Default assumtion on bonus feat prerequisites

[LordBlades]

If something grants s bonus feat and doesn't specify whether you must meet the prerequisites or you get to ignore them, has it been clarified anyway what's the default assumption?

[Meiliken]

If something grants a bonus feat, unless it says you "must meet prerequisites", you don't need to.  An example is Goggles of the Horizon granting Far Shot.  It doesn't state you must know Precise Shot, so you don't.  It is the inherent magic of the item granting you the ability, not your own.

[deadkitten]

If that's true then the artificer continues to get ridiculous.

In addition, an artificer gains a bonus feat at 4th level and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th). For each of these bonus feats, the artificer must choose a metamagic feat or a feat from the following list: Attune Magical Weapon, Craft Construct (see the Monster Manual, page 303), Exceptional Artisan, Extra Rings, Extraordinary Artisan, Legendary Artisan, Wand Mastery.

Not every class has an iron clad restriction on their bonus feats, so If you want to go with that interpretation as to how they work then take it up with your DM. Though I am inclined to agree with Meiliken as that being how it works, it is very dangerous water to tread into.

[spacemonkey555]

PHB:

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.

So you can't select a feat you don't qualify for, bonus or not, and if it's assigned to you as a bonus feat, you still can't even use it, per the RAW. If the bonus feat grant language specifies that prerequisites aren't needed that would trump this, but only for that feat.

[zook1shoe]

yeah, the bonus feat ability needs to say that you don't need to meet the prereqs or 'x' prereq

[LordBlades]

yeah, the bonus feat ability needs to say that you don't need to meet the prereqs or 'x' prereq

But has there ever been a definite RAW answer to it? Personally I feel there's room for both interpretations, both as far as RAW and RAI goes.

[zook1shoe]

but Monkey quoted the rule that requires you to meet the prereqs to USE the feat


this is from Unearthed Arcana's Bear Totem Barbarian

At 2nd level, a bear-totem barbarian gains Improved Grapple as a bonus feat, even if he doesn’t meet the normal prerequisites.

[LordBlades]

but Monkey quoted the rule that requires you to meet the prereqs to USE the feat

Monkey quoted the general rule, this doesn't mean the specific rule can't override it. It can be looked at as 'in general, you need the prerequisites to select a feat, but in particular, a bonus feat gives you this feat here and now, no matter what'. Otherwise for example the cleric's War domain ability will make no sense, because no level 1 cleric will have the 1 BAB required by weapon focus.

You are right that by strict RAW you can't use the feat without prerequisites, even if you can select it.

[zook1shoe]

but you have to find a specific rule that overrides the general rule

thats why some bonus feats say you don't need the prereqs, like my quote

[linklord231]

A rule of thumb is, if you get a specific bonus feat, you can ignore the prereqs.  If you get to choose from a list, you must meet the prereqs normally.  There are, of course, exceptions (the Monk's bonus feats, for instance), but I find that rule generally holds true. 

[Jackinthegreen]

Even the monk's bonus feats are specifically called out though (choose one of these two feats, or go with a different style with its own specified feats) except in the case of the martial monk from Dragon 310.

[zook1shoe]

i still haven't seen any rule that says that ANY bonus feat ignores the 'prereqs' general rule.

there are several sources that support that bonus feats still require the prereqs to use.

ex. Monk and Barbarian

[kitep]

MM, p7, under "Feats"

Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with
a superscript B (^B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites
for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If
you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign
its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have
a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

So at least when it comes to racial bonus feats, meeting the prereqs are not required

[Jackinthegreen]

To my knowledge there is no barbarian ACF that allows for "any" feat.  The ACF in Sandstorm has a specific list and that one says the barb must still meet prerequisites.  If you were going off the ACF handbook I posted where the Sandstorm's Bonus Feat entry was generalized then take a look again since I've clarified it.

If you're more referring in general to the various totem barbarians in UA and how some of them get bonus feats that they can ignore the prerequisites on while others don't, you have a bit of a point.  The only one that's given as a bonus feat that has prerequisites but isn't noted as letting the barb ignore them is the ape totem's Power Attack, which can be argued that it's assumed the barbarian will meet because no true barb is going to have less than 13 strength.

As far as monks go, there's text in their Bonus Feats description: "A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them." 

The UA styles, despite not explicitly saying the monk doesn't have to meet prerequisites, support still not requiring them since the Hand and Foot style gives Improved Trip without Combat Expertise, and the Sleeping Tiger style gives Improved Sunder without Power Attack.

One could probably blame that on poor editing for UA alone since several other ACFs that change the bonus feats do mention whether prerequisites are needed.  However, said styles were originally in Dragon 310 which was printed in August 2003 versus UA's February 2004, and several Dragon Mags after have used the style template for alternate bonus feats and abilities and several of those simply wouldn't work unless the prereqs on the specific feats are ignored.

And then there's the martial monk in Dragon 310 which gets any fighter feat as its "monk bonus feats."  Read RAW, supposedly even the fighter's epic feats could be selected since the monk's normal bonus feats don't require prerequisites and the ability specifically references "monk bonus feats."


The takehome message on this whole thing should be:  Don't make a default assumption!  Put a bit of thought into whether it should be allowed to not require prerequisites.  The martial monk certainly shouldn't, but the other styles are totally okay with ignoring the prereqs on those specific feats.

[zook1shoe]

are you saying the fighter can get the Weapon Supremacy feat at 1st level?


just because a class has an ability with same same name, doesn't mean are exactly the same (Druid and Ranger's animal companion)

until you find a written rule that says all (or at least the fighter's) bonus feats ignore prereqs, the general rule mentioned before must kick in.

This means the Martial Monk can get early fighter feats, because you choose your monk feats (which ignore prereqs) from the fighter list. But since the fighter doesn't have that specific clause, he still requires them. RAW, it can get the Weapon Supremacy feat at 1st level, but RAI... oh HELL no!

(click to show/hide)

Epic Feats
These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
*snip*

this means that ONLY non-True Dragon characters of 21st level or higher can receive Epic Feats (didn't find anything many of the other books saying otherwise). Since its not true feat prereq, it cannot be bypassed in this way.

Epic Feats
Like the epic feats detailed in the Dungeon Master’s Guide and the Epic Level Handbook, these feats are available only to characters whose character level is 21st or higher. They expand the abilities of melding characters beyond the limits of 20 levels on those classes

this quote means that it verifies that at least the ELH and DMG's Epic Feats are 21st level or higher only

I'm not going to argue anymore about this until you find rules proving your argument, since I have proven mine.

[Jackinthegreen]

Nope, I'm saying there's an interpretation of the martial monk's abilities that say it can treat any feat from the fighter feat list as a monk bonus feat, thus it can ignore prerequisites.  I would never personally use that interpretation because it's unreasonable.  I would also never get into an argument over whether it's RAW because I think the concept of RAW should be violently murdered with extreme prejudice.  That's not to say knowing what the rules are (and aren't) has value, but being able to interpret them and come to a reasonable conclusion that works best for the game and players instead of blindly going along with them through thick and thin is something that I think everyone should do for the better of the game itself and their own play experiences.

No, I'm not saying a fighter can get Weapon Supremacy at 1st.  The rules being referred to were entirely about the martial monk and how it might be able to get any feat from the fighter feat list without needing to meet prerequisites.

And yes, you have a point that epic feats probably can't have their character level requirement be ignored.  But depending on who one talks to they might say that it indeed does count as a proper prerequisite because that's their version of RAW.  I don't think the claim is legitimate, but I brought it up because others have brought it up and, in the context of the whole debate, talking about it is useful in the sense of "This is the kind of thinking to avoid because it's batshit crazy."

[zook1shoe]

- i agree, the martial monk can gain a monk feat from the fighter list and ignore all prereqs.
- i agree that RAI you should have to deal with most/all the prereqs as normal.
- i agree that RAW can be frustrating, but at times it is needed to keep RAI in check.
- i agree that the Epic Feat clause shows that most of the Epic Feat loopholes are closed
- i don't agree that there is any RAW interpretation of that being a prereq, since it is just labeling the actual type of feat and its availability (ex. item creation, incarnum, etc).
-- but since that is not your stance, it doesn't matter anyway

i guess i must have misunderstood your previous posts for something else entirely. i was rereading Cyclone Joker's posts the other day, and maybe that frustration carried over to you. i'm sorry for blowing up about that.

[Jackinthegreen]

CJ has a tendency to frustrate people for sure, so I totally understand.

[zook1shoe]

We're all happy he's been MIA for a year or more

[linklord231]

Now that this thread has been sufficiently derailed, can we stop bashing people who aren't/can't be here to defend themselves?