Heya, looking for serious answers to help inform a friend

[Lago PARANOIA]

ishy:

The bonus rule text applies just long enough for monks to use Stunning Fist and clerics to enjoy Weapon Focus. When taken to its logical and game-balanced but 'wrong feeling' conclusion, you can't do that because it 'feels wrong'. And because it 'feels wrong' in a way that empowers PCs, it's the wrong interpretation and will actually be accepted at gaming tables so rarely that it may as well be a house rule.

Hell, even with FrankTrollman's totally reasonable reducto ad absurdism, I'll bet you cookies that at least five times as many tables will 'suddenly' implement houserules that prevent monks and clerics from using their bonus feats with stealth-nerf prerequisite garbage rather than admitting what the rules clearly say. In fact, for the vast majority of tables I'd think twice about even making this argument because just bringing it to the attention of the others would result in a heavy-handed nerf intended to alleviate cognitive dissonance and/or unwarranted hostility at a perceived attempt to game the system.

That's just the fucking way D&D is run and you people need to accept it.

[erik]

Yeah, pretty much. The Rogue Bonus feat totally works, and it isn't overpowered, but it just seems hinky (mostly because non-casters can't have nice things). I don't personally know any MCs (other than myself, well, maybe one but he never MC'd D&D, just other RPGs) that would allow it instead of using their own house rule to make it so rogues cannot use their Bonus feats as written. And yes, some probably would rather deny monks and clerics rather than empower rogues.

[DMReckless]

The rules also don't say that you can get bonus feats at all. The rules on feat selection clearly do not apply to bonus feats, because if they did you wouldn't be allowed to have any of them because the rules for feat acquisition only give you the feats for leveling up.

The rules say you get bonus feats in several places, mostly class entries. Most of them have been quoted upthread.

A bonus feat is just a feat. That is a bonus. What feat you are allowed to select is determined by what the thing that is giving you the bonus feat say, not the normal feat acquisition rules. As a War Domain Cleric you select "Weapon Focus" because that is your only option,

Wrong, You are granted Weapon Focus as a granted power of your domain. That is how you aquire it. You do not “select” it.

as a Rogue you select "Any Feat". In neither of these cases do you worry about whether you are a level divisible by 3 or in any other way able to select the feat in question.

Wrong:

Special Abilities

On attaining 10th level, and at every three levels thereafter (13th, 16th, and 19th), a rogue gains a special ability of her choice from among the following options.
Feat

A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.

Would you look at that rules telling you when and how a rogue acquires bonus feats. Note the lack of the word “any”.

Let me see if I can find an appropriate quote here, ah yes:

If there is not a clause, you don't automatically have the opposite of that clause, you have the default.

Prerequisites aren’t defined in the leveling up rules, they are defined in the feat rules. The default definition for feat prerequisites as per the srd:

Some feats have prerequisites. Your 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. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite.
A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

When there are exceptions to this default, they are spelled out. For instance, Bonus Feats do not require the prerequisites to use as per the mm entry.

DMR, your argument is specious bullshit. You're trying to create gradients of distinction that simply don't exist in 3e or Pathfailure. Seriously: how the fuck do you think Stunning Fist and Cleric Weapon focus work?

-Username17

Stunning Fist works as follows:

Bonus Feat
At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Read the bolded. An exception to how the feat is selected. And then the monk gets to use them because they are bonus feats, which don’t require the prerequisites to use per the mm entry. It really couldn’t be any clearer. The monk entry for bonus feats is telling you that you normally need the prerequisites to select bonus feats, in perfect support for the Prerequisite rules under feats.

Cleric Weapon focus is granted as a domain power. It is not selected. Due to poor writing/editing, it’s not even called a bonus feat in the player’s handbook. Luckily, you said the monster manual has the B superscript to identify it as such, so you can argue its use at first level.

Get your head out of your ass and find me written rules that actually support your claims. Or, you know, suck my dick. (PS-And stop trying to claim I'm saying you can't use bonus feats without prerequisites, since I'm not saying that at all.)

[Kaelik]

That's not the rule. The rule is "You do not need to meet prerequisites to use bonus feats." The leap to "you do not need prerquisites to select bonus feats" is where your whole argument falls apart, because it's not supported by the rules you're quoting.

So to be clear, you are admitting that you were completely 100% wrong earlier, and the rules for bonus feats in the MM apply to all bonus feats including ones given by classes, and you were completely 100% wrong to whine about willful ignorance in applying those rules to class bonus feats, because that's not a valid distinction?

I want to get this down solid so that you have to come up with a third line of bullshit once we prove you wrong on the select vs use distinction.

It's almost like you have a pre determined conclusion, "ROGUES CANNOT HAVE THE FEATS!!!!!" and you will jump onto any argument no matter how pathetic to justify that conclusion, so if this is your new argument, before I make fun of you for it:

Can a Rogue use a bonus feat it has even if it doesn't meet the pre reqs? And if the answer is yes, what is the source of that rule, is it from the rules on general bonus feats in the MM?

And for added bonus, admit that it is not willful ignorance to think Rogues can pick any bonus feat, because the only argument you have for why they can't is something you didn't even know until someone else pointed it out to you in this thread, and therefore, clearly you were willfully ignorant earlier, or no one was being willfully ignorant.

[DMReckless]

So to be clear, you are admitting that you were completely 100% wrong earlier, and the rules for bonus feats in the MM apply to all bonus feats including ones given by classes, and you were completely 100% wrong to whine about willful ignorance in applying those rules to class bonus feats, because that's not a valid distinction?I want to get this down solid so that you have to come up with a third line of bullshit once we prove you wrong on the select vs use distinction.

It's almost like you have a pre determined conclusion, "ROGUES CANNOT HAVE THE FEATS!!!!!" and you will jump onto any argument no matter how pathetic to justify that conclusion, so if this is your new argument, before I make fun of you for it:

Can a Rogue use a bonus feat it has even if it doesn't meet the pre reqs? And if the answer is yes, what is the source of that rule, is it from the rules on general bonus feats in the MM?

Not quite what I'm arguing. See, I'm saying that you're making a leap from "using" to "selecting" which is not explicit in the rules you are quoting. The rules for using do apply to all bonus feats. Not sure I ever argued against that (except perhaps when I was talking about Pathfinder, which I've already apologized for assuming was the topic of conversation) but I'll look back through my posts and see if I ever claimed they couldn't be used in 3.5

My arguments regarding class distinctions were an attempt to dig at the intention of the rules, since bonus feats are not defined in writing. The terms "select" and "use" are used as keywords regarding feats, both in the description of prerequisites under feats, and in certain classes. There seems to be an intention on the writers' parts of making a distinction between which classes can select bonus feats with or without prerequisites. For some reason, this distinction was not made in the case of Rogues' bonus feats (poor writing, lazy editing, or intentional gap?) I'm not a frequent poster to tgd, but I should have realized from the start trying to argue intentions is a waste of time here.

Of course, creatures can have and use a bonus feat without the prerequisites. And, yes, this is from the monster manual entry on page 7. The rules on monsters basically say sometimes monsters have feats they don't qualify for, and we made them bonus feats so they can still use them. On page 301, talking about creating your own monsters, it tells you that if a creature's concept requires a feat and you can't make it qualify for the feat, give it to the creature as a bonus feat and that'll be ok. Is this somehow the default for all bonus feats? If it fits the concept, just give it to the creature? Is that where we're going next?

And for added bonus, admit that it is not willful ignorance to think Rogues can pick any bonus feat, because the only argument you have for why they can't is something you didn't even know until someone else pointed it out to you in this thread, and therefore, clearly you were willfully ignorant earlier, or no one was being willfully ignorant.

Actually, as I stated in the response to that post, it was something I thought about using as an argument overnight. I'll admit that (the poster) put it in writing before I woke up in the morning, "ninja"ing me if you will, but that's not the same thing as stealing someone else's argument.

I'm sorry if "willful ignorance" somehow hurts your feelings. I still believe it is the proper term to use here, since you are choosing to create a rule that doesn't exist and insisting that it does even when shown evidence that it doesn't, or at the very least , that it contradicts the precedence set in the description of feat prerequisites, which is the default rule for selecting feats.

Fighter bonus feats are not marked with a B superscript in the monster manual. Neither are human bonus feats. The errata for the Monster Manual talks about turning weapon finesse into a bonus feat and reassigning a specific list of creatures with it other feats to replace their feats from HD. This is consistant with the rules on MM pg 306 about giving creatures bonus feats to match their concepts. In the DMG sample NPCs, none of the bonus feats are marked with B superscript. In the MM, the half-fiend Cleric on page 148 has weapon focus as a bonus feat, and the entry under domain says War (Weapon Focus bonus feat). The half-elf vampire monk shadowdancer on page 251 lists his monk bonus feats with the B supercript, yet the human fighter vampire doesn't have the B superscript on his human and fighter bonus feats.

Now, technically, the entry under human says "extra" feat, not "bonus" feat, but they are refered to as bonus feats (page 111 DMG was the first one I found,but we know they're called that elsewhere also.) This means that humans can also select any feat at level one, right? No prerequisites required, because it's a bonus feat. That's what you're saying. I need to look at some Epic feats if that's the case since being epic is just a prerequisite.

Frankly, I'd be happy to let rogues select feats without prerequisites if that's what the rules said. The rules don't say that, however, not that I've found or you've shown me.

And Kaelik, because I don't post here that much, you may not know this about me, but I'm willing to admit when I've been proven wrong and grow from these types of discussions. Frank has persuaded me on a number of topics. There are some, however, that just don't bear the proof some people think they do. I think this is one of those.

[Roog]

My arguments regarding class distinctions were an attempt to dig at the intention of the rules, since bonus feats are not defined in writing.

What makes you believe that there is any specific intention of the rules?

If you are talking about Pathfinder, it's quite possible that the only intention was to copy 3.5.

[DMReckless]

My arguments regarding class distinctions were an attempt to dig at the intention of the rules, since bonus feats are not defined in writing.

What makes you believe that there is any specific intention of the rules?

If you are talking about Pathfinder, it's quite possible that the only intention was to copy 3.5.

That's why I said it was a mistake, and waste of time, trying to dig at the intention here at tgd. Moving on.

[DMReckless]

Nope, just as I thought, I have not stated that you needed the prerequisites to use a bonus feat. Hell, my initial post here included two quotes about how rangers and monks could break the prerequisite rule for selection of bonus feats.

Not sure why people want to deny that 3.5 makes a distinction between selecting a feat and using a feat. Or if everyone just wants to pretend there isn't a difference between assigning a monster a bonus feat and a character selecting a bonus feat granted by their class.

[Kaelik]

Not quite what I'm arguing. See, I'm saying that you're making a leap from "using" to "selecting" which is not explicit in the rules you are quoting. The rules for using do apply to all bonus feats.

No, that's an argument you didn't even know existed for your first eight posts in this thread, and which you are now championing. I'm attempting to get you to fully admit the error of your previous argument before telling you why that argument is also wrong.

My arguments regarding class distinctions were an attempt to dig at the intention of the rules, since bonus feats are not defined in writing.

...

Of course, creatures can have and use a bonus feat without the prerequisites. And, yes, this is from the monster manual entry on page 7.

No, your arguments initially didn't even make notice of the distinction between having, using, and selecting bonus feats. Your initial arguments were that bonus feats must always meet the pre reqs for using as well as selecting (because you did not realize the distinction exists) and that the MM rules for all bonus feats don't apply to bonus feats granted by class, such as Cleric or Rogue. To whit:

It is willful ignorance to interpret the rules for racial bonus feats as applying to all bonus feats. The monster manual entry does not say "All bonus feats do not need to meet the prerequisites." You have interpreted it to say this, but it doesn't actually state this.

...

I'm pretty sure the monster manual entry was specifically talking about monster bonus feats. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a wotc published npc who has a Bonus Feat without the prerequisites granted by a class that didn't specifically note that the prerequisites weren't required (Ranger TWF or Monk Feats) with the exception of a War Domain Cleric who gains Weapon Focus as a granted power, not a bonus feat. So, the reading being used here for bonus feat still seems like pretty willful ignorance when applies to class bonus feats.

Which is of course, completely wrong. They are not rules for racial bonus feats, they are rules for bonus feats. All bonus feats follow the MM rules about use without meeting pre reqs. But some bonus feats, like Fighter and Wizard, require you to meet pre reqs to select them.

This means that if a fighter gets dex drained, he can still use TWFing, provided he took it as a bonus feat.

But since you now deny you ever argued that the MM rules don't apply to class granted feats, I will count that as a complete revocation and move on to prove your new argument for why Rogues can't have feats wrong.

I'm sorry if "willful ignorance" somehow hurts your feelings. I still believe it is the proper term to use here, since you are choosing to create a rule that doesn't exist and insisting that it does even when shown evidence that it doesn't, or at the very least , that it contradicts the precedence set in the description of feat prerequisites, which is the default rule for selecting feats.

No, willful ignorance is not the proper term because I am not choosing to create a rule that doesn't exist. Instead, I first choose to point out the rule that Rogues can use bonus feats they don't meet the pre reqs for, and you argued that they couldn't, until you realized you were completely wrong.

It was even further an incorrect term because you used it before anyone had presented any evidence of the use/select distinction at all, and therefore before anyone even could have been ignoring this evidence, and based on ow long it took you to find it when actively looking for it, it's not immediately obvious.

It was even further an incorrect term because you used in a specific context, and that specific context was that you claimed it was willfully ignorant to believe the MM rules for bonus feats apply to class bonus feats, even though you now admit that it true.



But now that I am done showing why you are full of shit on seven different levels, on to the part where I show how your use/select distinction still doesn't prevent the Rogue from getting a feat that he doesn't meet the pre reqs for. Brief summary:

1) Creatures can have bonus feats they don't meet pre reqs for.
2) Creatures can use those bonus feats.
3) The general rules for feat pre reqs is that you cannot select a feat unless you meet the pre reqs, and this is not contradicted for general bonus feats.

Therefore, if the rogue had to select a bonus feat, it would have to meet the pre reqs.

But of course, the Rogue doesn't select a bonus feat. It gains a bonus feat. And since there are no rules saying that you must meet the pre reqs in order to gain a feat, the Rogue still gets to gain a feat, and then have the feat, and use the feat, without ever meeting the pre reqs.

It's almost like I knew the whole time that the rules for "selecting" bonus feat never apply, and therefore the only thing that matters is if you can use bonus feats without pre reqs, hence forcing you to completely admit that the MM rules for bonus feats allow Rogues to use bonus feats they have met the pre reqs for, and making you wrong. See how it's not willful ignorance that I know the rules better than you do?

And no, this doesn't apply to humans because the rules for the human bonus feat is laid out in the feet section, and states, "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."

[ishy]

I think your phb is a misprint or something because mine clearly says different things:

Now, technically, the entry under human says "extra" feat, not "bonus" feat, but they are refered to as bonus feats (page 111 DMG was the first one I found,but we know they're called that elsewhere also.) This means that humans can also select any feat at level one, right? No prerequisites required, because it's a bonus feat. That's what you're saying. I need to look at some Epic feats if that's the case since being epic is just a prerequisite.

Uhmmm no, human bonus feats are specifically called out in the feats chapter as needing them.

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 the cleric one is even weirder, what? It is called out in multiple places as a bonus feat.

Cleric Weapon focus is granted as a domain power. It is not selected. Due to poor writing/editing, it’s not even called a bonus feat in the player’s handbook.

A cleric who chooses the War domain automatically gains the
Martial Weapon Proficiency feat related to his deity’s favored
weapon as a bonus feat, if the weapon is a martial one. He need not
select it.

A cleric who chooses the War domain receives the Weapon Focus feat related to that weapon as a bonus feat. He also receives the appropriate Martial Weapon Proficiency feat as a bonus feat, if the weapon falls into that category.

[DMReckless]

A bunch of completely true things.

Thanks, I missed those.

[DMReckless]

Stuff, some insightful, some wrong (I bolded select or use in my SECOND post), some carefully selected and parsed quotes about stuff I clearly labelled as interpretive and not RAW

Ok, so 10th level rogues and Psions starting at level 1 gain bonus feats in 3.5. The lack of specific verbage regarding whether or not prerequisites need to be met in order to gain a bonus feat have led you to conclude that any feat may be taken as a bonus feat without prerequisites, due to the entries in the MM regarding bonus feats.

I was wrong about willful ignorance, and I apologize. I see where you're coming from.

The definition of prerequisite on page 311 of the phb is:

prerequisite: A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained.

So, you can't "gain" a bonus feat without meeting the prerequisites for that feat, any more than you can "select" it. Exceptions being spelled out under the entry where you gain a feat, the notable exception to that so far being Clerics with the War Domain.

[DMReckless]

And because it’s fun to parse out quotes and tell you how wrong you are too:

You are an idiot. The default rule for feats is that you have to meet the prerequisites.
The default rule in 3e for bonus feats is that you don't have to. We know this because is fucking says so in the rules for bonus feats (all) as opposed to bonus feats for a specific class.

There is no entry for bonus feat (all). You made that term up.

It's not willful ignorance to read the only rules on bonus feats that exist, and then apply them to bonus feats.
Instead, they are rules for all bonus feats. For example, fighter bonus feats are marked with a B superscript.

No, they are not. Unless you penciled it into your books.

No, the rules state that bonus feats are marked with a B, and that you do not need to meet pre reqs. They do not state that you do not need to meet pre reqs for feats marked with a B. Instead, all bonus feats, Ranger or Fighter or Monk, are marked with a B superscript. And in any case where the source of the bonus feat doesn't specify, IE Cleric Bonus feats, and Rogue bonus feats, and Racial bonus feats, they don't have to meet pre reqs, because that's the fucking rule for bonus feats.

No, the rules state that you do not need to meet the prerequisites to have or use a bonus feat. Also, you again misstate that Fighter feats have a B superscript.

Also, Frank being wrong:

Stunning Fist says that Monks start with it even if they don't meet the prereqs, but the feat itself doesn't say they can use it without the prereqs. That is almost certainly not how Pathfinder is supposed to be played, so I submit that the choices are either that Pathfinder editing is as shitty as we already know it to be or the Bonus Feat rule is basically exactly what it is in 3.5 and exists in the hard copy books that have precedence. I can't be fucked to find out, btw.

Not quite, Frank.

Special: A monk receives Stunning Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. A monk may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk.

Even more Frank being wrong:

The rules also don't say that you can get bonus feats at all. The rules on feat selection clearly do not apply to bonus feats, because if they did you wouldn't be allowed to have any of them because the rules for feat acquisition only give you the feats for leveling up.

As I already said, the rules for getting bonus feats are under each individual class. They’re on page 306 of the monster manual for monsters.

[DMReckless]

Seriously, however, I'll admit your interpretation of the rules is at least as legitimate as mine. I'd likely "Houserule" an addendum to the Psion bonus feats to include the same phrasing as the Wizard bonus feat rules and call it a day. 10th level rogues can party all they want. in 3.5.

Back to your regularly schedule Paizo/Pathfinder bashing. Sorry for derailing the thread so much, I doubt anyone got anything particularly useful out of it.

[DSMatticus]

DMReckless, here is your first post on the topic of bonus feats:

Some pretty willfully ignorant shit going on here regarding bonus feats.

Ranger:
"He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites."

Monk:
"A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them."

Fighters, rogues, ninjas, no such fucking clauses. The term is prerequisite as in REQUIRED.

The bolding is mine: your original argument was about the selection of bonus feats, not the usage. Those quotes are totally irrelevant to the usage of those feats, and are only relevant to the topic of selection. You had to have been talking about selection.

You can't retroactively adopt the argument I threw out there. I don't think any of us are that gullible.

[DMReckless]

DMReckless, here is your first post on the topic of bonus feats:

Some pretty willfully ignorant shit going on here regarding bonus feats.

Ranger:
"He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites."

Monk:
"A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them."

Fighters, rogues, ninjas, no such fucking clauses. The term is prerequisite as in REQUIRED.

The bolding is mine: your original argument was about the selection of bonus feats, not the usage. Those quotes are totally irrelevant to the usage of those feats, and are only relevant to the topic of selection. You had to have been talking about selection.

You can't retroactively adopt the argument I threw out there. I don't think any of us are that gullible.

What's your fucking point?

My whole argument has been about selection.

I think I've said that several times now. It's other people trying to say I said bonus feats couldn't be used, which is false. The closest I've come to that is during the whole racial vs. class bonus feat issue, which hey, I'll say it if you want, was a rationalization made up entirely by me and not relevant to rules as written.

But thanks for saying what I've already said, even if you were trying to accuse me of arguing a different topic.

Also, first two and a half posts were regarding Pathfinder. And you derps say I have reading comprehension issues. Don't make me quote myself

[...You Lost Me]

I think this is the first time I'm siding with a poster other than Kaelik while reading an argument about Kaelik.

... what hath god wrought?

[DMReckless]

Post One: 5:05pm Accusations of willful ignorance, quotes regarding selection of feat exceptions

Post Two: 7:58pm: Assertion that we’re discussing Pathfinder,, statement that Prerequisites are the default (should have specified for selection and use, but did not), challenge to present 3.5 rules

Post Three: 8:45pm apologies for being confused that the rules being discussed were not from Pathfinder, but rather 3.5. Expression of belief/opinion that monster manual “how to read entry” section on bonus feats were probably intended to be regarding monsters, not classes.

Post 4: 9:05pm discussion of Monster Manual rule and how my reading of it was that it was separate from the class-granted bonus feats, discussion of the fact that the term bonus feat does not have its own defining entry in 3.5, but that Prerequisite has an entry defining it

Post 5: 9:19pm questioned why it would be required to have the clauses under ranger/monk that state that prerequisites are not required when selecting those bonus feats if the actual rule was that bonus feats don’t require meeting prerequisites to be selected

Post 6: 10:24 refutation that the MM entry is the (per Kaelik) “only rule” on bonus feats

Post 7: 11:13pm notation that Psions get a bonus feat at 1st level with no clause stating they need to meet the prerequisites

GODDAMN, it’s quarter after eleven. I have to set my clock ahead an hour and be up in 4 hours to get ready for work.

Post 8: 5:48 am. I’ve been thinking about it all night, and Oh, damn, DSMatticus ninja’d me. Well, better acknowledge that and post my thoughts on selection vs. use, hopefully, this will clarify my position.

Post 9: 5:56 post to reply to Frank’s post to clarify what I’m actually disagreeing with: the idea of openly selectable feats without prerequisites being supported by the rules as written.

Time to go to work

Post 10: 11:24 am Post responding to Frank’s absurd post regarding no rules about getting bonus feats and other nonsense, reiteration that the prerequisite clause regarding selection is the default setting for selecting feats when no other terms are introduced, such as with the Rogue and Psion bonus feats. And oh, look, an assertion that I’m not claiming anything to dispute the use clause of bonus feats

Post 11: 1:20 pm responses to Kaelik’s assertion that I somehow did a 180. I mean, DSMatticus gets that I was talking about selection from the get-go, but Kaelik wants to believe I was talking about use to start with and then switched. And, hey, reading back through my posts, I can see where I was unclear, especially with all that racial vs class stuff. (Even that, however, was an attempt to clarify that I believe the selection process for races and classes is different- MM says give them whatever bonus feats feel right for the concept, call them bonus feats, use as desired, PHB has several different clauses describing how classes gain bonus feats.)

Post 12: 1:40 pm quick response to Roog regarding RAI

Post 13: 1:44pm Hey, DSMatticus, see what I said there? WTF are you talking about, anyway?

Post 14: 2:30pm Thanks Ishy

Post 15: 2:51pm Apology for using term willful ignorance to describe what is clearly just regular ignorance. Definition of prerequisite from the glossary that says you can’t gain something without meeting the requirements.

Post 16: 3:22pm Poking fun at Kaelik and Frank for erroneous statements/claims they made in their posts. Turnabout is fair play and all.

Post 17: 3:40pm Agreement to disagree. Apologies for thread derailment.

4:01 DSMatticus claims I stole his argument and then accuses me of arguing what I’ve been saying I’m arguing, for several posts now, in a post that completely confused me.

Post 18: 4:20 I respond with confusion to DSMatticus’ post and threaten to quote myself.

Post 19: Now: I decide to post this summary instead. See what you made me do, you bastard?

[DSMatticus]

Post 5: 9:19pm questioned why it would be required to have the clauses under ranger/monk that state that prerequisites are not required when selecting those bonus feats if the actual rule was that bonus feats don’t require meeting prerequisites to be selected

This is the part that is obviously retarded. This is the part that Kaelik is calling stupid. This is the part I am calling stupid. It is a very, very stupid part.

It is impossible to derive the general rule from a clause within a specific example, because you cannot differentiate between "redundancy for clarity" and "an exception clause." Case and point:

A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Treating both of those as exception clauses leads to an unsalvageable contradiction. It turns out one of those lines has to be an exception, and one of them has to be redundancy which matches the general rule. So which is it?

Post 4: 9:05pm discussion of Monster Manual rule and how my reading of it was that it was separate from the class-granted bonus feats, discussion of the fact that the term bonus feat does not have its own defining entry in 3.5, but that Prerequisite has an entry defining it
...
Post 6: 10:24 refutation that the MM entry is the (per Kaelik) “only rule” on bonus feats

This was also retarded, because the MM entry actually is the only relevant ruling on bonus feats, and it refers to creatures. Creatures is a keyword in D&D with a well-defined meaning, and it includes PC's. PC's are creatures. Spells which target creatures also target PC's. If there is rules text in the game which says "creatures do not need to meet the prerequisite to use bonus feats," then PC's do not need to meet the prerequisites to use bonus feats because PC's are creatures.

Your reasoning during this argument has been terribly, terribly shitty right up until the end when you decided to make a selection/usage distinction. You made very bad arguments. Kaelik is trying to call you on those arguments. I am just annoyed that you are handwaving away the bad parts of the arguments you made before because "you've found something better now." I ultimately agree with (or rather, haven't yet found any problems with) the specific conclusion you've reached now: i.e., selection is distinct from usage, the MM ruling only covers usage, bonus feats are a specific type of feat so absent exceptions the general rules concerning feats apply, and therefore rogues need to meet the prerequisites to take feats. But your original arguments were still full of a lot of fallacious shit and Kaelik isn't really the type of person to let you get away with changing your argument before admitting your previous argument before was stupid.

[Parthenon]

Theres already the precedent for parts of the character you need to meet the prerequisites for to get but you can use even if you don't have the prerequisites.

With classes you need the prerequisites to enter the class, but once you are in the class if you lose the prerequisites you still get the benefits unless specifically told otherwise.

It is easy to apply the same to feats- you can use any you have no matter how you get them, but the only ways to get them are to meet the prerequisites or specifically be granted it. The MM rule is a restatement of that rule to clarify it.

[Kaelik]

I think this is the first time I'm siding with a poster other than Kaelik while reading an argument about Kaelik.

... what hath god wrought?

In what sense?

The definition of prerequisite on page 311 of the phb is:

prerequisite: A requirement that must be met before a given benefit can be gained.

So, you can't "gain" a bonus feat without meeting the prerequisites for that feat, any more than you can "select" it. Exceptions being spelled out under the entry where you gain a feat, the notable exception to that so far being Clerics with the War Domain.

Actually, the glossary has no rule value where it contradicts the description. And as seen, there are two examples: 1) Clerics, who we freely admit get to ignore pre reqs. 2) Rogues. So do you think that there are special hidden rules, or do you think RAW is that Clerics don't get Weapon Focus at level 1?

And because it’s fun to parse out quotes and tell you how wrong you are too:

You are an idiot. The default rule for feats is that you have to meet the prerequisites.
The default rule in 3e for bonus feats is that you don't have to. We know this because is fucking says so in the rules for bonus feats (all) as opposed to bonus feats for a specific class.

There is no entry for bonus feat (all). You made that term up.

Um??? There are rules for bonus feats. I pointed to those rules. I explained to you, because this was during the part where you were denying it, that those rules apply to all bonus feats. You now admit that those rules do apply to all bonus feats. What part of that is wrong?

No, the rules state that you do not need to meet the prerequisites to have or use a bonus feat.

Do you see any part of what you quoted in which it says "select"? No, so then how is that wrong. Instead, since gaining bonus feats doesn't require meeting pre reqs, and using doesn't require meeting pre reqs, how is that false?

But I'm glad you have finally admitted that you were completely wrong, that was all I ever asked. Would have been nice if you hadn't decided to retcon your mind so that you pretend you were arguing from the beginning something you didn't even know about, but whatever.

[DMReckless]

Treating both of those as exception clauses leads to an unsalvageable contradiction. It turns out one of those lines has to be an exception, and one of them has to be redundancy which matches the general rule. So which is it?

Good point. That was stupid on my part.

This was also retarded, because the MM entry actually is the only relevant ruling on bonus feats, and it refers to creatures. Creatures is a keyword in D&D with a well-defined meaning, and it includes PC's. PC's are creatures. Spells which target creatures also target PC's. If there is rules text in the game which says "creatures do not need to meet the prerequisite to use bonus feats," then PC's do not need to meet the prerequisites to use bonus feats because PC's are creatures.

I don't agree that the MM entry is the only relevant ruling on bonus feats. I do agree it is relevant, because of the reasons you've listed here.

Your reasoning during this argument has been terribly, terribly shitty right up until the end when you decided to make a selection/usage distinction.

Wait, I thought your last post accused me of making the selection distinction in my very first post. Which is it now?

You made very bad arguments. Kaelik is trying to call you on those arguments. I am just annoyed that you are handwaving away the bad parts of the arguments you made before because "you've found something better now."

Fair enough. I consider internet discussions a chance to develop, formulate, and refine an argument, learn things, and come to conclusions based on the data presented. Yes, I realize seeing things this way makes me extremely retarded.

I ultimately agree with (or rather, haven't yet found any problems with) the specific conclusion you've reached now: i.e., selection is distinct from usage, the MM ruling only covers usage, bonus feats are a specific type of feat so absent exceptions the general rules concerning feats apply, and therefore rogues need to meet the prerequisites to take feats. But your original arguments were still full of a lot of fallacious shit and Kaelik isn't really the type of person to let you get away with changing your argument before admitting your previous argument before was stupid.

Sure. My original posts were crap. I can admit to that.

Actually, the glossary has no rule value where it contradicts the description. And as seen, there are two examples: 1) Clerics, who we freely admit get to ignore pre reqs. 2) Rogues. So do you think that there are special hidden rules, or do you think RAW is that Clerics don't get Weapon Focus at level 1?

How does the glossary contradict the description of rogue bonus feats? And let's not forget the Psion bonus feats.

Instead, since gaining bonus feats doesn't require meeting pre reqs

Where does it say that? You still haven't been able to show me this. (You have only shown me where it says that having and using bonus feats doesn't require meeting the prereqs.)

But I'm glad you have finally admitted that you were completely wrong, that was all I ever asked. Would have been nice if you hadn't decided to retcon your mind so that you pretend you were arguing from the beginning something you didn't even know about, but whatever.

Sure, but it would also be nice if you would look at that timeline and realize that I'm telling the truth, not pretending. But whatever.

[ishy]

Where does it say that? You still haven't been able to show me this. (You have only shown me where it says that having and using bonus feats doesn't require meeting the prereqs.)

Since bonus feats do not require the creature to fulfill any feat prerequisites (...)

That sentence specifies that creatures need not fulfill any feat prerequisites, thus afaik they don't need to meet them for anything.

[...You Lost Me]

So if I made a "monster" that was actually a human with class levels (since they do stuff like that in the MM), and I wanted a bonus feat but didn't have the prerequisites, I could just give it to myself because the Monster Manual says so? I mean, that's RAW right?

[HalcyonUmbra]

So if I made a "monster" that was actually a human with class levels (since they do stuff like that in the MM), and I wanted a bonus feat but didn't have the prerequisites, I could just give it to myself because the Monster Manual says so? I mean, that's RAW right?

If you're the DM, sure. But not if you're a player, because players can't make monsters.