3.5 Augment Summoning for Druids (and an interesting derail about bonus feats)

[eggynack]

The first sentence states that "bonus feats" are marked with a superscript B. Where do you get this assumption that any feats not marked with a superscript B are considered bonus feats by this rule? Why would there be multiple different definitions of the term "bonus feats" being talked about in the same paragraph without differentiating between them?

Because there's nothing indicating they're talking about two different things in the text. Where do you get the assumption that the game has two entirely different definitions for what a bonus feat is? Because I don't have the assumption that any feats are bonus feats. I just think that when the game says, "Here's a bonus feat," that means that that thing is a bonus feat.

What else could "how to Power Attack" be considered, if not how to play the game? Why do you think that the rule for how to use Power Attack (and, by extension, if you can use Power Attack on a given attack) isn't part of how to play the game?

Well, one could consider them the rules for feats, but I did say that I would consider the rules for how to power attack part of playing the game. I'm saying that I don't necessarily consider under the surface aspects of character creation a part of playing the game. So, by this argument, the amount you can power attack for would be part of playing the game, but the fact that you generally need to maintain 13 strength to use it would not be.

The Monster Manual is, indeed, creating a specific rule that supercedes the general rule of needing the prerequisite to use a feat; however, it is only creating this rule for the feats it deems "bonus feats", and it tells you how to identify those feats: with a superscript B.

No, it tells you a way to identify those feats. All of the feats we're discussing here have things that denote them as bonus feats as well, in particular being called bonus feats. For example, all of the monk granted feats exist under the big ol' header "Bonus Feat".

[Zilzmaer]

Because there's nothing indicating they're talking about two different things in the text. Where do you get the assumption that the game has two entirely different definitions for what a bonus feat is? Because I don't have the assumption that any feats are bonus feats. I just think that when the game says, "Here's a bonus feat," that means that that thing is a bonus feat.

Never mind on this part; I was slightly misremembering the wording of the rule. I see, now; for anyone who doesn't, "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B." does not state that all bonus feats are marked in this way, merely that sometimes they are.

Well, one could consider them the rules for feats, but I did say that I would consider the rules for how to power attack part of playing the game. I'm saying that I don't necessarily consider under the surface aspects of character creation a part of playing the game. So, by this argument, the amount you can power attack for would be part of playing the game, but the fact that you generally need to maintain 13 strength to use it would not be.

I wouldn't say that a rule delineating when you can Power Attack, or use any other feat, is part of character creation; after all, every time you use the feat will be during gameplay, with the exception of feats that specifically modify how you build your character (eg Extra Spell). I would tend to say, however, that if a Shadow damaged a Barbarian's Strength down to 10, said Barbarian would be unable to use Power Attack until he was healed. That's a rule for how to play the game, not build a character.

[eggynack]

I wouldn't say that a rule delineating when you can Power Attack, or use any other feat, is part of character creation; after all, every time you use the feat will be during gameplay, with the exception of feats that specifically modify how you build your character (eg Extra Spell). I would tend to say, however, that if a Shadow damaged a Barbarian's Strength down to 10, said Barbarian would be unable to use Power Attack until he was healed. That's a rule for how to play the game, not build a character.

I don't even think that's necessarily part of play. It's like the underlying mechanics for how much your character is able to do, rather than what your character is actually doing. Having power attack, or having the ability to use power attack, isn't really part of playing the game in the same way that actually using power attack is. For evidence of this, consider the fact that they list rules for playing the game separately from rules for playing PC races and rules for using base class descriptions, in spite of the fact that the latter two could very easily be slotted into the former by the same logic that is being applied to feats. Redundancy isn't strictly a rules object, but it seems pertinent when determining what is actually being said. In any case, I think that specific versus general applies regardless of how you read the primary source rules.

[Zilzmaer]

I don't even think that's necessarily part of play. It's like the underlying mechanics for how much your character is able to do, rather than what your character is actually doing. Having power attack, or having the ability to use power attack, isn't really part of playing the game in the same way that actually using power attack is. For evidence of this, consider the fact that they list rules for playing the game separately from rules for playing PC races and rules for using base class descriptions, in spite of the fact that the latter two could very easily be slotted into the former by the same logic that is being applied to feats. Redundancy isn't strictly a rules object, but it seems pertinent when determining what is actually being said.

I guess we're just going to disagree on this one. I definitely agree that obtaining Power Attack is not part of playing the game, but I do feel that the rules for when and how to use the feat are gameplay, just as the rules for when and how to make a skill check, or a saving throw. As for your evidence, my PHB does not have a section entitled "Playing the Game" or similar. It has "Abilities", "Races", "Classes", "Skills", "Feats", "Description", "Equipment", "Combat", "Adventuring", "Magic", and "Spells". All of those sections have at least some relevance to playing the game; many of them contain much content for character building. For example, the section in "Classes" on Wizards tells you how to prepare your spells at the start of the day. That's not character building; it is something that actually happens during the game, and can be roleplayed through, or interrupted by a monster attack, as the players and DM wish. Similarly, the "Feats" section has material for character building, but it also tells you how to use these abilities you get, and in what circumstances you can use them. It also tells you how to resolve the effects of these abilities. That is gameplay.

In any case, I think that specific versus general applies regardless of how you read the primary source rules.

My understanding (which may be faulty) is that, unless a source is the primary source, specific exceptions within a source only apply to that source's material, rather than to all related material. In this case, my understanding is that, because the Monster Manual is not the primary source for how feats work, any specific rules printed therein override the general rules only for feats found therein.

[eggynack]

I guess we're just going to disagree on this one. I definitely agree that obtaining Power Attack is not part of playing the game, but I do feel that the rules for when and how to use the feat are gameplay, just as the rules for when and how to make a skill check, or a saving throw.

How to use the feat, certainly, and when to use the feat, often, but these are meta-issues associated with usability, and rarely come up in a gameplay context. The point is, the link between feat prerequisites and playing the game is tenuous at best.

As for your evidence, my PHB does not have a section entitled "Playing the Game" or similar. It has "Abilities", "Races", "Classes", "Skills", "Feats", "Description", "Equipment", "Combat", "Adventuring", "Magic", and "Spells". All of those sections have at least some relevance to playing the game; many of them contain much content for character building.

That's what I'm saying. By this broad definition, literally everything is playing the game. Magic items, a thing under the purview of the DMG, is playing the game, and the rules for special abilities, ostensibly a thing with MM primacy, is also playing the game. Of course, this would also include things that are not listed in the primary source rules. For example, if the PHB were to say anything of prestige classes, then the rules there would presumably override those in the DMG, because the PHB even has book and topic precedence on that decidedly DMG centered issue. This would also mean that the DMG absolutely does not have such precedence where the issue is concerned when considered in a larger context, which is a rather weird ramification.

My understanding (which may be faulty) is that, unless a source is the primary source, specific exceptions within a source only apply to that source's material, rather than to all related material. In this case, my understanding is that, because the Monster Manual is not the primary source for how feats work, any specific rules printed therein override the general rules only for feats found therein.

I know that's the case for rules disputes where both rule sets are on the same plane of generality, as is the case for the Complete Warrior vs. DMG issue, but here, where the presumably secondary source is absolutely a specific exception, and one not explicitly ruled against by the presumably primary source, I'm not sure that the primary source rule would win out. After all, the primary source rules are supposed to only come into play when the sources disagree, and there isn't much of a disagreement here. One source says that a rule applies universally, and the second agrees but points out an exception. The second source is acting under the assumption that the first is accurate, and proceeding from there, rather than stating new rules without basis.

[Segev]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...

...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

Therefore, when something allows you to "have" a feat without meeting the prequisites, its exception-based permission also allows you to ignore the part that says you must meet prerequisites to "use" said feat.

Really? I never noticed that all my players were Necropolitans. Every time I offer to DM I get a full table. I'd be happier to play more and DM less, but it doesn't work out that way very often.

Really? You should use detect undead more often. I know they're all using disguise self, but a D&D veteran of your experience should knwo to run various detection magics periodically as habit.

[Zilzmaer]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...

Well, yes, but I was arguing strictly based on the RAW. As I stated, I've never considered playing with what Curmudgeon says is RAW on this issue (or a good deal others, for that matter).

...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

Therefore, when something allows you to "have" a feat without meeting the prequisites, its exception-based permission also allows you to ignore the part that says you must meet prerequisites to "use" said feat.

I will definitely admit that you have a point here. I might even come back to address it in a future post. But for now, unfortunately, I'm falling asleep, because I've been up for ~26 hours now, and I've been filling the time between comments here with updating statblocks for Summon Nature's Ally to reflect Greenbound Summoning/Ashbound/Rashemi Elemental Summoning/Augment Summoning/Augment Elemental, because I hate myselfsomeday want to play a summoner druid. So I bid you people good night, and thank you for keeping the discussion civil.



EDIT:

The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

It states that you must meet prerequisites in order to both "have and use" feats, meaning that you can either have (but not use) feats for which you don't have the prereqs, or you can use (but not have) those feats. In order to both have it and use it, you must meet the prerequisites. While I don't have a specific rule to back me up, I don't think anyone is going to seriously say that you can use feats you don't have. (With the exception of abilities that let you act as though you had a feat for some purpose without actually giving you said feat.) D&D being an exception-based system, I think that's plain. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can," is, after all, a very flawed argument. Thus, if you want to use a feat, you must have the feat; thus, you must fulfill the prerequisites.

[eggynack]

Since we've gotten ludicrously pedantic in our close reading of a rule that is so painfully clear in its intent that for all PO purposes, it is safe to assume that your DM is ruling it such that you can use your feats unless he says otherwise (because any DM who would rule it the other way knows the game inside-out enough that, should he KNOW this reading is even possible, he knows that most players will not catch it if it's not pointed out...and we don't condone "gotcha" DMing around here)...

I guess, but I'm getting a bit tired of being on the, "Curmudgeon is holding far too strictly to RAW, to the point of it being problematic," side, and really liking being on the, "Actually, the RAW isn't nearly as clearcut as Curmudgeon indicates, and the rules seem to in fact swing against him," side. At the very least, I think the argument so far has shown that there's some reasonable doubt to the idea that this is the inarguable RAW, and at most, it may have shown that the rules coincide with the typical RAI, which would be a cool thing.

...I'll throw in my own bit of logical and pedagogical pedantry: The rules Curmudgeon quotes states that you need to meet prerequisites to "have and use" feats. It does not say "have or use." Therefore, logically, the two are not separable. If one is true, the other is true; if one is false, the other is false. "And" does not mean "one, the other, or both." It means "both."

That would be true were it true, but it's not true so it's not true. Or, to put that a non-ridiculous way, the text very much says select or use, rather than select and use. I might be missing some second citation that says a thing you're saying, but the rules Curmudgeon quoted very much say the thing you're saying they don't say.

But for now, unfortunately, I'm falling asleep, because I've been up for ~26 hours now, and I've been filling the time between comments here with updating statblocks for Summon Nature's Ally to reflect Greenbound Summoning/Ashbound/Rashemi Elemental Summoning/Augment Summoning/Augment Elemental, because I hate myselfsomeday want to play a summoner druid. So I bid you people good night, and thank you for keeping the discussion civil.

Fancy. To go a bit off-topic, I dunno that you necessarily need to do both of those. Greenbound and rashemi elemental summoning are a bit on the mutually exclusive side of things, with the former being better in low level games and the latter better in high level games. My typical methodology for altering statblocks is to copy and paste a template sheet a few times, and then fill in the details after, because putting in the little idiosyncrasies is invariably the most annoying part.

[Zilzmaer]

Greenbound and rashemi elemental summoning are a bit on the mutually exclusive side of things, with the former being better in low level games and the latter better in high level games. My typical methodology for altering statblocks is to copy and paste a template sheet a few times, and then fill in the details after, because putting in the little idiosyncrasies is invariably the most annoying part.

Well, yes, Rashemi is nearly worthless until ~lvl 11 or so, and Greenbound stops being very useful around there. But the DM I'd most likely be playing under usually starts us out low level, so Greenbound is worth getting. I'd also be trading out Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, because I've done that character before, and want something different.

[eggynack]

Well, yes, Rashemi is nearly worthless until ~lvl 11 or so, and Greenbound stops being very useful around there. But the DM I'd most likely be playing under usually starts us out low level, so Greenbound is worth getting. I'd also be trading out Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, because I've done that character before, and want something different.

I think the case against greenbound uselessness is a bit overstated, as those bonuses are pretty amazing, but I suppose it's a pretty low cost maneuver picking up both if you don't have to get wild shape or animal companion feats. Whatcha trading out for? I'm inclined to think shifter is the best way to lose the animal companion, especially on a summoner, but wild shape has basically no good trades.

[Zilzmaer]

I think the case against greenbound uselessness is a bit overstated, as those bonuses are pretty amazing, but I suppose it's a pretty low cost maneuver picking up both if you don't have to get wild shape or animal companion feats. Whatcha trading out for? I'm inclined to think shifter is the best way to lose the animal companion, especially on a summoner, but wild shape has basically no good trades.

I am planning on Shifter, because Rapid Summoning at 12 is the only way I've found to reduce the casting time for SNA. Getting access to Moonspeaker for free Augment Summoning and double duration summons is just gravy. I was planning on trading Wild Shape for the variant from Unearthed Arcana commonly called Deadly Hunter, because we don't always get our full WBL, and having Wis to AC means less spent on AC and more on other things; the boost to speed could be nice, too. Ideally, I'd trade it for something worthwhile and buy a Monk's Belt, though. Do you have a better suggestion for what to do with Wild Shape other than, y'know, actually using it?

[eggynack]

I was planning on trading Wild Shape for the variant from Unearthed Arcana commonly called Deadly Hunter, because we don't always get our full WBL, and having Wis to AC means less spent on AC and more on other things; the boost to speed could be nice, too. Ideally, I'd trade it for something worthwhile and buy a Monk's Belt, though. Do you have a better suggestion for what to do with Wild Shape other than, y'know, actually using it?

There's not much, to be honest. You tend to get stuff that's either strictly worse or just much worse, and I'm inclined to think that deadly hunter nearly falls into the former category at levels after you get wild shape, and even there the benefit is a bit on the marginal side. I kinda like aspect of the dragon from dragon magic, however, if only because it falls into the much worse end of the spectrum. I'd say that dragon magazine stuff like wild reaper is the best out there, but my list indicates that those options only trade part way and/or trade other stuff that interferes with your current plans. Your best bet might just be making up a trade of some kind, with the one that makes most sense to me being the addition of a domain. Still not quite even, I suspect, but at least it's the kinda uneven that's founded on incomparables.

Edit: The real answer, I think, is to just keep the ability and use it in a different way. Standard wild shape splits off into defense/utility and combat, so if you tended towards one of those you can tend towards the other, and aberration, dragon, and exalted wild shape are all strong feats that play very differently, so if you used one of those, or didn't use any, then you can run one you haven't used yet. It's one of those abilities that might just be too good to lose, and it's versatile enough that using it in multiple games doesn't necessarily bring about the same experience. The real goal, I think, would be the creation of an optimal platform for slinging summons, and that generally means something with high defenses that can keep out of the way. Lotta things that can accomplish that, including the will-o'-wisp with its magic immunity, the blink dog with its ludicrous teleportation action, and from wild shape classic, the venerable desmodu hunting bat, with its high AC, excellent flight, and enhance activated vision mode.

[Segev]

the text very much says select or use, rather than select and use. I might be missing some second citation that says a thing you're saying, but the rules Curmudgeon quoted very much say the thing you're saying they don't say.

*looks again*

Huh, you're right.

Never mind. Curmudgeon does seem to be correct in his reading of the RAW. It's obscure but unambiguous.

I stand by the fact that it is so obscure and so clearly against the obvious intent that a DM needs to call it out to his players if he's running it that way. Normally, I wouldn't argue "intent," but everything except that one bit of sloppy wording points to the designers BELIEVING what they wrote allowed monks (and others) to make use of the feats they are allowed to skip prereqs for.

I therefore contend that a DM who does not at least alert his players to it as he would to a house rule is playing a "gotcha" game if he tries to enforce it on his players after they'd built towards the contrary assumption.

[Darrin]

I am planning on Shifter, because Rapid Summoning at 12 is the only way I've found to reduce the casting time for SNA.

Golden Desert Honey (300 GP, Complete Mage p. 136). If 300 GP a lump is too steep, try using a Chaos Flask (100 GP, Planar Handbook p. 76) to create half a pound of it.

[Zilzmaer]

Edit: The real answer, I think, is to just keep the ability and use it in a different way. Standard wild shape splits off into defense/utility and combat, so if you tended towards one of those you can tend towards the other, and aberration, dragon, and exalted wild shape are all strong feats that play very differently, so if you used one of those, or didn't use any, then you can run one you haven't used yet. It's one of those abilities that might just be too good to lose, and it's versatile enough that using it in multiple games doesn't necessarily bring about the same experience. The real goal, I think, would be the creation of an optimal platform for slinging summons, and that generally means something with high defenses that can keep out of the way. Lotta things that can accomplish that, including the will-o'-wisp with its magic immunity, the blink dog with its ludicrous teleportation action, and from wild shape classic, the venerable desmodu hunting bat, with its high AC, excellent flight, and enhance activated vision mode.

I suppose this is a valid point. I don't know when I'm going to actually get to play the character, so I don't know what the rest of the group will look like, though. Playing a tier 1 character, I don't want to step on the mundane's shoes at all outside of my main shtick, but maybe no one else will want to play a sneaky type, or no one else will pick up blindsight or other special senses, so it could be worth keeping around anyway.

[Curmudgeon]

Never mind. Curmudgeon does seem to be correct in his reading of the RAW. It's obscure but unambiguous.

I stand by the fact that it is so obscure and so clearly against the obvious intent that a DM needs to call it out to his players if he's running it that way.

So you think a rule about feat prerequisites, in the FEATS chapter of the rulebook, under the PREREQUISITES heading on the very first page of that chapter, where that rules section is only two paragraphs long, is somehow "obscure"?

[Segev]

So you think a rule about feat prerequisites, in the FEATS chapter of the rulebook, under the PREREQUISITES heading on the very first page of that chapter, where that rules section is only two paragraphs long, is somehow "obscure"?

When it requires a close parsing of "select or use" and noticing that the class features which specifically bypass the prerequisites for selecting them do not include the "or use" clause, and it is painfully obvious from not just how the class is presented but how examples are used that the writers intended it to permit the characters to make use of the selected feats, yes. I do consider that obscure. If it weren't obscure, you wouldn't have to point it out and then argue strenuously to get people to acknowledge it.

[Curmudgeon]

If it weren't obscure, you wouldn't have to point it out and then argue strenuously to get people to acknowledge it.

So you've got a subjective criterion: if you fail to apprehend a rule that's unambiguously stated, in the clearly labeled and obvious location for that rule, then it's "obscure". If I instead point out that the rule is in the obvious location and clearly stated, that's arguing strenuously to overcome its "obscurity".

[daryen]

More to the point, by sticking with that reading, you have outright eliminated one class (Monk), and eliminated part of another (TWF Ranger). So, either the writers of PHB either made one mistake in a two paragraph rules section, or they wasted several other pages with a class that can't be played and another class that loses half of a defining class feature.

(Whether Monk and TWF Ranger are good classes is irrelevant. The issue isn't that they are terrible; the issue is that you literally cannot play a Monk, and playing a TWF Ranger is exceptionally difficult, with Curmudgeon's rules interpretation.)

[Segev]

So you've got a subjective criterion: if you fail to apprehend a rule that's unambiguously stated, in the clearly labeled and obvious location for that rule, then it's "obscure". If I instead point out that the rule is in the obvious location and clearly stated, that's arguing strenuously to overcome its "obscurity".

No. If you read the rules in a common-understanding way and did not happen to read that one sentence in that one section, but instead relied on the fact that you know what the word "prerequisites" means, and had no reason to check to see if the rules say that your ability to select a feat in spite of not having the prerequisites might not mean you can use the feats you've selected...that's not unreasonable.

In fact, most players of the game seem to have. As evidenced by the fact that you have to have this conversation so often and strenuously.

Following the RAW exactly is often all about being a literal genie. But being a literal genie DM without warning players about things that they might not realize if they haven't read the rules as closely nor precisely as you have and instead took a class at its apparent word and intent...is not cool. That's "gotcha" DMing, and while I am reasonable enough that I'd want to rebuild or even change characters rather than walk away in a huff when I discovered this about your table, it would also damage my trust in my DM, as I would now know I have to ask him pretty much any time an exception-based rule comes up whether it fully covers what it seems to before I risk taking the game at its apparent word. I now know I must read the fine print and know the game exactly as well as the DM, lest I be caught in a loophole of fine print with no recourse.

[Brookshw]

obvious intent

*cough* *sputter*, er, what?

[torrasque666]

I will note that in 99.99% of ranger and monk stat blocks that I've seen(I'm not going to trawl through my entire library) have the feats denoted with a ^B which would give it the same connotation as the ^B found in monster stat blocks. And before anyone says "well the writer's don't always get it right" its far too many samples to just be a misunderstanding.

[daryen]

I will note that in 99.99% of ranger and monk stat blocks that I've seen(I'm not going to trawl through my entire library) have the feats denoted with a ^B which would give it the same connotation as the ^B found in monster stat blocks. And before anyone says "well the writer's don't always get it right" its far too many samples to just be a misunderstanding.

Can't help you there. All I can go by is the SRD. And, if Curmudgeon is correct, then those classes/class features are pointless (or nearly so). Even if you dig down to the feat description, where there is a special note just for the Ranger feats, it only talks about being "treated as having" the feat. There is nothing that says anything or implies anything about "using". So if "having" and "using" are indeed separate, then that TWF Ranger had better have a 15 dex. Or that archery Ranger had better have a 13 dex *and* Point Blank Shot. Or that class feature is worthless.

[Andezzar]

No one disputes that it is bad game design not to give monks and rangers the ability to use the feats they get without fulfilling the prerequisites, but that does not change the fact that allowing them to do so is a houserule.

Additionally high DEX is not a bad thing for a TWF ranger. I see no problem there.

The monk is a bit more screwed with the RAW of bonus feats. DEX, WIS, INT 13+ is not bad for the monk, he is MAD anyways and not for the feats.
The IUS requirement is an unnecessary feat tax, but that could have been fixed by giving the monk proficiency with the unamred strike, IUS, unarmed damage progression, and the ability to benefit from effects that augment manufactured weapons instead of the weird unarmed strike class feature.
Stunning Fist is no problem, because the feat explicitly allows the monk to use it (even more often than others).
The required combat expertise isn't bad for a monk either (they tend to have more than DEX 12+ anyways).

BTW what happens if you exchange one of the feats marked with ^B with another feat? Does that even work? Does the monster still not have to fulfill the prerequisites to use the feat? I bet that can be abused. Remember Elves? They have quite a few bonus feats. I bet there are a few feats that an elf could benefit more form than weapon proficiency longsword. 30% concealment (3x Self Concealment) and 5 rounds of haste/day (Blinding Speed) will make some very dangerous non-drow Elves.

[eggynack]

No one disputes that it is bad game design not to give monks and rangers the ability to use the feats they get without fulfilling the prerequisites, but that does not change the fact that allowing them to do so is a houserule.

True. That the text pretty clearly states that bonus feats can be made immune to that rule is what changes that fact.

[Andezzar]

Only if you say the rules for if and when you are allowed to use feats are not part of the rules for playing the game.

[Segev]

...obvious intent...

*cough* *sputter*, er, what?

You read what I wrote.

I stand by it, in this case.

Normally, I would not use such terms; intent is rarely if ever truly obvious, though it is often fairly strongly hinted. Here, it is unmistakable to anybody who is not (metaphorically) deliberately trying to cover their eyes in order to avoid being able to tell whether it is daytime while standing outside in the desert in clear weather.

It is only through very careful parsing of the rules for feat prerequisites and the precise wording given for the rules for Monk (and many other classes') bonus feats that Curmuddgeon's (accurate) reading can be discerned. Everything written blatantly portrays (for instance) Monks as expected to have and use those bonus feats. It is clear to anybody who reads it casually or in depth that the writers of the Monk (and similar classes) believed they were giving the Monks those feats without need for prerequisite. There is literally no indication, beyond that extremely fine parsing of two well-separated sets of rules for very precise wording, that it is expected that monks should require the prerequisites for those feats in order to use them. A casual reading of the rules, without a rigorous study and fine attention to exactly worded detail, would not bring one to the conclusion Curmuddgeon (correctly) draws from the RAW.

RAI is ridiculously clear, here. It takes deliberately ignoring how everything else is written to pretend otherwise.


I will add, further, that one can easily see several ways this mistake between what is written and what is intended could arise. Two of them are simply that either the writer of the Monk class didn't read the rules on prerequisites as precisely as needed, or that the final rule on prerequisites was edited sometime after the Monk class was written and the Monk's prerequisite-bypass exception was not caught for update. Post-game-launch, so few people noticed what Curmuddgeon has that it just never rose to the level that errata-writers' attention would be drawn to it.

Heck, I've been rather involved in TO for years, and this thread is the first time I've actually seen this brought up. I won't say it wasn't discovered while 3.5 was still being published, but it was not a well-known rules hole, and it was not something that 99.999% of gaming tables would ever even realize was an issue.

It is painfully clear what was intended. So much so that the fact that what was intended and what actually is written are different is obscure knowledge, where "obscure" means "not well-known even amongst the optimization community."

[Andezzar]

Heck, I've been rather involved in TO for years, and this thread is the first time I've actually seen this brought up. I won't say it wasn't discovered while 3.5 was still being published, but it was not a well-known rules hole, and it was not something that 99.999% of gaming tables would ever even realize was an issue.

It is painfully clear what was intended. So much so that the fact that what was intended and what actually is written are different is obscure knowledge, where "obscure" means "not well-known even amongst the optimization community."

I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)

[torrasque666]

I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)

There is the school of thought of Martial Monks taking things like (Greater) Weapon Specialization, or other things that require a minimum Fighter level to take, at first level. Not the most powerful use of the bonus feat, but a cheesy one.

[Segev]

I doubt there are many TO monks or rangers that need this RAI and I can't remember any TO tricks that (ab)use that characters need not fulfil the prerequisites to use some bonus feats. I think it is more of a houserule that is assumed to be used at most tables (like the monk being proficient with unarmed strikes)

Of course it's a house rule; the RAW are, once it's pointed out, clearly lacking in support for being able to use the class features they seem to suggest the Monk has. It's a rules error. Or dysfunction, as they like to call it around here.

All I'm arguing here is that, unlike most situations, RAI is painfully obvious. There is no way they meant the monk to be nonproficient with unarmed strikes, nor to have to take the prerequisite feats, without mentioning that, in spite of language using these abilities or granting special permissions to take feats for which you lack prerequisites, you can't actually USE them without taking those prerequisites and gaining that proficiency anyway.

The notion that you can get something without meeting its prereqs but need the prereqs anyway is so counter-intuitive that, were it the intent behind the design, there would have been something indicating it in examples or discussion as to how to take advantage of it. At the least, something mentioning "this still doesn't let you USE the feats" would have appeared, as it does in a few other areas where a partial exception is made but the writers didn't want the readers to take it too far.

TL;DR: The RAI here is obvious. Yes, that's unusual.