Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Fighters swapping out armor proficiency


Rules Questions

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The fact that a person can get greater vital strike to replace armor pro, or any other high level feat, With something he got at level 1 or lower. Instead of a person using his level 16 feat slot for just level 16 feat, he can use a level 1 feat slot for a level 16 and still get a level 16 feat also. If you replace a level 1 slot feat with another feat of level 1 it is not so bad, maybe even a little weak.

There will be a bigger surge in power if done this way. As Bob pointed out this is allowed per the FAQ. Not to mention some one could double did by taking another class and gain the feats back for free. That is where the abuse comes in. It is not abused at level 1 but at level 12+ it will be obvious.


With martials being often seen as weaker than casters, I don't see it as a problem. There aren't really that many high level combat feats to begin with. Dropping a feat you aren't using for one you are going to use doesn't seem like much of an abuse. Multiclassing can bring its own issues.

I would ask myself if the game would be disrupted if this was allowed or not. Personally, I wouldn't allow it because I think it goes against the spirit of the Bonus Feats description of the fighter. That being said, I don't think it would be game breaking either.


Since we're going RAWy-RAW-RAW: This exploit assumes feat rules are more general than class abilities (which is fair). Note however that this means that fighters have little armor proficiency to begin with.

Armor prof feat rules wrote:


Special: All characters except [various classes] automatically have [this] Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Fighter bonus feat rules wrote:


At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level).

Note that the fighter bonus feat class ability (which is more specific than feat rules as we've established) states that you gain _a_ (singular) bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. So you only get ONE bonus feat at 1st level, which overrides the armor feat rules.


so what is the armor proficiency feat then? a hippopotamus?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
so what is the armor proficiency feat then? a hippopotamus?

Elephant.

We should probably just ignore it.


No, the fighter's class ability just makes it an exception to the more general rule that some classes get armor proficiency feats as bonus feats.

To be clear: I do not really support this interpretation, my point is that for RD's trick to work we have to take RAW to an idiotic extreme, and if we're going there we should at least do it full-on, which leads to the fighter not getting armor proficiency feats at all (or rather, just getting a single feat).

Now the question just is, do you have to have armor proficiency feats to have armor proficiency? Since the "weapons and armor proficiency" section of the class features list does not mention them as bonus feat, it could be argued that fighters (and others) BOTH get armor proficiencies as class features AND as bonus feats (except that fighters don't get the feats as noted above). So if they HAD gotten the feats they could trade them away and still use their full plates with no non-prof penalty.

Since we're going RAWy-RAW I mean.

Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

None of the classes refer to armor or weapon proficiencies as feats or as bonus feats. The Armor Proficiency feat text is in error (an error inherited from 3.5), and shouldn't be used to justify something that's not actually a feature of any of the classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thank you very much SKR.

Now, about that Sunder thing.....


Thanks SKR! I'm sure that will put a lot of people at ease.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Thank you very much SKR.

Now, about that Sunder thing.....

Subtle as a goblin!


Okay, so the armor proficiencies aren't actually feats. How about using the fighter class feature to swap bonus feats granted by other classes? That's still legit, right?

Silver Crusade

Once again, SKR (I can call him 'S') restores sanity!

I'm playing Sukie, who's build will be Rgr2/Ftr(weapon master)4/Duelist10 at 16th level.

Her 6th character level will be her 4th fighter level, and I must take the crappy Mobility feat to qualify for the PrC. How I wish I could swap my useless tower shield prof. to get weapon specialisation (Aldori Dueling sword) instead. But it would be wrong!

The text of the armour prof. feats also only mention the classes in the CRB, so as mentioned earlier, reading the light armour prof. feat to mean that every single class in the universe except monk, sorcerer and wizard have light armour prof. is absurd.

I'll tell you how bad it is; if a paladin were to play Pathfinder, and if he played a fighter, and if he even tried to persuade his DM to let him re-train his armour or shield profs. at certain levels, then that paladin would forever lose 'all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount'!

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

MacGurcules wrote:
Okay, so the armor proficiencies aren't actually feats. How about using the fighter class feature to swap bonus feats granted by other classes? That's still legit, right?

I agree that this still needs to be clarified. I think because the retraining clause is part of the "Bonus feat" class feature, the clear intention is that the retraining of bonus feats refers only to the bonus feats gained from that class feature.

Designer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.
MacGurcules wrote:
Okay, so the armor proficiencies aren't actually feats. How about using the fighter class feature to swap bonus feats granted by other classes? That's still legit, right?

I'd allow it. Though the classes are written in the context of just referring to that class, there are elements of permissive language in other parts of the game that allow for some weird crossovers like that. For example, the mnemonic enhancer spell allows you to prepare additional spells, but doesn't say they have to be wizard spells...

Sczarni

OR like this with Arcane gun from Spellslinger

Quote:
"A spellslinger can cast any ranged touch attack, cone, line, or ray spells through his arcane gun. "


Thanks again SKR.


Cool. That's actually the more interesting synergy, in my opinion.

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Fighters swapping out armor proficiency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.