Fridge Logic and You

[Sinfire Titan]

This thread is dedicated to the numerous instances of contradictory rules that have managed to plague this system for the past 7 or so years. I'll start:



Far Shot: A feat that doubles the range of any ranged weapon you wield. It's requirements? A feat that requires you to be within 30ft of the target to use. FYI, a majority of the thrown weapons have a range increment of 20ft after the application of the Far Shot feat, but when you add in the Distance quality, PrC abilities, and other effects that improve a ranged weapon's range increments, and the prerequisite feat becomes largely counter-intuitive to what you are doing.

Plus, how much sense does it make fluff-wise? In order to take a feat that doubles my range, I need a feat that only works up close...


Weapon Finesse: A famous one, but fairly easy to overlook. Power Attack requires a Str of 13, but functions off of your BAB. Weapon Finesse is the exact opposite; it requires a BAB of +1, but makes use of your Dex score. Shouldn't this be the other way around? As-is, a 1st level Rogue cannot take Weapon Finesse even if his Dex score is 20. That's an entire level of him being forced to use a dump-stat to make attack rolls. meanwhile, the Barbarian is allowed to take advantage of the Power Attack feat he took. Not very fair, IMO. I know many DMs allow you to ignore the BAB+1 requirement on Weapon Finesse, but that's not the point of this thread.

Die-Hard: This one never made sense to me. Why does Die Hard require the Endurance feat instead of something like Toughness or Great Fortitude (both of which make marginally more sense)?

More importantly, why did this feat get outclassed so easily? A PrC (Frenzied Berserker) class feature does it's job better (and IIRC, FB doesn't require Die-Hard to enter), and later in 3.5's life we ended up getting both Shape Soulmeld (Rage Claws) and the Stance of Immortal Fortitude. One of those kicks ass, the other one is practical.

Oh, and Crusaders do not get Die-Hard at 13th level. They get a useless class feature that says they get Die-Hard as a feat, but it says nothing about meeting the requirements for it. By RAW, this means they have to take Endurance just to use one of their class features. Annoying, eh?

[dman11235]

As far as Weapon Finesse goes, my campaigns have a houserule where you can use either dex or str for attack rolls, chosen at level 1, without any feat.  WF just adds dex to damage (and has the same prereq).

Die-hard requires endurance because you need to endure the blows that put you below 0?  I got nothin'.

As far as Far Shot goes, I propose changing the req to Able Sniper, a feat that works when you're 30+ feat away.  And Far Shot doesn't affect thrown weapons?  Or maybe just fold PBS into Precise Shot.  Makes ranged characters marginally less feat intensive.  PBS isn't exactly very useful.

[SorO_Lost]

Plus, how much sense does it make fluff-wise? In order to take a feat that doubles my range, I need a feat that only works up close...

Simple, if you cannot hit anything close what do you think will happen when you increase the range?

Point Blank Shot can easily be seen as your marksmanship in close range being far above the normal. Since it's easier to hit up close the feat that improves your chances to hit farther away targets assumes your already skilled at close range.

Anyway, the PHB says Sorcerers are the face of the party. Did the flavor writers even see the classes they were writing about? The guy who stabs you in your sleep and pockets your wallet makes a better costumer relations employee than the sorcerer.

[woodenbandman]

^The average sorceror doesn't even have enough skill points for all the social skills.

[Endarire]

Barring humans, an average INT Sorcerer doesn't have enough skill points for Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge (arcana).

[Kaelik]

Oh, and Crusaders do not get Die-Hard at 13th level. They get a useless class feature that says they get Die-Hard as a feat, but it says nothing about meeting the requirements for it. By RAW, this means they have to take Endurance just to use one of their class features. Annoying, eh?

Rules for Bonus feats. You don't have to meet the pre reqs unless it says you do. Crusaders get their mostly useless class feature without taking endurance.

[dither]

Monks are able to Rapid Shot with their fists as long as they solemnly swear to follow the rules of reality.

No one of any other class or alignment can do this.

[EjoThims]

Monks are able to Rapid Shot with their fists as long as they solemnly swear to follow the rules of reality.

Wait. What?

[Prime32]

Warforged monk go!

[BowenSilverclaw]

Monks are able to Rapid Shot with their fists as long as they solemnly swear to follow the rules of reality.

Wait. What?

Yeah, what?

[dman11235]

Oh, and Crusaders do not get Die-Hard at 13th level. They get a useless class feature that says they get Die-Hard as a feat, but it says nothing about meeting the requirements for it. By RAW, this means they have to take Endurance just to use one of their class features. Annoying, eh?

Rules for Bonus feats. You don't have to meet the pre reqs unless it says you do. Crusaders get their mostly useless class feature without taking endurance.

From the passage you use to make that claim:

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat.

Note the qualifier "often".  Unless they specifically state that you don't need to have the prereqs for the feat, you need to have the prereqs for the feat.  Is why rogues actually CAN'T take PTWF at level 10.

[Kaelik]

Oh, and Crusaders do not get Die-Hard at 13th level. They get a useless class feature that says they get Die-Hard as a feat, but it says nothing about meeting the requirements for it. By RAW, this means they have to take Endurance just to use one of their class features. Annoying, eh?

Rules for Bonus feats. You don't have to meet the pre reqs unless it says you do. Crusaders get their mostly useless class feature without taking endurance.

From the passage you use to make that claim:

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat.

Note the qualifier "often".  Unless they specifically state that you don't need to have the prereqs for the feat, you need to have the prereqs for the feat.  Is why rogues actually CAN'T take PTWF at level 10.

Wow I'm tired of this joke for an argument. No monster Bonus feats anywhere say they don't have to meet the pre reqs, because they all rely on that specific passage granting them feats with no pre reqs. By your bullshit half the monsters with bonus feats don't get them. You could at least try the slightly better argument that the sentence only applies to monsters because it doesn't specifically say humans.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

You missed the next sentence of the quote.

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat.  If this is so, the creature can still use the feat.

There are two way to interpret that.

Either
A)
IF creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat (in general, which is certainly the case unless you have a really weird assortment of books), THEN the creature can still use the feat.  That is, that specific feat.  So you can't use ever use alertness granted as a bonus feat, because everyone qualifies for it.

B)
IF a particular creature does not have the prerequisite for a bonus feat they have, THEN they can still use the feat.


This text is supported by the sentence "A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it meets the feats prerequisites."

[dman11235]

Oh, and Crusaders do not get Die-Hard at 13th level. They get a useless class feature that says they get Die-Hard as a feat, but it says nothing about meeting the requirements for it. By RAW, this means they have to take Endurance just to use one of their class features. Annoying, eh?

Rules for Bonus feats. You don't have to meet the pre reqs unless it says you do. Crusaders get their mostly useless class feature without taking endurance.

From the passage you use to make that claim:

Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat.

Note the qualifier "often".  Unless they specifically state that you don't need to have the prereqs for the feat, you need to have the prereqs for the feat.  Is why rogues actually CAN'T take PTWF at level 10.

Wow I'm tired of this joke for an argument. No monster Bonus feats anywhere say they don't have to meet the pre reqs, because they all rely on that specific passage granting them feats with no pre reqs. By your bullshit half the monsters with bonus feats don't get them. You could at least try the slightly better argument that the sentence only applies to monsters because it doesn't specifically say humans.

I'm sorry I didn't try to hard because I was short on time and so I didn't go into depth, partly because it was a really, really long time ago that I found the actual quotes that disproved bonus feats auto making the prereqs.  There's someplace that says racial bonus feats are free from prereqs definitively, but no where states that ALL bonus feats are prereq free.  You'll forgive me for not quoting, since I have to leave for an 8 hour drive in....2 minutes.  And I don't plan on carrying out this argument, so I'm off the topic, barring extreme circumstances.

[Kaelik]

I'm sorry I didn't try to hard because I was short on time and so I didn't go into depth, partly because it was a really, really long time ago that I found the actual quotes that disproved bonus feats auto making the prereqs.  There's someplace that says racial bonus feats are free from prereqs definitively, but no where states that ALL bonus feats are prereq free.  You'll forgive me for not quoting, since I have to leave for an 8 hour drive in....2 minutes.  And I don't plan on carrying out this argument, so I'm off the topic, barring extreme circumstances.

You never found the actual quotes that disprove bonus feat because they don't exist. The MM says 1) Many creatures do not meet the requirements for their bonus feats. 2) They still gain the feats and use them without meeting the pre-reqs.

Your argument is that because it's in the MM and says creature in the first sentence that it only applies to racial bonus feats, and not to class bonus feats. This is of course, totally wrong.

The MM itself gives an example of having a class bonus feat (from the Cleric War Domain) that specifically refers back to the above passage. Therefore it is clear that the above passage is a descriptive statement about Cleric Domain feats as well. There is no possible distinction that can be made between Cleric bonus feats and Rogue bonus feats and Crusader bonus feats. The default circumstance for bonus feats is they need not meet pre-reqs, and only the Fighters explicit statement that he must meet pre-reqs requires such.

The fact that you don't think it's balanced and therefore attempt every possible logical contortion and fallacy to "prove" that they need to meet pre-reqs has nothing to do with anything. The actual rules are clear. How balanced they are is not my concern.

[JaronK]

Actually, I checked this out too, and the quote Dman refers to is in the PHB, page 87, at the beginning of the feats section.  Specifically, it mentions bonus feats ("Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class features...") while talking about acquiring feats and then immediately goes into prerequisites ("Your character must have the indicated ability score, class features, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat").  Since no distinction is made here between bonus feats and level gained feats, and the prerequisites section on page 87 is talking about both of those (which is quite clear if you read it) the prerequisites do indeed apply to bonus feats.

The MM section of course contradicts this only if you assume it's talking about class gained bonus feats... which it's not.  It's talking about racial bonus feats for monsters ("creatures") only.  Remember, the PHB specifies that it's talking about class gained and level gained feats, meaning the only thing left for the MM to be talking about is creature racial feats.  Note however that the PHB does specify that the human bonus feat must follow prerequisites, and does so on page 87.

What we're really dealing with is the simple fact that there are multiple writers of the D&D books.  Whoever wrote that section of the Monster Manual was not the same person who did the prerequisites section in the PHB.  However, what we can be certain of is that the Rogue class was written under the assumptions given in the PHB, since it too is in the PHB, and that assumes that class based feats require prerequisites.  The Monster Manual assumes that bonus feats can ignore requirements, but that assumption is only certain for things printed in the monster manual (and of course it easily extends to other creatures in other monster manuals and similar books). 

Of course, the Cleric War Domain thing is an obvious mistake, similar to Monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes.  But taking that error and assuming it voids the clearly spelled out rules on page 87 for the purpose of munchkining a character to power is downright silly.

JaronK

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Then why the qualifying text?

"A human character also gets a bonus feat at 1st level, chosen by the player. This feat can be of any feat for which the character qualifies. "

And arguing that "player characters" are not "creatures" is an exercise in futility.  Unless you want to say that they can't be hit by, say, "magic missile".

[Kaelik]

But taking that error and assuming it voids the clearly spelled out rules on page 87 for the purpose of munchkining a character to power is downright silly.

Thank you for moralizing for no discernible reason. Now you can try reading the actual thread instead of just searching for "bonus feats" to spread your "The part that supports you is a mistake, the part that supports me isn't," gospel. See how we are talking about Crusaders getting to use an explicit class feature that grants them a really shitty Die Hard feat? Yeah. Please stop acting all righteous.

[JaronK]

Then why the qualifying text?

"A human character also gets a bonus feat at 1st level, chosen by the player. This feat can be of any feat for which the character qualifies. "

And arguing that "player characters" are not "creatures" is an exercise in futility.  Unless you want to say that they can't be hit by, say, "magic missile".

Not at all.  The MM is refering to creatures as presented in the Monster Manual, which weren't generally intended as player characters (though some obviously can be used that way).  The point is, there's some contradicting text between the two books, but the PHB should clearly take precedence for classes and races in the PHB, while the MM should clearly take precedence for the entries in the Monster Manual.

As for Kaelik, you can just argue with yourself here:

The fact that you don't think it's balanced and therefore attempt every possible logical contortion and fallacy to "prove" that they need to meet pre-reqs has nothing to do with anything.

Thank you for moralizing for no discernible reason.

Seriously though, by RAW the Crusader doesn't get to use his bonus feat unless he qualifies for it, a Cleric with the War Domain doesn't get to use Weapon Focus until level 2 (note that the rules say you must meet the prerequisites to "select or use" the feat, so if it's chosen for you already you still get it, you just can't use it), and Humanoid Monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes.   Luckily in these cases RAI is crystal clear, so I doubt there's a DM in the world who would actually nail the Crusader, Cleric, or Monk on this point.  However, that's not the case with the Rogue... RAI is clear there again, and actually agrees with RAW.

So let's not use the Monster Manual's entry, which was indeed talking about racially gained bonus feats (other than the Human one, which is specifically marked otherwise), and try to apply it to class and level gained feats, which are covered by the PHB entry.  Certainly, trying to apply the MM's entry to a PHB class when the PHB should have precedent is bizarre.

JaronK

[Kaelik]

So let's not use the Monster Manual's entry, which was indeed talking about racially gained bonus feats (other than the Human one, which is specifically marked otherwise), and try to apply it to class and level gained feats, which are covered by the PHB entry.  Certainly, trying to apply the MM's entry to a PHB class when the PHB should have precedent is bizarre.

No, let's use the MM which is indeed not talking about racially gained bonus feats, and maybe you need to learn how to read if you really think it is.