Temporarily fulfilled prereqs?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Can a druid take Improved Natural Attack (or any other feat for which he
fulfills the prerequisites only in animal form)?

Can a wizard with polymorph?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Can a druid take Improved Natural Attack (or any other feat for which
he
> fulfills the prerequisites only in animal form)?
>
> Can a wizard with polymorph?
>
>
> --
> Jasin Zujovic
> jzujovic@inet.hr

I doubt it. From the SRD: "A character can't use a feat if he or she
has lost a prerequisite." Because druids and wizards revert back to
normal form when the level up (I think), they would be unable to take
the feat. However, if your DM lets you level up while in animal form,
then you could take the feat.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:

> why on earth would you think that, specifically?
>
> > they would be unable to take the feat. However, if your DM lets
you
> > level up while in animal form, then you could take the feat.
>
> "can't use" != "can't take".

True. However, doesn't it take 1 week to level up? I'm sure that Wild
Shape does not last for the 1 week.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Can a druid take Improved Natural Attack (or any other feat for which he
> fulfills the prerequisites only in animal form)?
> Can a wizard with polymorph?

The player can take it. But just like with other PCs and their bonus feats, if
for some reason the player no longer qualifies, the player can't use it. Like if
a Ranger only has one weapon on him, his Two Weapon Feat is worth bunk, but as
soon as he has his 2nd sword, it's good again.

I'd say that the player still has Improved Natural Attack, but it only works
when in a form that can use it, like an animal.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a
thing.
>
> --
> Mark.

You win. I was mistaken. Granted, if I were the DM, I'd house rule
it, but I'm not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quiggy wrote:
> drow wrote:
>
>
>>why on earth would you think that, specifically?
>>
>>
>>>they would be unable to take the feat. However, if your DM lets
>
> you
>
>>>level up while in animal form, then you could take the feat.
>>
>>"can't use" != "can't take".
>
>
> True. However, doesn't it take 1 week to level up? I'm sure that Wild
> Shape does not last for the 1 week.

It only takes one week to level up if you are using a Down Time rule
variant. In some campaigns, leveling up is effectively an instantaneous
effect.

Additionally, leveling up is abstract. Down time with training assumes
that you are training periodically throughout that week. Nothing says
you have to be practicing that feat all day long each and every day.
Any druid with wild shape can spend at least 5 hours in animal form.
I'd think that would provide more than enough time to get your "Feat
training" done for the day, and you'd still have time left over for
"Fighting Training" (BAB, Saves, and Hit Points), "Skill Training"
(Skill Points), "Talent Development" (Ability Increases), and
"Professional Development" (Class Features). At least two of those
items apply at every level up. They ALL apply at 12th level.

I love 12th level.

Anyway, my point is that there is room to argue you don't need to have
the prerequisite throughout the duration of leveling up. If it's a feat
you can only use if you are feeling "Strong enough" or "Wild enough" in
the first place, training for the feat should only occur when those
requirements are met. The only question is if you can maintain that
requirement long enough during the actual daily training period.

I'd assume that a daily training period would be at most 8 hours each
day. That tends to match every other "day of work" requirement in D&D.
And as I pointed out, the druid has more than just Improved Natural
Attack to work on in those eight hours.

And all that only applies if Down Time actually does equal Training.
The DMG also suggests it may be as simple as ruminating over your recent
experiences. Which is even more abstract! ;-)

Well, I've rambled enough,

-Tialan

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Quiggy <quiggy@gmail.com> write:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> Can a druid take Improved Natural Attack (or any other feat for which
>> he fulfills the prerequisites only in animal form)?
>>
>> Can a wizard with polymorph?
>
> I doubt it. From the SRD: "A character can't use a feat if he or she
> has lost a prerequisite." Because druids and wizards revert back to
> normal form when the level up (I think),

why on earth would you think that, specifically?

> they would be unable to take the feat. However, if your DM lets you
> level up while in animal form, then you could take the feat.

"can't use" != "can't take".

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Quiggy wrote:
> drow wrote:
>
>> why on earth would you think that, specifically?
>>
>>> they would be unable to take the feat. However, if your DM lets you
>>> level up while in animal form, then you could take the feat.
>>
>> "can't use" != "can't take".
>
> True. However, doesn't it take 1 week to level up?

Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a thing.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsXX8e.32$_C3.592969@news.sisna.com...
> I'd assume that a daily training period would be at most 8 hours each
> day.

That would be a dumb assumption. Heroes are assumed to be training in
the background with new/potentially new skills *all the time*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Quiggy" <quiggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113872243.880671.297290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> > Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a thing.
>
> You win. I was mistaken. Granted, if I were the DM, I'd house rule
> it, but I'm not.

Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
level.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Quiggy" <quiggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1113872243.880671.297290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> > Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a thing.
>>
>> You win. I was mistaken. Granted, if I were the DM, I'd house rule
>> it, but I'm not.
>
> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>level.

Don't forget the need to fight your way through the levels by challenging
equal-level-same-class folks in what is essentially a coin flip to see if
you actually get the level you earned.

It amazes me that we even got to a third edition, considering how god awful
some of the 1E aspects were.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Fp29e.10658$lP1.7802@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Quiggy" <quiggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113872243.880671.297290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> > Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a
>> > thing.
>>
>> You win. I was mistaken. Granted, if I were the DM, I'd house
>> rule
>> it, but I'm not.
>
> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game.
> Training
> goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a
> special time
> out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary
> had you
> go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the
> next
> level.
>
> -Michael

Michael is right. A fighter is almost always training. Every time he
swings his sword, every monster he kills, every blow he dodges. Every
trap a rogue disarms, etc those are things that further the character
experience. Training on the job, is often the best kind of training.

Of course in my game, I require players who want to enter Prestige
classes to seek out special training from Mentors, instructors, etc.
Normally, this involves a meeting with the NPC, and quite possibly a
day or two spent as downtime while the PC gets the basics. Most often,
this involves, meeting, being told he/she has to do something to gain
entry, a quest. The quest normally is involved enough with the main
storyline that it can be done on the route to the goal for the current
adventure, or be handled as a one night or couple of hour sidetrack.

Training for a standard class, or another level of a prestige class
that doesn't result in an power/skill/or ability that isn't unique
just takes away from the game. Why make Robert spend three hours of in
game time swinging a sword at a target dummy in order to gain fighter
level 2? Just assume that most training if anything happens either
during adventures or during downtime when time is not a pressing
matter.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

~consul wrote:
> The player can take it. But just like with other PCs and their bonus
> feats, if for some reason the player no longer qualifies, the player
> can't use it. Like if a Ranger only has one weapon on him, his Two
> Weapon Feat is worth bunk, but as soon as he has his 2nd sword, it's
> good again.
>
> I'd say that the player still has Improved Natural Attack, but it only
> works when in a form that can use it, like an animal.

Wow, that was an awkward example. What I was going for was not weapons, but
armor, where if one wears too heavy an armour, some feats can't be used, like a
Ninja and their Ghost Step.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:57:31 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:

>Can a druid take Improved Natural Attack (or any other feat for which he
>fulfills the prerequisites only in animal form)?
>
>Can a wizard with polymorph?

Sure, IMO. He only gets use of the feat when he has the preq fulfilled, tho.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:


> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>level.

All training rules are optional. And not worth the recordkeeping, IMO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <qe7a61hgcd9nslirs49f71oik6u9lcfj8f@4ax.com>,
Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>>level.
>
>All training rules are optional. And not worth the recordkeeping, IMO.

True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level in
Wizard. I plan for downtime in my campaign, but some are set up so that there
is constant time pressure.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Decaying Atheist" <harker@coxdot.net> wrote in message
news:2a79e.12773$Zr.6028@lakeread08...
> > Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game.
Training
> > goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special
time
> > out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had
you
> > go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
level.
> >
>
> Michael is right. A fighter is almost always training. Every time he
> swings his sword, every monster he kills, every blow he dodges. Every
> trap a rogue disarms, etc those are things that further the character
> experience. Training on the job, is often the best kind of training.

That's not my argument, and it's not what the rules say. Your version
of "training" would only allow characters to improve skills they already
have. Time spent in life-or-death combat over a day amounts to *moments*.
It is irrelevant as a means of mastering combat skills, much less new
spelsl. Combat is the final exam; every day, however, someone needs to be
doing his homework.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>
>>"Quiggy" <quiggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1113872243.880671.297290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>> > Where do you get that figure? It's the first I've heard of such a thing.
>>>
>>> You win. I was mistaken. Granted, if I were the DM, I'd house rule
>>> it, but I'm not.
>>
>> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>>level.
>
> Don't forget the need to fight your way through the levels by challenging
> equal-level-same-class folks in what is essentially a coin flip to see if
> you actually get the level you earned.

That was for higher-level monks and druids (both of which had limited
numbers per level at the higher levels). Assassins had something
similar, but you weren't required to fight a duel or anything so formal;
you could 'make an opening' and move into it.

IIRC.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <qe7a61hgcd9nslirs49f71oik6u9lcfj8f@4ax.com>,
> Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>>>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>>>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>>>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>>>level.
>>
>>All training rules are optional. And not worth the recordkeeping, IMO.
>
>
> True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
> downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level in
> Wizard. I plan for downtime in my campaign, but some are set up so that there
> is constant time pressure.

In a "campaign," as opposed to a one-shot adventure, there should be
downtime.
Not only does it allow you to do take care of background training, it
also allows
those with item creation feats to make the best use of them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d4372g$9qn$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <qe7a61hgcd9nslirs49f71oik6u9lcfj8f@4ax.com>,
> Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game.
Training
> >>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special
time
> >>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had
you
> >>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
> >>level.
> >
> >All training rules are optional. And not worth the recordkeeping, IMO.

Formal training rules are optional but the standard assumption is that
they are going on in the background.

> True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
> downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level
in
> Wizard. I plan for downtime in my campaign, but some are set up so that
there
> is constant time pressure.

One of the many things not really worth worrying about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2005 15:11:12 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <qe7a61hgcd9nslirs49f71oik6u9lcfj8f@4ax.com>,
>Bill the Omnipotent <weis3w3@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:27:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Such a rule would be silly, given the assumptions of the game. Training
>>>goes on all the time, as per D&D basic assumptions. Taking a special time
>>>out for it is an artifact of out-dated edition thinking, when Gary had you
>>>go and buy the services of a teacher and possibly qualify for the next
>>>level.
>>
>>All training rules are optional. And not worth the recordkeeping, IMO.
>
>True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
>downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level in
>Wizard.

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=126

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tialan wrote:
>> I'd assume that a daily training period would be at most 8 hours each day.

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That would be a dumb assumption. Heroes are assumed to be training in
> the background with new/potentially new skills *all the time*.

Do you think they train more than 8 hours a day? If not, then what you
wrote does not contradict Tialan at all, and indeed you would share his
"dumb assumption."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Tialan wrote:
>
>>>I'd assume that a daily training period would be at most 8 hours each day.
>
>
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>That would be a dumb assumption. Heroes are assumed to be training in
>>the background with new/potentially new skills *all the time*.
>
>
> Do you think they train more than 8 hours a day? If not, then what you
> wrote does not contradict Tialan at all, and indeed you would share his
> "dumb assumption."

Well, if you interpret "all the time" literally, that means they are
training every moment of every day- even when they're asleep. So unless
you are in a world with days less than 8 hours in length, what MSB wrote
does contradict my assumption. ;-)

Of course, I'm not sure how you designate anything as "not training" in
such a definition.

I can tell you what I meant by the term "training," though. I meant
specific, regimented practice and learning new skills between levels.
Fighting with practice dummies, pouring over ancient spellbooks, and so
on. It's all the type of training MSB seems to think is stupid.
However, it is the type of training supported by certain Downtime
variants, and I was writing in the context of those variants. And
clearly, this training is not something that can be done "all the time."

But if we want to talk about what the rules themselves say or assume, I
haven't found anything to contradict my assumption in the DMG. For
reference, check the paragraphs labeled "Gaining Class Benefits" and
"General Downtime" on page 198.

On a slightly unrelated note, these Downtime rules appear in chapter 6
of the DMG, which is presented as All Variants and Entirely Optional
(see "Variant: No Sidebars for Variant Rules," pg. 171). Also in this
chapter are the rules for "Monsters as Races," Prestige Classes, and
Epic Levels– three very commonly used variants that are usually taken
for granted.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 15:11:12 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
>>downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level in
>>Wizard.
>
> http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=126

That's something I never really liked about d20 multiclassing. I
understand it, but I think your initial decision should carry more
weight.

This came to my attention concerning warrior classes, not spellcasters.
The sudden jump from 'only simple weapons' to 'all martial weapons' by
dipping fighter (or related) class never sat well with me.

That's why my class framework works the way it does. Start off as a
wizard, get lots of wizardy stuff. Switch to fighter, the guy who
started off as fighter is quite a ways ahead of you.

And vice versa, of course -- a fighter who chooses to take up magic has
a long way to go before he'll catch up to the guy who spent years
training as a wizard.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <50ua6153d5i8pr8b2jqq5m2au9q59lpd28@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2005 15:11:12 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
>scribed into the ether:
>>True, but it seems a little strange if an adventuring party without any
>>downtime still manages to, for example, have the Barbarian take a level in
>>Wizard.
>
>http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=126

Bard to wizard almost makes sense, compared to Brb->Wiz. On the other hand,
ranger->barbarian made a *lot* of sense for Belkar.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)