Can you do that? For instance, when playing a Rogue and want an exotic weapon, not taking your first level feat and saving it until level 2 when you'll have +1 BaB and qualify for EWP?
Nope.
Thanks for your quick reply. Now, would you be so kind as to also provide me with the reason as to why the rules prohibit this? Is it an extrapolation of the "leveling up" order of things?
I can't seem to find a line refering to this in the book.
Thanks for your quick reply. Now, would you be so kind as to also provide me with the reason as to why the rules prohibit this? Is it an extrapolation of the "leveling up" order of things?I can't seem to find a line refering to this in the book.
3.5 D&D used to be quite clear that you couldn't "save up" feats, skill points, etc. but it looks like they may have removed that wording.
I sitll think you can't do it (the rules don't say you can), but consult your local GM if you want a definitive ruling.
You get a feat at the level the chart says. Not at any other level.
But it doesn't implicitly state you have to use the feat at the level gained...
I'm not suggesting it gives any indication that you get to save feats... But there is nothing (currently) written that states "feats must be spent when gained."
All the rule you quoted tells us is when, in the process of leveling up, any feats being spent must be spent.
|
You get a feat at the level the chart says. Not at any other level.But it doesn't implicitly state you have to use the feat at the level gained...
I'm not suggesting it gives any indication that you get to save feats... But there is nothing (currently) written that states "feats must be spent when gained."
All the rule you quoted tells us is when, in the process of leveling up, any feats being spent must be spent.
'For more information on when you gain new feats and ability score increases, see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.'
You're right, it doesn't explicitly state you must spend the feat. But I think it's been mentioned on other threads that having every rule explicitly stated would make the rulebook even more completely unwieldy. :)
I mean, it doesn't say you can't start the game without finishing character generation, does that mean you can start the game with just your hitpoints and BAB/saves?
I mean, it doesn't say you can't start the game without finishing character generation, does that mean you can start the game with just your hitpoints and BAB/saves?
Devil's Advocate: If you can delay taking a feat, why not delay BAB and HP too?
This is just another munchkin tactic. Think of the possibilities building a higher-than-1st level character. Just because there's no explicit rule doesn't mean we have to abandon common sense. Point blank, you're not done leveling your character until you've noted all the additions from the new level.
Zo
This is just another munchkin tactic.
I disagree that it's "munchkin" for a rogue to want to use his 1st level feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
You're right, it doesn't explicitly state you must spend the feat. But I think it's been mentioned on other threads that having every rule explicitly stated would make the rulebook even more completely unwieldy. :)
I am now a bit shy about using the 3.5 FAQ for stuff like that, especially when there previously was an expressly stated rule, and that this rule did not make it into PFRGP. James Jacob did mention in a previous post on a diffenrent topic, that while 3.5 could be used in interpreting the rules, many things were changed on purpose, and one should be careful when applying the 3.5 FAQ to PFRPG:
Previous James Jacob comment on the subject
Also, I always was a strong proponent of: "If it is not expressly disallowed, it is allowed". (Barring the basic assumptions of real life physics applications for the sake of verisimilitude).
This is just another munchkin tactic.I disagree that it's "munchkin" for a rogue to want to use his 1st level feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Forest, meet trees. It's certainly munchkin for a PC to delay taking a 1st level feat until he/she qualifies for a better feat. I'm particularly thinking of making characters that are higher than 1st level. "Oh, yeah, see, my rogue didn't take any of his feats or Rogue talents until 10th level."
Zo
This is just another munchkin tactic.I disagree that it's "munchkin" for a rogue to want to use his 1st level feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
It's a bit munchkin to deliberately misinterpret a rule to your character's advantage.
However, having a +1BAB prereq for EWP is a stupid prereq (ONLY full-BAB classes can have a character history with training in that weapon? So much for flavor...), and you should ask your DM to drop it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I always was a strong proponent of: "If it is not expressly disallowed, it is allowed". (Barring the basic assumptions of real life physics applications for the sake of verisimilitude).
My flowchart would be more like:
1) Look at rules to see if X is allowed.
2) If rules don't specify, consult common sense.
3) If common sense doesn't specify, assume answer is "NO" by default.
4) Decide if I want to overrule the default answer as a house rule.
Think of the possibilities building a higher-than-1st level character. Just because there's no explicit rule doesn't mean we have to abandon common sense. Point blank, you're not done leveling your character until you've noted all the additions from the new level.
Zo
In this situation, I guess I understand such a thing could be abused. But to be frank, almost all our campaigns had everyone start at level 1, very rarely having someone reroll because of death (we'd go out of our way to resurect the character) and even more rarely having a new player join up after the game had advanced. So the design philosophy of starting a character higher than level 1 is quite foreign to me.
It's a bit munchkin to deliberately misinterpret a rule to your character's advantage.
However, having a +1BAB prereq for EWP is a stupid prereq (ONLY full-BAB classes can have a character history with training in that weapon? So much for flavor...), and you should ask your DM to drop it.
Being a DM, I'd be much more likely to go for something like this than allowing the Pandora's box of delaying feats. I'm a sucker for a good character back-story. Maybe by sacrificing a trait to ignore the pre-req or something...
Zo
EDIT:
In this situation, I guess I understand such a thing could be abused...So the design philosophy of starting a character higher than level 1 is quite foreign to me.
If you and your DM are cool with this idea, go for it. Far be it from me to tell someone else how to play. It's just not orthodox, that's all I'm saying.
Also, I always was a strong proponent of: "If it is not expressly disallowed, it is allowed". (Barring the basic assumptions of real life physics applications for the sake of verisimilitude).
While that may be an admirable school of DMing, it's good to consider the long-term implications of what you're suggesting. Can a PC save up a bunch of feats and spend them all at once? Suppose a paladin PC wanted to save up his feats for just feats that have high-end BAB requirements (like spending heavily on the critical focus feats)? What kind of effect will that have on your game?
It's a bit munchkin to deliberately misinterpret a rule to your character's advantage.
Actually, I'd say that deliberateness is crucial to the true spirit of the munchkin. Running the rules on the redline is power gaming - twisting them for your own power ends is what sends you into munchkin territory.
I mean, it doesn't say you can't start the game without finishing character generation, does that mean you can start the game with just your hitpoints and BAB/saves?
Can you?
Yes. And I have. Usually getting pulled into a session at the last minute... But still.
It doesn't say you have to roll your hit points when you gain a level. There isn't any reason why you wouldn't... And that is why no one cares to ask if you can. It doesn't say a spell caster must use the new level of spells gained. Again, there isn't much reason not to...
There is actually a reason to want to hold off on taking a feat. Pathfinder reduces those reasons (the feat prerequisites mesh much better with feat acquisition), but they are still there. (Usually with feats that require a BAB, and classes without full BAB.)
...And I have. Usually getting pulled into a session at the last minute... But still.
I'm sure you can see how your example here is nothing like the situation stated by OP. Feat selection and leveling is not turned on its head simply because you hadn't finished your character once or twice before a game.
It doesn't say you have to roll your hit points when you gain a level...There is actually a reason to want to hold off on taking a feat...(Usually with feats that require a BAB, and classes without full BAB.)
If your GM allows this, more power to you. However this type of reasoning doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
To put the issue to rest, quoted from the PDF, bold mine:
"When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level’s class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats."
It is explicitly stated in the imperative mood. No caveat or exception is given.
Zo
It is explicitly stated in the imperative mood. No caveat or exception is given.
Normally, I'd give you that. However, recently when I pointed out that the Core book stated the Ranger class could only have two fighting styles, the reply was that it didn't matter how it was stated.
I realize this wasn't you specifically, but either language matters for rules discussion, or it doesn't. It can't be thrown out and pulled back in only when it matters to someone. And that happens all the time.
And when taken with the fact that the original poster was asking for the exact passage in the rule book, the best anyone can give them is an interpretation. (I'm not saying the interpretation is wrong, but as I said before the language isn't clear enough to assume everyone can, or will, agree with it.)
I realize this wasn't you specifically, but either language matters for rules discussion, or it doesn't. It can't be thrown out and pulled back in only when it matters to someone. And that happens all the time.
I agree with you. All the more reason to rely on the DM for final arbitration. A whole lot of baby is thrown out with the bath water when almost every word is a rules term. That is one of the structural problems of D&D 3.X in my opinion.
Personally, as a DM, I feel that allowing a player to shelve a feat choice for later use is absolutely against the spirit of the rules (and demonstrably the letter as well). However, I am also a strong proponent of "play it your way". No RAW-nazi, me. The authors of the game are fallible; they'd be the first to admit it, and have frequently. I stand by my opinion, but I see your point.
Zo
You can't delay anything at 1st level because you normally start playing at 1st level and everything that you get during character creation is what made you a 1st level "whatever" to being with and must be in place before you play. Delaying skills or feats gained when leveling up, however, could be done with optional rules. Also, once there are official apprentice rules, or if there are pre-PRPG rules for this, then you could delay that feat til 2nd level because you start playing your character before he becomes a 1st level "whatever" and that feat is not required to be picked before play begins.
Also, once there are official apprentice rules, or if there are pre-PRPG rules for this, then you could delay that feat til 2nd level because you start playing your character before he becomes a 1st level "whatever" and that feat is not required to be picked before play begins.
Reminds me of the "Starting at level 0" option that was in the Greyhawk Adventures book af AD&D. That was loads of fun.
Like others, I think the easiest solution would be to convince your GM to modify the prerequisite for the feat, as long as your background supports it.
That being said, I have allowed a player to delay choosing a feat. I felt that it wasn't simply to min/max and it fit with the character concept. So, the player did some role-playing to demonstrate the learning process/curve.
I do not believe that I would allow anyone to delay their choice for 2 levels.
|
What is allowed when making higher level characters? When making a 6th level character you can't spend earlier level feat selections on feats that have a 6th level pre-req. That'd be silly. Why have feat pre-reqs at all if you are going to play it that way.
Can you delay feat selection? Sure, why not. However, a 1st-level feat slot can only be spent on feats that meet the pre-reqs for that 1st-level feat. The same as making a new higher level character, following the progression table in the book. Tables are RAW too so no violating them. A 3rd level feat is still a 3rd level feat no matter when it is filled.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
andIt's certainly munchkin for a PC to delay taking a 1st level feat until he/she qualifies for a better feat. I'm particularly thinking of making characters that are higher than 1st level. "Oh, yeah, see, my rogue didn't take any of his feats or Rogue talents until 10th level."
Zo
While that may be an admirable school of DMing, it's good to consider the long-term implications of what you're suggesting. Can a PC save up a bunch of feats and spend them all at once? Suppose a paladin PC wanted to save up his feats for just feats that have high-end BAB requirements (like spending heavily on the critical focus feats)? What kind of effect will that have on your game?
I would draw a distinction between a character drawn up to begin play at 10th level, versus a character begun at 1st level, after 9 levels of advancement. DigMarx is correct in that the first character could just grab a bunch of feats, none of which would be appropriate for a beginning character.
But I don't know too many players that would be willing to see their rogue go from 1st Level to 9th, never getting the benefit of any feats, until he reaches 10th Level and enjoys the windfall.
--+--
Delayed Feat
This feat allows you to select and gain any other feat when you next rise in experience level.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, but not in response to itself. So, at 3rd Level, you take Delayed Feat, and then at 4th Level, you can take some other feat. The next time you need to take a feat (5th level in PF RPG), you can take Delayed Feat again.
Fighters can't choose Delayed Feat as their bonus Fighter feat.
To put the issue to rest, quoted from the PDF, bold mine:
"When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level’s class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats."
It is explicitly stated in the imperative mood. No caveat or exception is given.
+1. This is exactly what I was going to say, but DigMarx beat me to it. :)
Normally, I'd give you that. However, recently when I pointed out that the Core book stated the Ranger class could only have two fighting styles, the reply was that it didn't matter how it was stated.
I realize this wasn't you specifically, but either language matters for rules discussion, or it doesn't. It can't be thrown out and pulled back in only when it matters to someone. And that happens all the time.
This seems a bit of a silly argument. If another sourcebook comes out with a third ranger tree (or six more, whatever), clearly the new rule replaces the old.
So, granting that, the moment a rule comes out allowing you to not take a feat as the final step of gaining a level (including level 1), then I'll say you can do that.
So, granting that, the moment a rule comes out allowing you to not take a feat as the final step of gaining a level (including level 1), then I'll say you can do that.
the best anyone can give them is an interpretation.
+1. This is exactly what I was going to say, but DigMarx beat me to it. :)
Actually TriOmega said it first. I just emphasized the imperative nature of the wording. Doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room, but cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.
Zo
is that what you want to do with the rogue? is that why you ask the question?
For the most part i don't allow delayed feat selections, but what I have done in the past for my players is offer kind of a half/feat. I allowed a player to take Weapon Focus before they had a +1 BAB, but I ruled they could only use the +1 to hit once per encounter until they qualified.
In your case, I would allow you to take the feat at level 1, BUT you only be half-trained, so you'd suffer a -2 penalty to all of your attack rolls with the weapon. I might allow a once per encounter you don't suffer the penalty.
Or, if you didn't like that, I'd offer you to lose Sneak Attack at 1st level to gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency, then pick up Sneak Attack at level 3 for 1d6, and progress from there (though each instance would be at -1d6 per the table, so at Rogue 7 you'd have Sneak Attack +3d6).
And the simplest way to do it would be to take a level in Fighter at level 2, or to even start off as a fighter, then come up with a reason to be a rogue later.
But honestly, I don't really see a problem with simply allowing the feat without the requirement. What the requirement represents is enough training in general combat to be allowed to utilize the intricacies of the exotic weapon in the first place.
what weapon are you trying to use?
Actually TriOmega said it first. I just emphasized the imperative nature of the wording. Doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room, but cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.
People believe what they want to believe, sadly.
As others have pointed out, RAW don't like this. I don't think it's game breaking, but can lead to some bad places. You might want to ask if you can take it at 1st level, but not get the benefits until you meat the pre-reqs. Many GMs are willing to cut you slack for cool concepts, but will hammer you with the rules if you are pulling cheesy munchkin stuff.
One of the problems with a level based system is that there are breakpoints. If your character concept is a rouge/sorcerer who uses a double sword (for example), you can't do it all at first level. If the campaign stated at 3rd level, you'd be OK, but starting from 1st leads to some problems.
A certain amount of hand-waveing will help. Tell the GM/other players what you are aiming for, to avoid those "when did you learn magic?" moments. You could suck up the -4 to hit and use the exotic weapon until you get the feat for it. Or just let people know that the goblins arn't worth the honor of being killed by your chosen weapon and kill them with your bootknife.
is that what you want to do with the rogue? is that why you ask the question?
[...]
But honestly, I don't really see a problem with simply allowing the feat without the requirement. What the requirement represents is enough training in general combat to be allowed to utilize the intricacies of the exotic weapon in the first place.
what weapon are you trying to use?
The rogue case was an old example. The weapon in question was a whip, for some Indianna Jones action. In past campaigns, we always allowed delaying the feat selection for such things. Then again, as I mentionned earlier, we only ever rolled characters at 1rst level, so the abusive possibility of starting of at level 10 with only high level feats did'nt really occur to me.
The situation came back about the concept of an Inquisitor wielding a Riffle, a very hypothetic situation since there's no legit way to start of with one anyways.
Or just let people know that the goblins arn't worth the honor of being killed by your chosen weapon and kill them with your bootknife.
Ooh.. I like the way you think. I'll certainly do that at some point, even if I can actually use the weapon...
I'm not sure I see the point in doing this. You have to delay till 2nd level where you get +1 BAB. At 2nd Level you can already take the exotic weapon proficiency via the Combat Trick rogue talent. So what are you getting other losing a feat at 1st level that you can't use? Seems kind of silly to me if this just to get an exotic weapon.
The only reason I could see wanting to do this is so you could have weapon finesse and an exotic weapon at 2nd level. But honestly in my game if the character had a good background story for why they should be proficient in an exotic weapon I'd allow it. I'd balance by making it a trait that allows them to take the exotic weapon proficiency with out the pre-requisite +1 BAB. So they blow a trait and a feat to do it and have it at 1st level. Seems fair to me.
I'm not sure I see the point in doing this. You have to delay till 2nd level where you get +1 BAB. At 2nd Level you can already take the exotic weapon proficiency via the Combat Trick rogue talent. So what are you getting other losing a feat at 1st level that you can't use? Seems kind of silly to me if this just to get an exotic weapon.
The only reason I could see wanting to do this is so you could have weapon finesse and an exotic weapon at 2nd level. But honestly in my game if the character had a good background story for why they should be proficient in an exotic weapon I'd allow it. I'd balance by making it a trait that allows them to take the exotic weapon proficiency with out the pre-requisite +1 BAB. So they blow a trait and a feat to do it and have it at 1st level. Seems fair to me.
Wrong example under PF rules I guess. Again, the "rogue" in the example was an old (read 3.0) one. Could be better applied to a druid or sorcerer wanting to use bolas? Was more intended as a general question.
Wrong example under PF rules I guess. Again, the "rogue" in the example was an old (read 3.0) one. Could be better applied to a druid or sorcerer wanting to use bolas? Was more intended as a general question.I'm not sure I see the point in doing this. You have to delay till 2nd level where you get +1 BAB. At 2nd Level you can already take the exotic weapon proficiency via the Combat Trick rogue talent. So what are you getting other losing a feat at 1st level that you can't use? Seems kind of silly to me if this just to get an exotic weapon.
The only reason I could see wanting to do this is so you could have weapon finesse and an exotic weapon at 2nd level. But honestly in my game if the character had a good background story for why they should be proficient in an exotic weapon I'd allow it. I'd balance by making it a trait that allows them to take the exotic weapon proficiency with out the pre-requisite +1 BAB. So they blow a trait and a feat to do it and have it at 1st level. Seems fair to me.
That's makes sense then.
I think you'd have to house rule it to allow it. By RAW you can't delay feats. You can see this on the PRD as follows:
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats.
So you could create your own trait to allow as house rule. That would work but it's still a house rule unless a published trait already allows it which actually may exist in the future. Nudge nudge Paizo....
That's makes sense then.
I think you'd have to house rule it to allow it. By RAW you can't delay feats. You can see this on the PRD as follows:
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats.
So you could create your own trait to allow as house rule. That would work but it's still a house rule unless a published trait already allows it which actually may exist in the future. Nudge nudge Paizo....
I wonder if that has been pointed out before in this thread.
I guess if you repeat something often enough, it gives it more validity.
That's makes sense then.
I think you'd have to house rule it to allow it. By RAW you can't delay feats. You can see this on the PRD as follows:
When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats.
So you could create your own trait to allow as house rule. That would work but it's still a house rule unless a published trait already allows it which actually may exist in the future. Nudge nudge Paizo....
I wonder if that has been pointed out before in this thread.
I guess if you repeat something often enough, it gives it more validity.
Dude, you're wrong. You can't "delay" feat selection because it is explicitly part of the leveling up process. You can no more "delay" getting BAB or HP or skills. Your entire argument is "it doesn't say you can't EXPLICITLY" well no, it also doesn't say that your daggers, when thrown, DON'T turn into cardboard cutouts of Ronald Reagan. Feats aren't something you "spend" it's part of leveling up, part of that process, and things happen in that order period. Anything else is a house rule. Which is fine, but yelling house rule in a rules forum where people are looking for an official answer is very unhelpful.
Your entire argument is "it doesn't say you can't EXPLICITLY"
Hmmm... I wonder if I can find an appropriate response to this...
Oh yeah:
Dude, you're wrong.
My "argument," not that I realy have one, is that that one little section of the PRD and Core Rulebook isn't explicitly clear that you must spend the feats at that level.
And when some one asks for the passage in the rules that says you must spend the feats when gained, that passage doesn't suffice.
With that in mind, which one of us is being more unhelpful?