On Bonus Feats and Prerequisites

[JaronK]

Actually, this was quoted elsewhere but it's important here: 

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

There's really no way around the fact that the Player's Handbook trumps the Monster Manual on the topic of classes and rules for playing the game (also PC races).  The Monster Manual trumps on monster descriptions.  Even ignoring all context (which you should never do), the fact that the Player's Handbook overrides anything the Monster Manual could say about classes means that the PHB rule about class bonus feats needing prerequisites straight up wins.

JaronK

[EjoThims]

There's really no way around the fact that the Player's Handbook trumps the Monster Manual on the topic of classes and rules for playing the game (also PC races).

If there was a direct conflict between the two you would be right.

But there is not. The PHB does not mention anything on the prerequisites needed for bonus feats. The MM does.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

So, your argument is that if Kobolds have an ability, and if you're allowed to violate the rules by taking a feat you don't qualify for in direct violation of the feat rules in the PHB, then it's possible to gain that ability by becoming a Kobold, and that means Kobolds can't have that ability?

Uh yes actually that is his argument. I find it amusing (extra points for 'everyone and his dog' btw). Now I see the relevance of the kobold stuff. I hoped it wasn't just fodder. The question is whether or not the prereqs need to be followed as per the topic.

So far I've followed Jaron's argument and its well thought out. The question that I have comes riiiight in the beginning which is addressed above me. Is there a contradiction?

I'll post the full text so we can see if Jaron's syntactical interpretation is the linguistically logical one:

...
   Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class features. These feats may be chosen from special lists (see Fight bonus feats, below, and the individual class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details).
   A human character also gets a bonus feat at 1st level, chosen by the player. This feat can be any feat for which the character qualifies.

PREREQUISITES
Some feats have prerequisites.  The 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.

Note that I preserved the formatting. This is relevant for RAI, but perhaps not for RAW.

Off-topic, about the age categories thing, how do you get the 12 age categories for a kobold? (not just 3)

[BowenSilverclaw]

Off-topic, about the age categories thing, how do you get the 12 age categories for a kobold? (not just 3)

Races of the Dragon, a table (table 3-2 IIRC) in the Kobold section.

[JaronK]

There's really no way around the fact that the Player's Handbook trumps the Monster Manual on the topic of classes and rules for playing the game (also PC races).

If there was a direct conflict between the two you would be right.

But there is not. The PHB does not mention anything on the prerequisites needed for bonus feats. The MM does.

Did you read the quote?  It directly mentions bonus feats from class levels, then says they need prerequisites.  Step 1: say what kinds of feats we're talking about (level based, class based, human bonus feats).  Step two: say that you need prerequisites.  One then the other.  At no point are class bonus feats separated from the other two kinds (in fact they're right in the middle).

Of course, I could use weenog's tactic and point out that allowing bonus feats to bypass prerequisites lets an Awakened Dog Rogue 10 turn into a Kobold by taking a feat.  That is of course rediculous.  Then again, that's not really showing the rules, just show that the logic leads to something silly... but D&D has always had rules with silly results.

JaronK

[JaronK]

Note that I preserved the formatting. This is relevant for RAI, but perhaps not for RAW.

I don't feel I've changed the meaning by cutting out the irrelevant parts.  The first paragraph is how you get feats, the second is the prerequisites when getting them.  It's just "Acquiring Feats" followed by "Prerequisites" which to me clearly says that one applies to the other.  Things must be taken in context, after all.  I feel that the entire argument for Awakened Dogs being turned into Kobolds via a feat hinges on failed applications of context... taking rules in the sections on monster entries and applying them to class bonus feats, and then ignoring rules that apply to all feats.

Off-topic, about the age categories thing, how do you get the 12 age categories for a kobold? (not just 3)

Races of the Dragon does this.  It's the same book that gave us Dragonwrought.  It's at the beginning of the Kobold section (it's one of the reasons I feel RoD very clearly wanted Dragonwrought Kobolds to be True Dragons... but that's of course RAI, not RAW).

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

I agree with JaronK. I find it highly absurd that people selectively read and claim certain classes that gain bonus feats don't need to meet the prerequisites. You must take the text as a whole, not selectively reading each paragraph to the exclusion of the rest.

The reason the Monster Manual is allowed to get away with having bonus feats on creatures is because these are racial bonus feats, not feats gained by levels. All members of that race have the feat. PC's do not generally gain racial bonus feats, but if they did they would be able to use them without prerequisites as well.

[JaronK]

Theoretically, you could gain racial bonus feats by polymorphing... but even then you'd only gain specific bonus feats, not any feat you want, as all races other than human get a specific one (such as weapon finesse).  Races like humans and strongheart halflings get the note that you have to qualify for it normally.

But yeah, in context the monster manual is only talking about the actual monster entry, which is listing racial bonus feats.

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

Theoretically, you could gain racial bonus feats by polymorphing... but even then you'd only gain specific bonus feats, not any feat you want, as all races other than human get a specific one (such as weapon finesse).  Races like humans and strongheart halflings get the note that you have to qualify for it normally.

But yeah, in context the monster manual is only talking about the actual monster entry, which is listing racial bonus feats.

JaronK

Doesn't the Polymorph spell (or the Alter Self spell, I don't feel like looking it up) specifically state you get the racial bonus feats when you assume a MM form?

[Solo]

Yes.

[JaronK]

Doesn't the Polymorph spell (or the Alter Self spell, I don't feel like looking it up) specifically state you get the racial bonus feats when you assume a MM form?

Yup, which is why I mentioned Polymorph as a way of getting racial bonus feats.  But that only gets you the specific bonus feats... humans and such that get any feat they want have to follow prerequisites simply because their rule says as much.  You can't randomly get Dragonwrought that way, and honestly most of the racial bonus feats are stuff like Weapon Finesse.  I don't know of any creation that gets any bonus feat they want as a racial feat, and it's hardly a secret power trick to be able to get Weapon Finesse without prerequisites. 

Though turning into a human to get any bonus feat (that you qualify for!) temporarily can be really useful sometimes.

I only said "theoretically" because I know many DMs tend to nerf polymorph a lot so it might not be available in actual play.  Theoretically, you get racial spellcasting via Polymorph too, but I doubt many DMs like that idea much...

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

That's what I was saying.

A few monsters get something that can be decent (like Multiattack).

[Akkristor]

But if a human used polymorph to change to another form, wouldnt he lose his bonus feat for being human?
When he polymorphs back, would he regain the feat he lost, or be able to choose a new one?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

But if a human used polymorph to change to another form, wouldnt he lose his bonus feat for being human?
When he polymorphs back, would he regain the feat he lost, or be able to choose a new one?

This gets bonus confusing with reincarnate.

[JaronK]

That's what I was saying.

A few monsters get something that can be decent (like Multiattack).

True, though they qualify for it anyway so that's not really relevant here.  Useful trick when using polymorph to be sure.  I'd say the Human thing is the most potent.

As for humans losing their bonus feat... good freaking question.  I saw a Rules of the Game on the topic, but Skip said you lose things that are based on physical form but not mental stuff (so turning into a Dwarf won't gain stonecunning because that's cultural, nor will a Dwarf that turns into something else lose it).  Unfortunately, that's extremely vague.  Would a human lose Dash or Power Attack because those are physical, but retain Skill Focus because that's mental?  It's a terrible ruling, and in fact I'd argue it was the worst Skip ever made while doing Rules of the Game articles. 

Me, I'd say you always lose your racial bonus feat when polymorphing away from being human, and gain the exact same one back when you return to form, but can always gain a new feat when polymorphing into a human (that you obviously lose later).  Also, you gain the skill bonuses of your new form and lose your old ones.  But that's just my opinion... the rules are VERY unclear and the designer's intent is even less clear having seen what he was trying to do.

JaronK

[EjoThims]

The first paragraph is how you get feats, the second is the prerequisites when getting them.

Except that there is nothing to indicate the second paragraph is mentioning anything about the specific type of feat called 'bonus feat.' The rules for this specific type of feat need not be the same as for feats in general, as specific overrides the general.

You are falsely trying to connect the two when we already have another passage to contradict the connection that you interpret but that is never written.

[JaronK]

The first paragraph is how you get feats, the second is the prerequisites when getting them.

Except that there is nothing to indicate the second paragraph is mentioning anything about the specific type of feat called 'bonus feat.' The rules for this specific type of feat need not be the same as for feats in general, as specific overrides the general.

You are falsely trying to connect the two when we already have another passage to contradict the connection that you interpret but that is never written.

How can it be falsely connecting them?  The two paragraphs are adjacent.  The first paragraph does indeed mention the specific type of feat (namely bonus feats gained from class levels).  The second then talks about the feats just mentioned and how you need prerequisites with them.

And remember, the Monster Manual entry is still talking only about two things: creatures created by the DM, and monster entries already found in the Monster Manual (and, one assumes, reading any other monster entries found later, as Monster Manual is the primary source for that).  It's most certainly not talking about anything else.  That's why both references are found in sections entitled "Creating the Monster" and "Reading the Entries."  Do you really believe that rules in the section on DMs creating new monsters and reading of monster entries could possibly apply to PC classes?

If so, why can't I always get the +30 bonus from Glibness?  After all, only the context of the paragraph it's in indicates I can't always have it.  If the section something's in doesn't matter at all, then I get the bonus.  It's only the position within the Glibness spell that indicates it only applies while that spell is up.  Likewise, it's the position within the Creating the Monster section that tells me the bit on ignoring prerequisites with bonus feats applies to when you're creating monsters.  Meanwhile, the PHB reference is in the section called "Feats" so we can be pretty sure it applies when dealing with feats in any way.

JaronK

[EjoThims]

How can it be falsely connecting them?  The two paragraphs are adjacent.

Firstly, separate paragraphs are separate ideas. Secondly they are under different sections. There is no direct contextual link between the two.

  The first paragraph does indeed mention the specific type of feat (namely bonus feats gained from class levels).  The second then talks about the feats just mentioned and how you need prerequisites with them.

And remember, the Monster Manual entry is still talking only about two things: creatures created by the DM, and monster entries already found in the Monster Manual

You still have not shown anything to prove that, especially since the rules for monsters are the same as the rules for players. Until you can actually cite your position on this idea, it is entirely bogus.

And remember, since you're ignoring the sectioning in the PHB feat rules, the section a rule is in doesn't matter. 



Really, though, just look at this exactly as you do the dragonwrought issue. You are being quite the hypocrite here.

In one, you take unrelated items that were not intended to be used together and apply them without the context surrounding them because that context is not actually a limit on the mechanical definitions and the rules.

In the other, you say that taking unrelated items that were not intended to be used together and applying them without the context surrounding them because that context is not actually a limit on the mechanical definitions and the rules is wrong.

[snakeman830]

Wouldn't this fall under "Specific trumps general"?  Class-granted bonus feats are specifically called out when you don't neet to meet Prerequisites (i.e., Monk bonus feats, Ranger combat styles).  Could it not be inferred, then, that if that specification is NOT present (as is definitely the case with Rogue bonus feats), that prerequisites must be met?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Wouldn't this fall under "Specific trumps general"?  Class-granted bonus feats are specifically called out when you don't neet to meet Prerequisites (i.e., Monk bonus feats, Ranger combat styles).  Could it not be inferred, then, that if that specification is NOT present (as is definitely the case with Rogue bonus feats), that prerequisites must be met?

But there are also class-granted bonus feats where they call out that you do need to meet prereqs.