget for a moment that Combat Expertise grants an ability that you can "use", as opposed to something like Iron Will which is always on.
In the context of qualifications, "using" a feat includes "using" it as a prerequisite. If you lose a prerequisite to a feat (or a prestige class, or some other thing), you lose the ability to use that feat (or prestige class, or some other thing) until you once again meet the prerequisite. The text stating that you don't lose the feat is simply reinforcing that the feat starts working again when you qualify again as opposed to being gone forever.
I asked the same question some time ago, trying to circumvent the dexterity requirement of Two-Weapon Defense, which I only needed because it was a feat tax.
I'd say that RAW, it works. But it's obviously not meant to be done.
So yeah. Feat taxes sucks, especially when they mess up your ability scores.
Two Weapon Defense clearly has a 15 Dexterity Requirement listed in its prerequisites, the example i've given (Archon Style) has no stat requirement. I'm not seeing how TWD would work in RAW or is in any way the same as this scenario.
But you need to have access to Combat Expertise in order to use Archon Style.
Wrong. It says you need to have the feat, and we know it means the feat because further in the rules its specifies "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." - It does not say you need "access to the use of a feat", just that you have the feat itself. Which as per "but he does not lose the feat itself." you still have, meaning you still meet the prerequisite of "having the feat". If that feat (that you're explicitly told you still have) is the only prerequisite for the second feat you should benefit from the second feat without issue.
Forget for a moment that Combat Expertise grants an ability that you can "use", as opposed to something like Iron Will which is always on.
The use of iron will is to grant +2 Will. The use of combat expertise is to give you a defensive option. Uses are uses, prerequisites are prerequisites.
Only the feat itself is listed in the prerequisites. The feat section details that it means the feat itself, as mentioned above. There is no mention of the usability of the feat being a factor, merely that you have the feat.
Access to the use of a feat you have =/= The feat itself.
With that in mind, I assume because you have not quoted or linked anything that goes against this CRB RAW that there is no rewritten prerequisites sections, errata or FAQs to change it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May I ask why you created this thread if you had already decided on the answer to your question?
I agree with the others, using a feat to satisfy a prerequisite requires you be able to use the feat. Pretty much tautology.
May I ask why you created this thread if you had already decided on the answer to your question?
Well I saw the way it clearly worked by RAW, and couldn't find anything to support the contrary. It seemed interesting and (as ive mentioned multiple times) I wanted to know if there were any other official sources (other books, errata or FAQ) which modified the CRB text. These rules forums were a good place to ask about errata, FAQs and dev comments which would otherwise elude me.
That's why im specifically asking for rules quotes and links, not peoples advice/opinions of what they "would rule" or what they think it should be, because I like my rulings to come from RAW and intent, rather than community conceptions. If there is a RAW-founded reason why a player should/shouldn't be denied class features/feats in certain situations then that's how i'll always play it, otherwise i'll use my own judgement.
Two Weapon Defense clearly has a 15 Dexterity Requirement listed in its prerequisites, the example i've given (Archon Style) has no stat requirement. I'm not seeing how TWD would work in RAW or is in any way the same as this scenario.I asked the same question some time ago, trying to circumvent the dexterity requirement of Two-Weapon Defense, which I only needed because it was a feat tax.
I'd say that RAW, it works. But it's obviously not meant to be done.
So yeah. Feat taxes sucks, especially when they mess up your ability scores.
TWD is a feat tax for the Arm Bind weapon trick, so I had the same scenario.
While I understand where you're coming from, and how one could interpret the Prerequisites text, blahpers has given you the 'right' way to read it.
TWD is a feat tax for the Arm Bind weapon trick, so I had the same scenario.Two Weapon Defense clearly has a 15 Dexterity Requirement listed in its prerequisites, the example i've given (Archon Style) has no stat requirement. I'm not seeing how TWD would work in RAW or is in any way the same as this scenario.I asked the same question some time ago, trying to circumvent the dexterity requirement of Two-Weapon Defense, which I only needed because it was a feat tax.
I'd say that RAW, it works. But it's obviously not meant to be done.
So yeah. Feat taxes sucks, especially when they mess up your ability scores.
I'm sorry about that then, I didnt find that when trying to figure out what you were referring to with the TWD example. Overlooked due to specific weapon tricks not showing up in the feats section on nethys search for two-weapon defense.
While I understand where you're coming from, and how one could interpret the Prerequisites text, blahpers has given you the 'right' way to read it.
Would that there were rules sources to dismiss the CRB RAW and support another interpretation then I would happily rule it that way. (and I can see why some people would anyway, for simplicity.)
Fair enough. If you're interested in intent on top of just RAW, I'll have to delve deep into the annals of the forum. My brain is attempting to convince me that some developer or other commented on this situation at one point, but it never made it into the FAQ (probably a "no response required" situation). Lemme see what I can find.
Edit: No love. The only dev comments I could find were older comments related to the initial feat, not later feats in the chain. Most likely because Back in the Day, designers were careful to include previous prerequisites into descendant feats. Apart from that, a couple of other threads came to the same "use common sense" conclusion, which isn't quite as satisfying these days.
Good find. The sentence after the one you bolded might be even more relevant:
Therefore, if you retrain out of the base class and that causes you to no longer meet the requirements of the prestige class, you no longer have access to the class features from that prestige class, and therefore can't use that prestige class to meet the requirements of anything (including itself).
It demonstrates the chaining effect of prerequisite loss--if you no longer qualify for X, then not only can you not use X, but you can't use anything that has X as a requirement. If we use the same logic for Morbid Eels's case, failing to qualify for combat expertise prevents using it to qualify for archon style. (The word "using" in the FAQ seems to agree my interpretation of the same word earlier--if you can't "use" a feat, you can't use it as a prerequisite either.)
Since the FAQ is about retraining, it doesn't technically cover other means of feat disqualification, but it speaks to the principles the design team used in crafting those rules. Having a different standard for loss-via-retraining versus loss-via-everything-else would be confusing and unwieldy.