White Raven Crown doubt

[Aspargo]

Guys, does having a "White Raven Crown" maneuver count as pre-requisite for another maneuver? i ask because the item description says you have learned a maneuver until it's used. (and the Tome of Battle for Dummies says its a easy way to beat prerequisites)

Thanks for the help, sorry of any english mistakes (not my natural language)!

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't know if there is clear RAW on the matter, but I don't allow it to work like that.

[Darrin]

Guys, does having a "White Raven Crown" maneuver count as pre-requisite for another maneuver?

By RAW (Rules As Written), yes. The text says that once you wear the crown for 24 hours, you know this maneuver and can use it as long as you wear the crown. So it counts for prereqs.

By RAI (Rules As Intended/Interpretted)... check with your DM. ToB causes some people to get twitchy or unreasonable about what they expect melee characters should be capable of doing.

[Aspargo]

Actually i know well my DM and usually if its RAW he has no problem accepting things (other than really obvious broke things). Anyway, thanks for the help guys!

[StreamOfTheSky]

It might depend on how he views the "house of cards" set up that exists for retraining maneuvers (that every ToB class gets at 4th level and every two thereafter), since there's some similar "issues" with it. With the maneuver retraining, by strict RAW, you can take an entry maneuver (one w/ no other known required), then trade it out later for a higher level one and end up in a situation where none of your maneuvers/stances from a discipline have 0 known required, making it impossible for a character to have obtained all those more advanced maneuvers....and yet, you have them.
I don't like that, several others don't, either.

Likewise with the crown and other items, since you can change the maneuver it grants, you could pick an entry maneuver, then once you nab another maneuver or two that require it, swap it out for one that also requires a maneuver known.

[Deophaun]

With the maneuver retraining, by strict RAW, you can take an entry maneuver (one w/ no other known required), then trade it out later for a higher level one and end up in a situation where none of your maneuvers/stances from a discipline have 0 known required, making it impossible for a character to have obtained all those more advanced maneuvers.

"Impossible" is not a synonym for "I don't like how the designers set this up." Prerequisites for maneuvers are explicitly only for the purpose of choosing them, not for knowing.

[Telonius]

I'd be very wary of this. Not because I don't want melee to have nice things (I think they definitely should be able to), but because it could make casters even more powerful than they are now if you allow items to count for prerequisites. Would there be anything stopping a Wizard from wearing an item of Lesser Planar Ally, and qualifying for Thaumaturgist? Not the most powerful class, I know, but just in principle. Early entry shenanigans would be possible for Archmage, too.

[Darrin]

Would there be anything stopping a Wizard from wearing an item of Lesser Planar Ally, and qualifying for Thaumaturgist?

Using magic items to qualify for PrCs is already allowed by RAW (Complete Warrior p. 16).

[Deophaun]

Would there be anything stopping a Wizard from wearing an item of Lesser Planar Ally, and qualifying for Thaumaturgist?

Probably because there is no equivalent of the crown of the white raven for Wizards. There are, however, equivalents for spontaneous casters (knowstones and that dragon helm thing from Eberron).

[Crake]

Would there be anything stopping a Wizard from wearing an item of Lesser Planar Ally, and qualifying for Thaumaturgist?

Wearing an item that lets you produce a lesser planar ally effect a) doesn't count as actually being able to cast the spell, and b) is not an item that exists by raw anyway.

That said, a wizard can just get arcane disciple for a domain that has lesser planar ally and qualify for thaumaturgist already, so that doesn't really change much, and as has already been stated anyway, items are explicitly able to provide prerequisites anyway.

[nedz]

Probably because there is no equivalent of the crown of the white raven for Wizards. There are, however, equivalents for spontaneous casters (knowstones and that dragon helm thing from Eberron).

Rod of Metamagic could fill several PrC pre-reqs.

[Deophaun]

Rod of Metamagic could fill several PrC pre-reqs.

Unlikely

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.

Do you have any PrCs in mind that require metamagic but not metamagic feats?

[BowStreetRunner]

Using magic items to qualify for PrCs is already allowed by RAW (Complete Warrior p. 16).

The difference between using an item to qualify for a PrC and using one to qualify for a higher level maneuver is a significant one however. Let's take the Crown of White Ravens as an example, or in this case the Desert Wind Cloak variant.

• Assume that a Warblade uses the Desert Wind Cloak to grant the Burning Blade maneuver in order to fulfill the entry requirements for the Master of Nine prestige class. The magic item is stolen from the Warblade by a Swordsage. As a result the Warblade loses the benefit of all of the class features and other special abilities granted by Master of Nine - although he retains the hit dice, BAB, and base saving throw bonuses. (Don't ask me if he keeps his skill ranks - I haven't found a clear answer to this yet.)
• Now assume that the Swordsage who stole the Desert Wind Cloak uses it to grant the Burning Blade maneuver. Prior to this he has focused on other disciplines so this is his first Desert Wind Maneuver. When he gains a level he learns Fan the Flames - using the maneuver granted by the cloak to qualify. The magic item is stolen by a Rogue. As a result the Swordsage no longer has access to the Burning Blade maneuver (unless he picks it when he levels again) but he retains the Fan the Flames maneuver. There is no requirement that he still meet the prerequisites once he has learned a maneuver.
• Now further assume that the Rogue who stole the Desert Wind Cloak uses it to grant the Burning Blade maneuver. He gains a level and takes the Martial Stance feat, picking up Flame's Blessing for some fire resistance. He uses the maneuver from the cloak to qualify for the feat. The magic item is stolen once more. Normally the Rogue would lose the feat, since he "can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite." However, according to ToB p 43 "Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites for learning higher-level maneuvers, or qualifying for prestige classes or feats." So here he comes the paradox. Since he knows Flame's Blessing he technically still qualifies for the Martial Stance feat. Or maybe he doesn't since it is the feat that grants him the stance. I dunno - DM call I think.

[Deophaun]

[*]Assume that a Warblade uses the Desert Wind Cloak to grant the Burning Blade maneuver in order to fulfill the entry requirements for the Master of Nine prestige class. The magic item is stolen from the Warblade by a Swordsage. As a result the Warblade loses the benefit of all of the class features and other special abilities granted by Master of Nine - although he retains the hit dice, BAB, and base saving throw bonuses. (Don't ask me if he keeps his skill ranks - I haven't found a clear answer to this yet.)

As Master of Nine is in ToB and not Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane, he maintains the benefits of the PrC even if he no longer meets the requirements. ToB has no such rider, and such a general rule would be self-defeating for many PrCs, some of which are in core (see: Dragon Disciple).

[BowStreetRunner]

As Master of Nine is in ToB and not Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane, he maintains the benefits of the PrC even if he no longer meets the requirements. ToB has no such rider, and such a general rule would be self-defeating for many PrCs, some of which are in core (see: Dragon Disciple).

Nowhere in either version of the PrC rule pertaining to lost prerequisites does it state that the rule only applies to Prestige Classes from only that book.

[Chronos]

It doesn't have to-- The PrCs in those books are the only ones that rule can apply to.

Look at it this way: If those rules have scope outside of those books, then which one applies? They're not the same.

[BowStreetRunner]

If those rules have scope outside of those books, then which one applies? They're not the same.

I would say the one that applies is the one that states you get to keep Hit Dice, BAB, and Base Save Bonus from the PrC.

[Deophaun]

I would say the one that applies is the one that states you get to keep Hit Dice, BAB, and Base Save Bonus from the PrC.

For what possible reason? Because it suits you better?

Neither book has topic precedence over any other. In fact, they have less topic precedence than the DMG, which includes a PrC whose capstone would be losing all the benefits of the PrC if those ruling were universal.

[BowStreetRunner]

For what possible reason? Because it suits you better?

Actually it would be because I just described both of them. The wording of each may be slightly different, but the effect is the same: you get to keep Hit Dice, BAB, and Base Save Bonus from the PrC.

[Crake]

• Now assume that the Swordsage who stole the Desert Wind Cloak uses it to grant the Burning Blade maneuver. Prior to this he has focused on other disciplines so this is his first Desert Wind Maneuver. When he gains a level he learns Fan the Flames - using the maneuver granted by the cloak to qualify. The magic item is stolen by a Rogue. As a result the Swordsage no longer has access to the Burning Blade maneuver (unless he picks it when he levels again) but he retains the Fan the Flames maneuver. There is no requirement that he still meet the prerequisites once he has learned a maneuver.

The difference here is that he actually DOES continue to meet the pre-requisites. The fan the flames maneuver counts as a known desert wind maneuver, becoming a self-fulfilling prerequisite. The prerequisites still apply, but the maneuver can qualify itself.

Take an example of the same swordsage going on to learn desert tempest, a maneuver that requires 2 desert wind maneuvers to learn, before losing the cloak. The swordsage, now knowing 3 maneuvers from desert wind, decides to retrain fan the flames into a different discipline when he is next able. He now has 2 desert wind maneuvers, desert tempest and burning blade, thus still qualifying for desert tempest. If, however, at this point the cloak is stolen, he only has a single desert wind maneuver, no longer meeting the pre-requisites for desert tempest, and losing access to the maneuver.

[BowStreetRunner]

Take an example of the same swordsage going on to learn desert tempest, a maneuver that requires 2 desert wind maneuvers to learn, before losing the cloak. The swordsage, now knowing 3 maneuvers from desert wind, decides to retrain fan the flames into a different discipline when he is next able. He now has 2 desert wind maneuvers, desert tempest and burning blade, thus still qualifying for desert tempest. If, however, at this point the cloak is stolen, he only has a single desert wind maneuver, no longer meeting the pre-requisites for desert tempest, and losing access to the maneuver.

Where is your reference? I see no rule anywhere in ToB that states you lose a maneuver if later you no longer meet the prerequisite. The only time it states you must meet the prerequisite is when you first learn the maneuver. If you want to add your own house-rule that is fine for your games, but there is nothing RAW that supports your claim that the character would lose a maneuver in such a case.

[Chronos]

And if you're talking about the Martial Study feat, you would lose the benefit of that feat if you lost its prerequisites... Except that the feat doesn't have any prerequisites. The maneuver you gain from the feat might have prerequisites, but then we're back to the rules for maneuver prerequisites, not the rules for feat prerequisites.