This needs to go into the FAQ.


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

This post found HERE.

John Compton wrote:
FLite wrote:

Positives: Several times I have had new players come to me and say (variations on) "I took Armor proficiency on my AC, and I just found out that I don't need it if the barding their wearing has a 0 ACP. Did I just waste a feat? Can I get it back?" So far, I have just been telling them "Well, wait till something kills your AC, or dismiss them and get a new one and you have to retrain it's tricks but yes, in the mean time, you wasted a feat."

So far, Summoners and Spiritualists are rare enough out here, and played mostly by some of the more rules crunchy players, but it would really suck if someone took a feat on their Eidolon and then found out it didn't work and was a wasted feat and now they can't get rid of it.

Negatives: Currently familiars can only replace their starting feat with a very specific list of familiar specific feats. Opening it up to all the feats could possibly lead to some very broken builds.

I see where that would be an issue with eidolons and phantoms in particular. I can also see how this could be problematic for familiars.

Tentative Solution: A PC can use Prestige Points for retraining a creature granted by her class feature at the same cost as if she were the one retraining. A PC can only retrain options that she was able to choose in the first place. For example, retraining an eidolon's feat or ability score bonus is permissible because the summoner can choose the eidolon's feats, whereas retraining a familiar's feat is not permissible because the wizard was never able to choose its feat in the first place.

Seem about right?

This is a big enough change that it warrants entry in the FAQ. Something like this can't be left to be hidden in the depths of the forums.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was it ever confirmed that it was an official fix? All I see is the "tentative" solution linked above.

Grand Lodge 2/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Was it ever confirmed that it was an official fix? All I see is the "tentative" solution linked above.

That's what I thought at first but then I actually went and looked up "tentative". It doesn't mean "proposed" it means "this is actually it but I do so hesitantly and reserve the right to reverse it." That's me paraphrasing, obviously, but until John (or Tonya or whomever) says otherwise that's the rule.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

I agree with Claude. This particular item has been proposed as a solution but has not has had an official stamp placed on it.

It should be address one way or another. Either the "tentative" solution becomes official or it is clearly stated that there is no "tentative" solution being considered.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / This needs to go into the FAQ. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.