| 29 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Bonus Feats: 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). These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
When a fighter loses a learned bonus feat in exchange for a new one on levels 4, 8, 12, 16 or 20, does the bonus feat lost have to be a bonus combat feat that was received from gaining a level in the fighter class? I.E.(a bonus combat feat which was gained at fighter level 1 or an even fighter level) Or can the bonus feat come from any source that grants a bonus feat? I.E. (racial human bonus feat, one level of monk granting stunning fist as a bonus feat)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely sure if this is frequently asked by anyone other than Ravingdork, but it's a decent question, I suppose.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the "bonus feats" referred to in the class ability refer to bonus feats gained via the bonus feats class ability, and not by other sources.
I think the arcane discoveries replacing scribe scroll had a similar deal. Bonus feats seem to be a very flexible medium per RAW, even when RAI seems obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think this one can be handled with a general rule stating that class abilities refer to themselves unless otherwise stated. That would clear up RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that aside this sounds like an RD question. We as a community can take it to that point,but it might stall more legitimate questions.
With that aside this sounds like an RD question. We as a community can take it to that point,but it might stall more legitimate questions.
RD? Really Dumb? Raining Dalmatians?
|
Personally I think this one can be handled with a general rule stating that class abilities refer to themselves unless otherwise stated. That would clear up RAW.
seeing how the rules are up to now, it seems to be handled the other way around:
* Magus explicitley mentions the spells from the magus list. (restriction explicitely mentioned)
* share spell of eidolon works for summoners' spells from his list. (same here)
* it's widely used/known (and confirmed by devs) that the sorcerer's effect from bloodlines affect other spells (like+1 damage per dice from orc)
so i'd agree that once it's mentioned "bonus feat" it can be replaced.
(monk 1,2,6; Wizard 5, sorcerer 7; ...)
now stunning fist, heavy armor proficiency, ... : it's mentioned 'bonus feat' in the text description but it's not a "bonus feat class feature" it's a stunning fist, heavy armor, ... class feature. so they are different (imho)
that's for RAW.
in my games, you can retrain fighter bonus feats only.
Oh. So legally, I can make a Wizard who gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat, then take several levels in Fighter, and eventually trade out Scribe Scroll because it only recalls for replacing "a bonus feat" and not a Combat feat? Interesting.
At first I thought this thread was about exchanging Combat feats you selected for gaining an odd character level. Now I see why it could be an issue ... and I agree, that sounds silly.
Oh. So legally, I can make a Wizard who gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat, then take several levels in Fighter, and eventually trade out Scribe Scroll because it only recalls for replacing "a bonus feat" and not a Combat feat? Interesting.
At first I thought this thread was about exchanging Combat feats you selected for gaining an odd character level. Now I see why it could be an issue ... and I agree, that sounds silly.
No, because wizards don't get Scribe Scroll as a *bonus* feat - the class feature is Scribe Scroll. But you could switch out the ones you get every 5 levels.
No, because wizards don't get Scribe Scroll as a *bonus* feat - the class feature is Scribe Scroll. But you could switch out the ones you get every 5 levels.Oh. So legally, I can make a Wizard who gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat, then take several levels in Fighter, and eventually trade out Scribe Scroll because it only recalls for replacing "a bonus feat" and not a Combat feat? Interesting.
At first I thought this thread was about exchanging Combat feats you selected for gaining an odd character level. Now I see why it could be an issue ... and I agree, that sounds silly.
Scribe Scroll: At 1st level, a wizard gains Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat.
And if you specialize in the Necromancy school, you get another bonus feat (Turn Undead / Command Undead). That's two bonus feats on the first class level. Can we get three? I'm sure there's a 13th level Fighter that wants to switch out three bonus feats in pursuit of a brand-new feat chain.
But to be serious for a moment, I doubt that's intentional.
Well, RAI is completely clear in my eyes (I highly doubt the devs would willingly introduce a (admittedly far more restricted) version of chaos shuffle to PF).
But yeah, strict RAW and the generic name "bonus feat" would allow it...
There are arguments out there so obtuse, they're non-Euclidian.
Well, if you can just claim 'Bacause RAW!', or, worse, 'Because Magic!'... who needs logic, or consistency?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does seem like something that should be pantently obvious. I agree with whomever noted that in general it is expected that all class abilities do refer to them unless otherwise stated. It's just like when abilities refer to a "level" they refer to class level not total character level.
I would probably laugh at anyone in my table who insisted otherwise, but since they're also playing a fighter I'd probably let it slide anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so glad y'all have answered every other question in Pathfinder and now have time to work on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely sure if this is frequently asked by anyone other than Ravingdork, but it's a decent question, I suppose.
Is it even a decent question?
I'm so glad y'all have answered every other question in Pathfinder and now have time to work on this.
LOL
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From TriOmegaZero's page (one of my favorite posters BTW).
1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.
This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.
3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.
This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.
Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.
Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.
4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless.
If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.
5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!"
Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.
It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.
It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."
The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.
6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes.
That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.
Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake?
There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way.
The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column."
The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!"
Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.
7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.
Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.
So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.
Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.
8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power.
Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.
At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad.
Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.
9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.
The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.
The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.
Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.
Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.
10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted!
(Oooh, aaah!)
I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it."
I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on.
There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems.
Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms.
If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.
So: there they are. Make of them what you will.
Edit:
BTW, What do the OP think the he in “a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned”, refers to?Class or character?
Why he and not she? Could it be that the Iconic fighter is a he?
I think rule interpretation via pronoun gender would raise more problem than it would solve.
First, I didn't read your giant quote.
What do the OP think the he in “a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned”, refers to?
He refers to 'a fighter' which was used earlier in the sentence. That is how pronouns work.
I liked the clarification where everyone was yelling about how it was "pure cheese" to wield a two handed weapon in one hand and claim the bonus damage on power attack from it, then the FAQ came back that it was intended.
Seriously I go back sometimes and wipe a tear from my eye as I laugh at all the people complaining "what a horrible ruling this is" after the fact.
To be fair to "everyone", the PF FAQ-ruling was the exact opposite of the 3.5 FAQ-ruling on the same topic, despite the relevant rules text being virtually identical.
Does the new feat used to replace the old feat need to be a qualifying feat under Fighter's Bonus Feats list (ie. trade a Monk bonus feat for any combat feat you qualify for), could it be any feat you qualify for even if it doesn't fall under the Fighter's bonus feats (ie. trade a Monk bonus feat for Scribe Scroll) or does it need to follow the rules of the feat you replace (ie. replacing a Monk bonus feat means you must pick a new feat from the Monk bonus list)?
Because they did not address this possibility, I do not think other bonus feats can be traded out.
Ultimate campaign added an option for anyone to retrain any feat. They specifically addressed what feats you can retrain for (has to be from the list that you could have chosen from for the ability that granted you the feat). So using the UCamp rules, a monk could retrain their bonus feat dodge to be the bonus feat catch-off guard. They could not retrain their stunning fist feat, because only stunning fist is granted with that class ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite how most of you are choosing to characterize it. The actual writing supports the idea that you can switch out ANY bonus feat. While I tend to agree that it probably wasn't the intent we cant be sure. Most of those posting thought you could flurry with one weapon and that WASNT what the designers intended even if they went back to allowing it. So please stop acting like this clarification is somehow beneath you or that its on the same level as a staff of wishes fabricate dodge.
Some question are not worth asking. This is one of them. That flurry idea was also backed by "official" monk stack blocks in adventures allowing it, and numerous monks in the forums being made that way, with NO corrections. This one however has no such history, so there is no way to even back up how it might work that way.
I also think this needs clarification, what about racial traits that give bonus feats?
Fleet-Footed: While all elves are naturally lithe and agile, some also are naturally speedy and have a strong desire to rush into situations rather than worrying about looking ahead. Elves with this racial trait receive Run as a bonus feat and a +2 racial bonus on initiative checks. This racial trait replaces keen senses and weapon familiarity.
Would this qualify as a "bonus feat" that fighters can retrain?
a couple more:
Half-Orc: Shaman's Apprentice Only the most stalwart survive the years of harsh treatment that an apprenticeship to an orc shaman entails. Half-orcs with this trait gain Endurance as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the intimidating trait.
Drow: Darklands Stalker The lands outside of drow cities, from rough-hewn tunnels to rocky caverns, are treacherous to navigate. drow with this racial trait may move through difficult terrain without penalty while underground. In addition, drow with a Dexterity of 13 or higher gain Nimble Moves as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the spell-like abilities racial trait.
I liked the clarification where everyone was yelling about how it was "pure cheese" to wield a two handed weapon in one hand and claim the bonus damage on power attack from it, then the FAQ came back that it was intended.
Seriously I go back sometimes and wipe a tear from my eye as I laugh at all the people complaining "what a horrible ruling this is" after the fact.
To be fair to "everyone", the PF FAQ-ruling was the exact opposite of the 3.5 FAQ-ruling on the same topic, despite the relevant rules text being virtually identical.
I remember you! you were in there as I recall. :p
To also be quite fair, the rules were quite explicit as written in the first place.
What the rules say and what they mean are not always the same. Those of us who are good at interpreting them can often tell the difference, and it shows when the devs use our words to explain something, or when they make errata that basically backs up what we say the "intended" rule was.
It just so happened in that case PF decided to go with a different meaning than 3.5 despite identical wording.
PS:I have not checked the 3.5 FAQ to see how they explained it. I am just saying the words intent dont always match what is written.
One more thing, the devs are not technical writers so the RAW won't always match RAI. There are other instances like this in the core book that will come to light over time. I won't point them out because most of us know what the intent it, and I would rather have things FAQ'd that are actually confusing, or at least higher up on the chart than this.
In the last month, I've seen FAQ answers within days of a thread being posted. Since it seems like the design team is able to quickly post a clarification on something that is not very complex (such as this) I don't think getting an official answer is a waste of time. Especially when it seems there are quite a few people who believe "bonus feat" means "any bonus feat ever" and not "fighter bonus feats."
I liked the clarification where everyone was yelling about how it was "pure cheese" to wield a two handed weapon in one hand and claim the bonus damage on power attack from it, then the FAQ came back that it was intended.
Seriously I go back sometimes and wipe a tear from my eye as I laugh at all the people complaining "what a horrible ruling this is" after the fact.
To be fair to "everyone", the PF FAQ-ruling was the exact opposite of the 3.5 FAQ-ruling on the same topic, despite the relevant rules text being virtually identical.
I remember you! you were in there as I recall. :p
To also be quite fair, the rules were quite explicit as written in the first place.
What the rules say and what they mean are not always the same. Those of us who are good at interpreting them can often tell the difference, and it shows when the devs use our words to explain something, or when they make errata that basically backs up what we say the "intended" rule was.
It just so happened in that case PF decided to go with a different meaning than 3.5 despite identical wording.
PS:I have not checked the 3.5 FAQ to see how they explained it. I am just saying the words intent dont always match what is written.
I wouldn't call blatantly using the opposite ruling of the wording of the feat as being good at interpretation. I'd call that house ruling because they don't like the way something works.
Which is perfectly fine, but they need stop acting like its common sense, when frankly even the devs seem to be on a different page from them half the time. They don't know RAI anymore than the rest of us and assuming that people are "munchkins" because they use rules as they were written is frankly insulting.
Its why I always laugh when people who are "calling out cheese and munchkining" get knocked off their high horses.
Calling someone a munchkin has nothing to do with interpretation. You are assuming the people who do that are the ones I was saying interpreted the rules correctly. I was drawing no correlation between the two since calling names has nothing to do with being able to read the rules.
My point was ONLY that what is written and what is meant are not the same, and that some of us have a knack for knowing that what is written is not what it means, even to the point where, when there are large rules disputes the devs will use the same logic of those people. That does NOT mean they are always right, but certain people here to have a tendency to be correct, and it is a lot more than half of the time for some of us/them.
Now some people just use the words "cheese/munchkin" for everything they don't like and have no(a very small) grasp of the rules.
I don't think anyone(99%) had even thought of it until the question was asked. I am sure if I bring up other similar situations someone will argue for those also.
They(the devs) have been quick with the FAQ's lately, and I did notice, but if it slows down again. I don't want 10 or questions like this to be holding other rulings up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it doesn't specify swapping a Bonus Fighter Feat or a Bonus Combat Feat, it seems logical that, in the absence of a specific restriction as exists in other classes (ie. Magus, Summoner) and by the precedent of multi-class meshing being permissible (ie. Orc bloodline benefiting non-sorc spells), it stands to reason that, so long as you earned the feat by a Bonus Feats class ability, you can trade it out.
Well, let's see what happens if I apply your logic on something else in the Core Rulebook (something that was brought up by Ravingdork, IIRC)
A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists.
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
Note that nothing in the second paragraph indicates that I have to swap out my old spell for a spell from the Sorcerer list. Heck, even the initial paragraph only claims that I draw my spells primarily from the Sor/Wiz list, thus making it obviously clear, that by logic, I am fully within my rights to swap out an old spell for any kind of spell, doesn't it?
None of the examples below have anything to do with the class ability referencing itself explicitly. They have to do with referencing the class, or other abilities of that class. That *is* a very good point, but not pertinent to Fighter Bonus Feats.
Personally I think this one can be handled with a general rule stating that class abilities refer to themselves unless otherwise stated. That would clear up RAW.seeing how the rules are up to now, it seems to be handled the other way around:
* Magus explicitley mentions the spells from the magus list. (restriction explicitely mentioned)
* share spell of eidolon works for summoners' spells from his list. (same here)
* it's widely used/known (and confirmed by devs) that the sorcerer's effect from bloodlines affect other spells (like+1 damage per dice from orc)so i'd agree that once it's mentioned "bonus feat" it can be replaced.
(monk 1,2,6; Wizard 5, sorcerer 7; ...)that's for RAW.
in my games, you can retrain fighter bonus feats only.
I understand Thomas. I have found things that could work the same way if we read them strictly enough, but I never FAQ'd them. It just seems simple to me, maybe because I have played for so long. If we want to do things like this I guess I can get behind it, but I would want it to be a community idea. No, I am not expecting 100% agreement, but I would like to feel like at least 75% of us want to take it to this level.
I don't people saying "Has Wraithstrike lost his mind?".. :)
Calling someone a munchkin...True enough and I will grant you that you are one of the more civil level headed ones.
This particular thread I can't get behind though, because there is not even an iota of suggestion in the writing that it is for fighter bonus feats only. The only way to suggest it is to make up words in parenthesis and stick them in there. At that point its just how they feel it "should" work in their head and they're making up things to support it that aren't actually there.
btw: I deleted most of the quote because our quote string was getting long/full :P
My intention was not to be "making up words in parentheses." But to draw attention to how I think the rule was meant to be read, and contrast it to how some people (including you) choose to read it.
"Bonus feats" is ambiguous. It could refer to the fighter class ability called "Bonus feats" or it could refer to any bonus feat that a character has received. That is my point of requesting a FAQ answer. You are reading "bonus feat" to mean any bonus feat. I read it to mean only bonus feats from the fighter class ability "Bonus feats" which the section of rules is under. I have said why I think this is how it should be read, you correctly state it is not explicit.
so what if a monk 1/fighter 4 can swap out stunning fist?
it is not really that game changing.
just pray he doesn't take anything that OMG has stunning fist as a requirement, because he would have to swap those out first.