7
\$\begingroup\$

Bastion Dedication has a prerequisite:

Prerequisites Shield Block

Hardwood Armor gives you the ability to use Shield Block, but not the feat itself:

When you use this impulse, you can also create a wooden shield in a free hand. You can Shield Block with this shield even if you don't have that feat.

It lacks the usual language: "Since this proficiency is temporary, you can’t use it as a prerequisite for a skill increase or a permanent character option like a feat"

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ All of the above said, talk to your GM; my GM was cool with me taking Bastion at level 2 so long as I agreed to lock in Shield Block as my level 3 General Feat. Alternately, just play a human. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 2, 2023 at 16:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LessPop_MoreFizz, I am the GM \$\endgroup\$
    – András
    Dec 3, 2023 at 10:19

2 Answers 2

7
\$\begingroup\$

No

Prerequisites are defined on pg.18 of the CRB in the section labelled Reading the Rules (emphasis added):

Prerequisites: Any minimum ability scores, feats, proficiency ranks, or other prerequisites you must have before you can access this rule element are listed here. Feats also have a level prerequisite, which appears above.

Bastion Dedication requires the Shield Block feat, as you already noted. Hardwood Armor does not grant the Shield Block feat, so it may not be used to qualify for Bastion Defender.

What about that "usual text"?

Don't worry about it. For two reasons:

  1. Absence of text doesn't imply anything. A lack of evidence is not evidence of anything.
  2. That text is explicitly about proficiencies, which Shield Block is not.
\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

You must have the feat to fulfill the feat prerequisite

General rules support

The section "Reading the Rules" that explains the elements of a rules stat block says:

Prerequisites Any minimum ability scores, feats, proficiency ranks, or other prerequisites you must have before you can access this rule element are listed here.

This states you must have the feat in question. Shield block says that you do not have the feat, so it does not qualify.

Optional support: Inference through rules consistency

The "usual language" you refer to presents an actual rule:

Since this proficiency is temporary, you can’t use it as a prerequisite for a skill increase or a permanent character option like a feat

It tells you that if a profieciency is temporary, you cannot use is as a prerequiste for a feat. That this reminder text is repeated for many features instead of just being cited once in a general rules section does not change its core statement: temporary proficiencies cannot be used as prerequisites.

It would be different if it just said: "This proficiency cannot be used as a prerequisite for a skill increase or a permanent character option like a feat". In that case, it might just apply to the feature in question.

But it does not say just that. It gives you a reason why: because the proficiency is temporary. If that is the reason, the same reason applies to any temporary proficiency.

Now, @KRyan pointed out in the comments that historically, Pathfinder has a heritage of being an "exception-based" ruleset. I was unable to find anything that directly explains this in the same way as, for example, the rules for D&D 3.5 do which explicitly say that the rules are applied general to specific to exception in increasing order of precedence. The closest I found was under "Reading the Rules"

This book contains hundreds of rules elements that give characters new and interesting ways to respond to situations in the game. All characters can use the basic actions found in Chapter 9, but an individual character often has special rules that allow them to do things most other characters can’t. Most of these options are feats, which are gained by making certain choices at character creation or when a character advances in level.

The idea here would be that these special rules may not apply in general, because they are tied to the specific special option. However, for the game to handle things consistently. If you follow that logic, nothing that is written in a specific feature can be used to derive general rules.

While that may be legitimate, I think that in the absence of straightforward, general rules, looking at specific examples of something is a valid approach to try and understand how the game handles that something, especially if there is a very high degree of consistency and repetition for that something, like in this case.

However, in this case, it is not needed, because there is a general rule that is also straightforward to apply.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Just because the “usual text” is written as though it is referring to a general rule, does not actually mean that general rule actually exists. If it does, you should be able to cite it. If it does not, you should note this contradiction, and some analysis on what to make of that situation would be nice. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 2, 2023 at 2:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I added the additional general rules support. I’d be curious though if you can point to any rules text that supports your claim that rules not in a general section cannot be used in a wider sense. I’m not saying that is not the case, I just did not find anything to that effect. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 2, 2023 at 8:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ I didn't quite say you cannot do so—I stated that it isn't automatically clear that you can do so. (D&D 3.5e, for example, is explicit that you cannot, and frankly doing so is very questionable in an exception-based ruleset.) Establishing that you can would be the kind of “analysis on what to make of that situation” that I mentioned. Anyway, I do not find your general evidence at all convincing; that does not look like an exhaustive list and it doesn’t cover this kind of “counts as” situation. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 2, 2023 at 14:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .