ooh. Nice catch!

Not really a catch perse, but application of what 'granted by a legal source' means :)

I would like to make a request to Unstiky this, since this has been added to the 4.0 Guide.

This is in relation to a monk for PFS

I have read all the above but from my reading of the rule given by Mark
"If a class, prestige class changes, or a class-feature-dependent Ability score is altered:

You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment."

my interpretation is that if the class is changed by supplemental material you may rebuild the character to its current XP keeping the same equipment. So since there are archtypes in both Ultimate Combat & APG this could be considered changes to the class & therefore legal to rebuild the character to include archtypes

am I reading this wrong?

I am basing this idea on the idea that since you can change factions to a new one that didnt exist before why couldnt archtypes be changed - same reasoning

my interpretation is that if the class is changed by supplemental material you may rebuild the character to its current XP keeping the same equipment. So since there are archtypes in both Ultimate Combat & APG this could be considered changes to the class & therefore legal to rebuild the character to include archtypes

am I reading this wrong?

You are reading this wrong. The use case for this is in the example where you have a class, say a Magus from Ultimate Magic. You are happy playing your Magus, but then Ultimate-er Magic comes out with a revised Magus class which functions very differently than the Magus you've built and played. Maybe it was changed to a CHA caster instead of an INT caster for some illogical reason and your build is now completely broken because CHA was your dump stat.

Obviously this is an extreme, contrived example. Most of what is/will really happen is as original 3.5 rules material is replaced with PFRPG material. Specifically I believe the Hellknight PrC from the 3.5 campaign setting and the PFRPG Inner Sea World Guide were different enough to cause some problems for people who had a character one day, and a potentially different one the next.

This doesn't work for archetypes because we perceive time in a linear fashion, so you can't retroactively claim that you would have taken a previously unavailable archetype after it's released. That ship has sailed. Because factions are a mandatory aspect of organized play you have to allow retroactive changes. Because archetypes are an optional aspect of the rules, you do not have to allow retroactive choices.

Obviously this is an extreme, contrived example. Most of what is/will really happen is as original 3.5 rules material is replaced with PFRPG material. Specifically I believe the Hellknight PrC from the 3.5 campaign setting and the PFRPG Inner Sea World Guide were different enough to cause some problems for people who had a character one day, and a potentially different one the next.

There wasn't a 3.5 Hellknight, Mark. The original Hellknight was a Pathfinder RPG prestige class in Council of Thieves. It was supplanted by a different Pathfinder RPG Hellknight, in the ISWG.

There wasn't a 3.5 Hellknight, Mark. The original Hellknight was a Pathfinder RPG prestige class in Council of Thieves. It was supplanted by a different Pathfinder RPG Hellknight, in the ISWG.

Or that :) Thanks Chris!

Mark I see your point but for PFS the following things are mandatory:
faction - already existed before UC & UM etc
class - from Core rulebook

now I know there is a rule specifically stating that with the new factions you may change once - I accept that - but really arent they (the new factions) just options that came after the original ones just like archtypes are options that came after the original classes

why should people be allowed to change a faction just because it came out later but not archtypes? why should it be different?

the designers themselves say the archtypes should be balanced with all other core rulebook classes so there shouldnt be any gain & changes to a character should be limited, I accept that as well, but since PFS (IMHO) is harder to determine what class would be more beneficial compared to a linear campaign then there should be less problem changing to an archtype. Then allowing players an option for a character concept they had but could not create? after all arent they what they are for?

In a home campaign you might be able to houserule a change for a class that doesnt really exist and fits a players character concept but PFS is much more rigid so wouldnt it make more sense to allow it?
there is a rule that allows a change of faction once & before a certain time why couldnt it be the same with archtypes etc so that once a book is released there is a time period when you can change after that you are stuck with what you have say 3-6 months - it has to be noted on a chronicle sheet just like a faction or when you hve to rebuild a character

anyway just my thoughts

why should people be allowed to change a faction just because it came out later but not archtypes? why should it be different?

Changing factions does not require a rebuild of your PC. In fact, no class abilities, feats, traits, skills, etc. change when you switch factions. The free switch is a nice thing we at campaign HQ decided to do to allow people to play whatever faction they want down the road without needing to pay Prestige Points to do so. No rules for rebuilding a PC to include a different archetype exist, nor do we currently have plans to create such rules. You may add an archetype to an existing character if none of the ability substitutions have yet come into effect, but you can not retroactively make your character a different archetype.

why should people be allowed to change a faction just because it came out later but not archtypes? why should it be different?

You change your faction name, but your faction traits are fixed. Even if they are inappropriate for the new faction, you are stuck with them. So while you can change the faction "fluff", you are stuck with the "crunch" from your previous faction.

thx for responses all
so I have 2 choices

1) basically I am either stuck with a character whose concept I had but could not make workable at the time & continue to play it as is

2) restart my character again from lev 1 with my same concept & play from there losing the experience I had gained

guess that means option 2 not the most fun idea possible but only one that remains legal to give me the concept I had

ps option 3) quit PFS which if I had another campaign in my area I might consider but since my friends like PFS I guess I have to ignore this one

Ceefood, I would say you have other options.

Like 4) create an entirely new character at 1st level, while keeping the old one so you have options for play at different levels.

I recommend most players should eventually do that anyway, for greater flexibility in scheduling scenarios.

So are there any contingencies in these guidelines for when the Core Rules change?

For instance, those of you who follow rules-related blog posts and their comment threads know that the rules on some combat maneuvers recently changed: it used to be that if you made a trip attempt without using a "trip weapon" (a weapon with the Trip special weapon quality) you didn't get to apply any weapon-specific bonuses to the check (such as Weapon Focus, enhancement bonuses, Fighter Weapon Training, etc). But if you did use a trip weapon, you got your bonuses.

But now, trip maneuvers have become inherently weapon-based and use those bonuses no matter what. Which means that (unlike the Disarm property, which grants its own +2 bonus to disarm attempts) the Trip property's only advantage is the ability to drop the weapon if you fail by 10 or more, instead of falling prone. The trip property no longer causes you to be any more successful in your trip attempts.

So what about the characters who have invested in Weapon Focus: Flail and applied Fighter Weapon Training to flails? It has suddenly become the case that they could have applied those bonuses to (for instance) scimitars and be every bit as proficient at tripping as the guy with the flail - only with triple the threat range.

Granted, this is a less-direct instance of characters being affected by changing rules than what's talked about in the OP, so I can't be too surprised/upset if it's just "tough luck". But I wanted to bring it up anyway, just in case. "Better to ask and get the response you expected than never to ask at all."

Wanted to bump this just in case anyone's paying attention.

The rules on combat maneuvers changed to allow any weapon (instead of just weapons with the trip quality) to deliver a trip attempt and add weapon-specific bonuses (such as enhancement bonuses and Weapon Focus) to the attempt.

My PFS fighter has invested Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Fighter Weapon Training into flails because - at the time those choices were made - investing those abilities into a weapon with the trip quality was the only way to apply their bonuses to my trip attempts. That's no longer the case.

My local VC likened this change to if I built a playtest spellcaster with his casting stat really high, but then his casting stat changed. The character would still be legal, but having been directly affected by the rules change, would be entitled to some rebuilding. He said this is pretty much the same thing.

Tempted though I am to go with his word, I'd prefer not only confirmation of his position, but also a better idea of to what degree I can rebuild.

• Can I rebuild at all?
• Can I alter or replace Weapon Focus/Specialization and Weapon Training?
• Can I change any of my gear, such as replacing my +1 flail with a more relevant weapon?
• Can I change other feats? For example, perhaps I'd have taken EWP in a cooler weapon if I hadn't needed the flail when I first built the character. Can I replace a previous feat with EWP or some such?

Any response would be appreciated. Thanks!

Jiggy,

Speaking, as I must, for myself, I see a distinction between a rules change that limits or narrows a player's options ("your animal companion used to be able to do that; now it cannot" or "Heirloom Weapon used to give you those advantages; now it gives you one of these more limited advantages") versus a rules change that opens up a player's options.

The latter is best illustrated by a new sourcebook being placed into the Additional Resources file, allowing a player access to new spells or feats.

I think it makes sense to allow a rebuild in the former case, but not in the latter. If a player sees that there's now an archetype that she would have used with her PC, had it been available, I don't think she should be allowed to retroactively take that archetype. Her original character was perfectly good, and remains so, even though there's now a cooler option.

That's how I would see your situation. Your character, as written, is still legal, although there are now some more powerful options.

That's how I would see your situation. Your character, as written, is still legal, although there are now some more powerful options.

That's pretty much how I was leaning at first, until my VC gave me the above-referenced "changed the casting stat" example. In that example, the character is still 100% legal, just not optimal. He was saying that such a character would be allowed to rebuild, and that mine would too. So I wanted clarification.

Thanks for the input. Hopefully others will follow suit.

(nods)

I don't see that as an analogous situation. Let's say you were playing a Paladin with a high Wisdom (casting stat). If Paladins' casting stats changed to Charisma, then it's not just the case that your PC's options have opened up; your character is now worse at casting (assuming her Wisdom is higher than her Charisma.) That strikes me as grounds for a rebuild.

Rather, let's say the rules change to "a Paladin's casting stat is either Wisdom or Charisma, whichever is better." Now there's another option, one which would give your PC a stronger channelling ability, but your original character is just as viable as she was last week.

(nods)

I don't see that as an analogous situation. Let's say you were playing a Paladin with a high Wisdom (casting stat). If Paladins' casting stats changed to Charisma, then it's not just the case that your PC's options have opened up; your character is now worse at casting (assuming her Wisdom is higher than her Charisma.) That strikes me as grounds for a rebuild.

Rather, let's say the rules change to "a Paladin's casting stat is either Wisdom or Charisma, whichever is better." Now there's another option, one which would give your PC a stronger channelling ability, but your original character is just as viable as she was last week.

Is this a 3.5 example, because in PFRPG, isn't Charisma the Paladin's casting stat already? I don't remember and don't have a book in front of me...although I could look at the PRD...

He was just making something up to use as a hypothetical example.

The No-rebuild rule clearly favors avid PFS players who will create new characters based on the latest rules and play them often enough to level up quickly.

As an infrequent PFS player, due to IRL constraints such as distance and available time, I am all for allowing at-will Rebuild so that each and every PFS character can take advantage of the latest options. In other words, I would prefer not to be penalized because I played my first 6 PFS scenarios in year 0 rather than in the last month.

However, I completely understand how too frequent Rebuilding can make the task of detecting cheaters nigh impossible and I will accept that it falls under the "tough luck" aegis mentioned above.

raven, I sympathize with what you are saying, but you should have had a pretty significant rebuild opportunity when you converted your character from 3.5
The conversion rules allow you to re-create your character almost completely - you must keep the name, faction and xp, and use the wealth table... the rest was up to you.

The rules on combat maneuvers changed to allow any weapon (instead of just weapons with the trip quality) to deliver a trip attempt and add weapon-specific bonuses (such as enhancement bonuses and Weapon Focus) to the attempt.

My PFS fighter has invested Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Fighter Weapon Training into flails because - at the time those choices were made - investing those abilities into a weapon with the trip quality was the only way to apply their bonuses to my trip attempts. That's no longer the case.

While the big cheeses mull over this, try this with your character Cledwyn (whom IIRC was straight fighter 5th):

06 figh6 [retrain WS:flail to EWP:Nine-section-whip], WF:NSW
07 figh7 WS:NSW
08 figh8 [retrain WF:flail to Improved WF:NSW], Improved Critical:NSW

-- A Nine-section whip has stats identical to longsword except bludgeoning (i.e., 1d8 19-20/x2), has the weapon properties Blocking, Distracting, Monk, and Trip, and is a member of the Flail group (so you do not need to alter your Weapon Training). Downside: you forfeit Disarm...oh, but wait! It no longer matters!

You eat a feat, but get an extended-threat one-handed bashing weapon that also buffs your AC when fighting defensively.

Suggestion: get an adamantine one (a NSW is made a metal segments).

raven, I sympathize with what you are saying, but you should have had a pretty significant rebuild opportunity when you converted your character from 3.5

The conversion rules allow you to re-create your character almost completely - you must keep the name, faction and xp, and use the wealth table... the rest was up to you.

Thank you for your kind words :-)

However, my example was mostly fiction, as I did play some scenarios after the release of PFRPG and thus did my rebuild with almost only the CRB.

Thankfully, the strange build of my only PFS character hinged on taking many different classes, and it went along well with my slow progress in PFS sessions, thus allowing me to take good advantage of several new items such as Archetypes. Missed the Ninja and all Rogue Archetypes though.

And I see no opportunity for such a total rebuild before a long, long time.

@Mike (Schneider): Different weapon properties do different things. For instance, disarming someone is inherently weapon-based (unless you choose to do it unarmed, taking a -4 to the check but grabbing their weapon if you succeed), but the disarm weapon property grants a +2 bonus to disarm attempts.

So that one still matters.

Jiggy, do you recall off-hand what type of bonus a Disarming weapon provides?

Jiggy, do you recall off-hand what type of bonus a Disarming weapon provides?

No, but I looked it up in the PRD just now and it's untyped.

Chris Mortika wrote:

That's how I would see your situation. Your character, as written, is still legal, although there are now some more powerful options.

That's pretty much how I was leaning at first, until my VC gave me the above-referenced "changed the casting stat" example. In that example, the character is still 100% legal, just not optimal. He was saying that such a character would be allowed to rebuild, and that mine would too. So I wanted clarification.

Thanks for the input. Hopefully others will follow suit.

Changing your casting stat affects a character pretty significantly. Spells per day, spell DCs, etc... are all changed based on the casting stat.

My understanding is you want to change weapons not because anything changed with the weapon, but because there is *some other weapon* that is essentially more optimal. This rules change does not affect your character at all. Your character does the same amount of damage, he trips just as often... etc.

There is a big gulf between the two examples.

The rebuild rule isn't there to ensure that players can switch to the most optimized character every time a new book comes out, or errata is released. Its there to accommodate players who's characters are impacted by a rules change which as far as I can tell, yours wasn't.

Kind of what I figured. Never hurts to ask though, right?

As an aside, it turns out that (at least in CRB, APG, UM and UC) the flail is still the best one-handed, non-exotic disarm weapon out there. So even if I had the option to rebuild, I'd be looking at either keeping the flail or giving up my +2 to disarms (which isn't worth it to me).

Instead I'll just stalk Jason Buhlman until he agrees to let trip weapons grant a similar +2. ;)

06 figh6 [retrain WS:flail to EWP:Nine-section-whip], WF:NSW

07 figh7 WS:NSW
08 figh8 [retrain WF:flail to Improved WF:NSW], Improved Critical:NSW

I just wanted to drop in here and point out that retraining feats in this manner is not permitted in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Unless a class ability specifically grants retraining (like a sorcerer swapping out spells at even levels above 4th), or a rules change occurs as listed in this section of the campaign rules, your statistics remain the same.

Mike Schneider wrote:

06 figh6 [retrain WS:flail to EWP:Nine-section-whip], WF:NSW

07 figh7 WS:NSW
08 figh8 [retrain WF:flail to Improved WF:NSW], Improved Critical:NSW

I just wanted to drop in here and point out that retraining feats in this manner is not permitted in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Unless a class ability specifically grants retraining (like a sorcerer swapping out spells at even levels above 4th), or a rules change occurs as listed in this section of the campaign rules, your statistics remain the same.

Fighters have the ability to retrain one of their bonus feats every four levels as listed under Bonus Feats in the Fighter Class description though right?

So in the example above the retrain at 8th level would be ok, but not the retrain at 6th level. Unless I'm missing something else.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Mike Schneider wrote:

06 figh6 [retrain WS:flail to EWP:Nine-section-whip], WF:NSW

07 figh7 WS:NSW
08 figh8 [retrain WF:flail to Improved WF:NSW], Improved Critical:NSW

I just wanted to drop in here and point out that retraining feats in this manner is not permitted in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Unless a class ability specifically grants retraining (like a sorcerer swapping out spells at even levels above 4th), or a rules change occurs as listed in this section of the campaign rules, your statistics remain the same.

Fighters have the ability to retrain one of their bonus feats every four levels as listed under Bonus Feats in the Fighter Class description though right?

** spoiler omitted **

So in the example above the retrain at 8th level would be ok, but not the retrain at 6th level. Unless I'm missing something else.

From Mark's message "Unless a class ability specifically grants retraining...".

ristan wrote:

So in the example above the retrain at 8th level would be ok, but not the retrain at 6th level. Unless I'm missing something else.

From Mark's message "Unless a class ability specifically grants retraining...".

I should have clarified that I was simply pointing out the general rule. In this case, the posted suggestion was correct. I was not trying to say that the suggestion was in violation of any rule, and should have noted that the situation suggested was fine because it was from a class feature, but not available to just anyone. Mea culpa.

I have a ssimiliar situation at one point the boon companion applied to the summoner's eidolon in PFS Play. I based my character build and his subsequent feat choices on this information.

A fellow player brought this up at a recent game and posted it on the boards. After some research It seems the feat as it applied to PFS no longer allowed the eidolon to benefit from it.

At this time after the error I'd like to change the character to correct the error, just changing the feat would make the character suboptimal as the multiclass/feat choices would have never been made had I known this information.

I have a ssimiliar situation at one point the boon companion applied to the summoner's eidolon in PFS Play. I based my character build and his subsequent feat choices on this information.

A fellow player brought this up at a recent game and posted it on the boards. After some research It seems the feat as it applied to PFS no longer allowed the eidolon to benefit from it.

At this time after the error I'd like to change the character to correct the error, just changing the feat would make the character suboptimal as the multiclass/feat choices would have never been made had I known this information.

Did the rule actually change after you made the character?

Did the rule actually change after you made the character?

Yes, The ruling on Boon Companion changed as it applied to PFS.

I have a ssimiliar situation at one point the boon companion applied to the summoner's eidolon in PFS Play. I based my character build and his subsequent feat choices on this information.

A fellow player brought this up at a recent game and posted it on the boards. After some research It seems the feat as it applied to PFS no longer allowed the eidolon to benefit from it.

At this time after the error I'd like to change the character to correct the error, just changing the feat would make the character suboptimal as the multiclass/feat choices would have never been made had I known this information.

Unfortunately for you, the ruling on how the Boon Companion feat works with Eidolons only affects that one feat. So according to the guidelines that feat is the only thing you can replace to bring yourself back into compliance with the rules.

This might make your current build sub-optimal now, but you should be able to adjust your character progression over the next level or two to get yourself back on track.

It is similar to how some druid player’s had to alter some of their progression plans to work around the changes to how their companions were commanded. With the ruling to how 3+ intelligence affected their companions. They had to do this without any kind of rebuild, even if their current situation was a little rough.

so i would like to have a tiefling on pathfinder any ideas on what i need to do i'll still use level adjustment and such i just want it for the fact of wings as a feat do i use the 3.5 rules or is there a pathfinder version i want this character to be legal

so i would like to have a tiefling on pathfinder any ideas on what i need to do i'll still use level adjustment and such i just want it for the fact of wings as a feat do i use the 3.5 rules or is there a pathfinder version i want this character to be legal

The tiefling is awarded as a playable race on a Chronicle sheet and is currently the only way to create one. Talk to your local Venture-Captain to see if you have a convention scheduled in your area.

so i would like to have a tiefling on pathfinder any ideas on what i need to do i'll still use level adjustment and such i just want it for the fact of wings as a feat do i use the 3.5 rules or is there a pathfinder version i want this character to be legal

Also note: the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game does not utilize 3.5's level adjustment mechanic. Also, a tiefling does not gain wings, nor is there a feat which grants them that I'm aware of, though some class abilities do. I suggest you take a look at the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play and Additional Resources list for a full listing of how to build a character and what material is and is not permitted within the campaign.

baconbits2021 wrote:

so i would like to have a tiefling on pathfinder any ideas on what i need to do i'll still use level adjustment and such i just want it for the fact of wings as a feat do i use the 3.5 rules or is there a pathfinder version i want this character to be legal

The tiefling is awarded as a playable race on a Chronicle sheet and is currently the only way to create one. Talk to your local Venture-Captain to see if you have a convention scheduled in your area.

There will also be the Advanced Race Guide that comes out next year, though I am not sure how much that will have on tieflings, if anything. What will have a lot on tieflings is the new Player Companion just announced this week that will come out in April of next year, I believe, called Blood of Fiends. This book will be exclusively about tieflings for Golarion. So while you will have to wait for several months, there is a chance they will become legal for PFS play beyond getting the race as a reward at a convention or game day.

Also, with the material not due out for several months, there is no telling what might be in it, maybe even including a way to get those wings, even if they end up being non-functional.

the current guidelines state that you may print out choice pages out of your PDF

Which would have the watermark. Problem is the OP doesn't have the PDF, only the hard cover book, and isn't looking to purchase said PDF.

Mike has indicated in other threads that Monks affected by recent changes to flurry of blows are allowed to rebuild. To what extent can they be rebuilt?

Can my weapon adept rebuild as another monk archetype?

Can I trade in my +1 sansetsukon for full price?