| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'ing... somewhat hoping for "No Response Needed", as I don't see how one can read a class feature called "Bonus Feats", and see a section of that that talks about changing "bonus feats", and think that it needs to be explicit that it doesn't mean any other "bonus feats".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Let me state up front that I have become completely disabused of the notion that I can somehow read the plain language of a pathfinder ability to intuit the RAI or even RAW of those thing that may be even sligthly ambiguous in Pathfinder.
With that said, does not the bolded language set forth a definition for bonus feat to be used throughout the rest of the text? Does it not define bonus feat as fighter bonus feats?
Here is to hoping I am wrong, though.
Driver that bolded section is key, and it should be assumed that the following "bonus feats" refer to the fighter bonus feats, but by the strictest reading of it, one could argue that is not exactly what it says.
Personally I think it is more than clear enough which is why I prefer to not takes the most literal reading of a rule, when words are used like they are here to save space, because it will do more harm than good overall IMHO. Repeating "fighter bonus feats" instead of just saying bonus feats, once "fighter bonus feats" was mentioned in the same description is just a waste of word space to me.
PS:No the word "fighter" alone won't break the word count, but if every ability is written like this it could cause an issue by either forcing Paizo to make larger books which increases the cost of the book or not having abilities(feats, spells, etc) not make the cut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
As it has been noted the ability does say "fighter bonus feats". It just does not repeat it every time, and shortens it to bonus feats, but I think the intent is clear. I am hoping for a "no reply required" to be honest.
Is that not a good reason to request a FAQ answer, instead of errata to the ability? That way there is an official answer of "how it is meant" without having to issue errata or increase word count at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that not a good reason to request a FAQ answer, instead of errata to the ability? That way there is an official answer of "how it is meant" without having to issue errata or increase word count at all.
Should we do this for every similar case?<----Serious question.
There are a few more in the book depending on how strictly you want to read things.
To me: FAQ is the place for things like this, where strict RAW allows things that were not RAI. FAQ is good for RAI explanations, while, if the RAW is flawed, errata is required. So yes, I think this should be done for similar cases where RAW and RAI are ambiguous.
To me: FAQ is the place for things like this, where strict RAW allows things that were not RAI. FAQ is good for RAI explanations, while, if the RAW is flawed, errata is required. So yes, I think this should be done for similar cases where RAW and RAI are ambiguous.
I will rephrase my question and make a statement.
The rules can be clear enough to be understood without appearing to have been written by a technical writer for most people, most of the time.
At what point do we draw the line, or are you trying to say we should never draw the line?
edit:Ok, so I made the statement first.. :)
To me: FAQ is the place for things like this, where strict RAW allows things that were not RAI. FAQ is good for RAI explanations, while, if the RAW is flawed, errata is required. So yes, I think this should be done for similar cases where RAW and RAI are ambiguous.I will rephrase my question and make a statement.
The rules can be clear enough to be understood without appearing to have been written by a technical writer for most people, most of the time.
At what point do we draw the line, or are you trying to say we should never draw the line?
edit:Ok, so I made the statement first.. :)
If enough people agree that the rule can be read against the intention, and such a reading can cause a problem (Such as in PFS) then I think FAQ should be used for an official clarification that carries weight.
If the RAW was written poorly such that it does not support the intention, I think errata should be issued to correct it so that it allows the intended meaning.
As for what "enough people" is, that is for the FAQ team to decide, and why we can choose to click or not click the FAQ link on a post.
To me: FAQ is the place for things like this, where strict RAW allows things that were not RAI. FAQ is good for RAI explanations, while, if the RAW is flawed, errata is required. So yes, I think this should be done for similar cases where RAW and RAI are ambiguous.I will rephrase my question and make a statement.
The rules can be clear enough to be understood without appearing to have been written by a technical writer for most people, most of the time.
At what point do we draw the line, or are you trying to say we should never draw the line?
edit:Ok, so I made the statement first.. :)
If enough people agree that the rule can be read against the intention, and such a reading can cause a problem (Such as in PFS) then I think FAQ should be used for an official clarification that carries weight.
If the RAW was written poorly such that it does not support the intention, I think errata should be issued to correct it so that it allows the intended meaning.
As for what "enough people" is, that is for the FAQ team to decide, and why we can choose to click or not click the FAQ link on a post.
By enough people I did not mean a specific number. I was more referring to the likelihood that someone could not see the connection between "fighter bonus feats" and "bonus feats" in the following paragraph.
Now to be clear I am not talking about someone that is brand new. I expect for them to make mistakes anyway, but what you might consider someone with a basic understanding of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just imagine that they had left out the magus only spells out spellstrike saying spells. I'm sorry that apparently I was the first person to actually read the description of the ability instead of assuming it worked the way you think. I'll even agree you may be right but just like the wording on antagonize had to change. WHATS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IS THE RULE. If doesn't matter if your are an oracle at interpretting the augurs of the designers until they answer that's what the rule saysAs it has been noted the ability does say "fighter bonus feats". It just does not repeat it every time, and shortens it to bonus feats, but I think the intent is clear. I am hoping for a "no reply required" to be honest.StuffCalling someone a munchkin...StuffThis is exactly how I see it wraith. The relevant paragraphs are discussing a singular class feature of the Fighter and how it interacts with the feats gained from said class feature.
RAI is actually the rule. RAW is just an attempt to tell you what RAI is.
You have to intepret RAW to find RAI.
Now when they only issue an FAQ they are saying "this is what those words mean", but sometimes the words are so far removed from the intent they have to issue errata and change the actual words.
If RAW took precedence the death condition would have been errata'd by now, but it is the same even after 10 years because we know what it means to be "dead".
Being dead exists in the real.world the same way that the word dirt means the same thing in an RPG and the real world. There is no such precedent for class features or bonus feats. Find a different way to belittle a different opinion. I'm sure you vast abilities that apparently allow you to read developers minds and divine holy intent will give you the edge you need.
It does not matter if "dead" exist in our world or not. Game terms trump real world definitions in the game. By the game's definition the dead condition does now work the same by RAW as it does RAI.
Being snarky won't help you either, unless you really do believe I can read minds, but I think I am just reading words. :)
The great thing about these Messageboards are all the friendly, helpful and active posters/people. If you have a rule question or a question regarding a build you may get help from people like Gauss, Majuba, wraithstrike and/or others. That is also why we have a Messageboards, so we can help each other.
When it comes to rules questions, not counting the Devs, Wraithstrike pretty much is the god of knowledge on these messageboards and he (and others) has offered an answer and motivated it good.
During all my active years I’ve only seen Wraithstrike being close to wrong once, so yes you can trust his judgment.
The new trend that every time you got a question you put "FAQ" in your thread title and demand a FAQ answer is annoying. I wouldn’t mind if the Devs could answer every question I have, but I also know they are busy doing other stuff.
edit:
There are for more common questions and far more unclear rules than this one, stuff like: invisibility/hide and sneak attack, versatile performance, level drain, monk and Force shield, etc. I haven’t seen the OPs question been asked before and I frankly don’t seen the rule as unclear.
Wraithstrike and others have already answer the question. No need to abuse the FAQ or hassle the Devs.
@proftobe : being snaryk to one of the most respected and helpful poster on these mesageboards (or to anyone that offers you help) is neither productive nor classy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All ha the almost never wrong lord Wraithstrike
|
I have a lot of respect for Wraithstr....excuse me...Lord Wraithstrike! We are alike in our insistence on applying common sense!
The only occasion I can recall where we seriously disagreed was in my first foray on these boards: the vexed question of 'Do you announce a full attack, then after the first attack abandon it and take a move action instead of the rest of your attacks, or do you make an attack without defining whether it is a standard attack action or the first of a full attack action until after the first attack is resolved?'
The actual thread was about Manyshot, but it became clear that resolving the above question would also resolve Manyshot.
Imagine my surprise and disappointment when skimming the FAQs the other day. The Manyshot question has been resolved (Yay!), but they did so while very carefully avoiding defining the big question re: don't define action type/start with full attack then abandon.
Why did they go to such lengths to avoid resolving that conundrum?
I have a lot of respect for Wraithstr....excuse me...Lord Wraithstrike! We are alike in our insistence on applying common sense!
The only occasion I can recall where we seriously disagreed was in my first foray on these boards: the vexed question of 'Do you announce a full attack, then after the first attack abandon it and take a move action instead of the rest of your attacks, or do you make an attack without defining whether it is a standard attack action or the first of a full attack action until after the first attack is resolved?'
The actual thread was about Manyshot, but it became clear that resolving the above question would also resolve Manyshot.
Imagine my surprise and disappointment when skimming the FAQs the other day. The Manyshot question has been resolved (Yay!), but they did so while very carefully avoiding defining the big question re: don't define action type/start with full attack then abandon.
Why did they go to such lengths to avoid resolving that conundrum?
The devs only answer the specific FAQ. As an example if a thread breaks off into smaller arguments that are all valid FAQ questions they will still generally only answer the main one. You would have to open a new thread for each of the other points, and the manyshot question was the main point. The other argument was just being made to find out why manyshot worked the way it did.
As an aside do you still think that you can gain the benefits of a full attack, stop it(the full attack) and then do something completely different?
PS:I am not going to derail this thread. I am just curious.
No because fighter bonus feats is a typical english usage of restatement. When you use it like that it goes ".... word, restatement." Here the restatement would be combat feats, which are indeed the list of fighter bonus feats that they can choose from.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.
Let me state up front that I have become completely disabused of the notion that I can somehow read the plain language of a pathfinder ability to intuit the RAI or even RAW of those thing that may be even sligthly ambiguous in Pathfinder.
With that said, does not the bolded language set forth a definition for bonus feat to be used throughout the rest of the text? Does it not define bonus feat as fighter bonus feats?
Here is to hoping I am wrong, though.
True, the restatement would be for "combat feats", but the text also clearly states that "these bonus feats" must be chosen from combat feats. The text then goes on to use "bonus feat" exclusively in reference to those which may be selected. So if you want to get precise about rules of language, that's got to continue throughout the rest of the subsection.
If there was intended to be a distinction between "bonus feats" in general and "bonus feats" which must be chosen from a specific list, it would be necessary to delineate that through modifiers. This sort of thing happens in technical manuals, legal writing, and the like all the time. When a phrase is clarified, it's standard to then assume that clarification carries through the rest of the section until further notice, otherwise ambiguity arises. If the word is used with no indication that it is now referencing something distinct from before, the reader is not only free but expected to assume that the meaning has not changed.
"Bonus feats" here specifically references combat or fighter bonus feats. Therefore, it stands to reason that all subsequent references in that section to "bonus feats" are implied to mean the same.
Certainly developer intent could be otherwise. But if we're resorting to grammatical construction to resolve the issue, we need to discuss all the relevant grammatical rules of construction as well. As was noted by wraith and tempe, the most obvious reading makes plain what "bonus feats" means in context. You have to work to read in the ambiguity. Again, doesn't mean that's not ultimately what the developers might have intended. But if it is, they worded it incredibly poorly. The natural reading is to restrict the feats to fighter bonus feats. If they wanted to alter that, it really should have been worded to say that they can exchange "any bonus feat (even those gained from other classes)" or something along those lines.
I have a lot of respect for Wraithstr....excuse me...Lord Wraithstrike! We are alike in our insistence on applying common sense!
The only occasion I can recall where we seriously disagreed was in my first foray on these boards: the vexed question of 'Do you announce a full attack, then after the first attack abandon it and take a move action instead of the rest of your attacks, or do you make an attack without defining whether it is a standard attack action or the first of a full attack action until after the first attack is resolved?'
The actual thread was about Manyshot, but it became clear that resolving the above question would also resolve Manyshot.
That wasn't ever really what the question was, though. The question wasn't "Do you have to determine whether your attack is a full attack before making your first roll?" The question was, "Does choosing to perform an action which requires you to utilize the full attack action remove your option to make use of the 'deciding between' language after the first attack roll?"
And besides, I think the FAQ actually did resolve your issue. "Though the rules for Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows." That specifically answers the question. It doesn't matter what you call it before or after your first attack in the ordinary case. But if you choose to do something before your first attack that makes the ultimate choice for you, you're stuck with it. In other words, usually you can choose what the action was after your first attack, but Manyshot forces you to choose before.
First and foremost I didn't get "snarky" with wraithstrike until.he presented his.opinion as fact. Go re read the posts. I stated that.his.position was more.than likely correct but it can be read the other way. He in turn started to patronize those of us who had taken an opposite position. Despite how its being presented on this board neither of us work for Paizo and his opinion is just that an opinion. No.matter how many minions/posters he has.
What opinion did I present as fact? With that aside presenting an opinion as fact is not a bad thing unless you have nothing to back it up with.
I did not patronize anyone. If so provide quotes.
With that aside if someone's opinion is normally correct it generally means they have a good mind for knowing what the devs intend, and that requires some level of understanding of how the game works,which was basically my point. If they understand, then they don't need to be able to read minds to know the devs intentions. <---This paragraph was basically what I was saying when I said some of us can know what the devs intend.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What opinion did I present as fact? With that aside presenting an opinion as fact is not a bad thing unless you have nothing to back it up with.
I did not patronize anyone. If so provide quotes.
This really doesn't need to be that kind of argument, folks. Wraithstrike: I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but this post:
Those of us who are good at interpreting them can often tell the difference
... and this post:
most of us know what the intent it
... and this post:
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.
... did come off as a bit patronizing, I thought. I mean, those of us who are good at is a phrase that's hard to take in any other way. So though I'm sure it wasn't your intention, and though I do understand and appreciate the point you're after in those posts, I think you can see why proftobe might've got his hackles up reading them.
(Thanks, fretgod, for the bolding. I like it.)
|
|
That wasn't ever really what the question was, though. The question wasn't "Do you have to determine whether your attack is a full attack before making your first roll?" The question was, "Does choosing to perform an action which requires you to utilize the full attack action remove your option to make use of the 'deciding between' language after the first attack roll?"
You can also frame it that way. Both questions speak to how the rules work in a general sense, then apply the result to the specific question on Manyshot.
And besides, I think the FAQ actually did resolve your issue. "Though the rules for Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows." That specifically answers the question. It doesn't matter what you call it before or after your first attack in the ordinary case. But if you choose to do something before your first attack that makes the ultimate choice for you, you're stuck with it. In other words, usually you can choose what the action was after your first attack, but Manyshot forces you to choose before.
Although the FAQ made this 'locking-in' rule for Manyshot, it very carefully did not imply that it was a general rule for any situation when your first attack was part of something which can only be a full attack. The FAQ could just as easily have said that any such attack 'locks you in' to a full attack. I found that choice both significant and frustrating because they didn't specify the opposite either. : )
|
|
As an aside do you still think that you can gain the benefits of a full attack, stop it(the full attack) and then do something completely different?
PS:I am not going to derail this thread. I am just curious.
My view remains that the 'deciding between' rule is only accessible to those who are taking a full attack as a full-round action, and only after the first attack is resolved but before any subsequent attack is initiated. Thanks to the FAQ this option is denied to those whose first attack is from Manyshot specifically.
Further, I believe that any action which consumes a type of game action (full-round, standard, move, etc.) must define what game action it takes as you take it. The 'deciding between' text is the only way to change your mind once you've started. I don't believe for a moment that you can attack without knowing or deciding what game action that attack is using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What opinion did I present as fact? With that aside presenting an opinion as fact is not a bad thing unless you have nothing to back it up with.
I did not patronize anyone. If so provide quotes.
This really doesn't need to be that kind of argument, folks. Wraithstrike: I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but this post:
Those of us who are good at interpreting them can often tell the difference... and this post:
most of us know what the intent it... and this post:
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.... did come off as a bit patronizing, I thought. I mean, those of us who are good at is a phrase that's hard to take in any other way. So though I'm sure it wasn't your intention, and though I do understand and appreciate the point you're after in those posts, I think you can see why proftobe might've got his hackles up reading them.
(Thanks, fretgod, for the bolding. I like it.)
Thanks.
The following is not directed at Joe M. I am just working off of his post.The first one is not patronizing at all, but I do see how it could be taken that way. I was saying the idea that you don't have to be a dev to be able to accurately know what a dev intends a rule to be. You can have an innate understanding for how the rules work. It has been demonstrated more than one. That does not mean anyone is always right. Even the devs change their minds on things, but to say "you are not a dev therefore you don't KNOW" is inaccurate."
If you follow the quote to the end I also said "and it shows when the devs use our words to explain something"
As for the second quote "most of us" was referring to ALL(99%) of us, not a select few. As an example most of us know how the dead condition is intended to work, even if RAW does not support RAI.
As for "those of us who are good", I don't think that is a reason to be upset. Some of us are better at interpreting the rules than others, just like some of us are better at playing basketball or anything else. That would be like me getting upset because someone said they build characters better than me. It may or may not be true, but I don't see how it is an insult, and if he referenced a group of people that were better than me at it, and claimed they had a track record then why be upset about it?
If I did disagree I would just ask for evidence or proof. "Show me these characters that you or someone else built". If he were willing to back up his position then I would look them(the characters) over, and try to be objective. Does he have a good reason to believe what he said? Is he correct? The conversation would go from there.
[...] Despite how its being presented on this board neither of us work for Paizo and his opinion is just that an opinion. No.matter how many minions/posters he has.
He doesn't need any minions. His track records speaks for itself.
Back to the discussion. :)
Generally speaking a class feature only speaks for itself, and for the class which it is listed under unless otherwise noted. Rules are also written a certain way at times to save space(word count). These things must be considered when reading a rule, and not just the exact wording of the rule. That is why it is shortened from "fighter bonus feat" to "bonus feat" for the rest of the description.
In other words the exact reading of a rule may not match RAI, so if you want something that would hold up in a court of law where everything has to be exact it(the writing) won't be that precise. However, when you look at precedent for how the rules are written it is a lot easier to figure out intent.
I don't think it is inherently broken, but there may be someone that can find a way to take advantage of it. If your players are not the type to squeeze every ounce of power they can out of a character then it should be ok.
|
|
Leaving the matter of intent to the side: would allowing this ability be broken?
Eh. Doesn't seem too broken to me. I'm sure some of the more clever character-builders around here could think up ways to exploit it, but how bad can one feat at 4th and every 4 levels thereafter really be?
... He said, tempting fate.
Well, now that UCamp is out, you can retrain your feats anyway, it just takes some time/money.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like things to make sense.
It makes sense to me that a person constantly training for armed combat will not only improve those abilities over time, but also modify his own technique to meet perceived needs. Fighter Bonus Feats, and the ability to retrain them, makes sense.
It does not make sense that this ability would help a fighter to swap his ability to Craft Wand for an ability to Quicken Spell, even if he had 5 levels of wizard!
A restatement is for the noun before it, not the entire line.
"Many people watch all kinds of astronomical phenomena including Hailey's Comet, a comet that comes by Earth once every 76 years."
Therefore the restatement only applies to the word before it, by standard english. aka, Combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats. This is true
Since bonus feats is not clarified by calling it a fighter bonus feat, your little clarification for the rest of the text does not exist
You're actually working to put fighter bonus feats in there. Nowhere in there does it ever specify that the retraining has to be from fighter bonus feats. Fighter bonus feats is another name for combat feats. That's because they're the list that fighters get to choose from for bonus feats.
I'm not working to read ambiguity because I'm not reading ambiguity. To me it says bonus feats. No ambiguity about that. He can retrain any bonus feat he has learned, just like it says in blatant english. Please try more reasoned arguments before you attempt to call me out on purposely working around language to make something ambiguous.
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.
So looking at what I bolded they setting a precedent for bonus feats and fighter bonus feats being synonamous.
Now we go on to where is says "a fighter" can choose a new bonus feat. Now if they are speaking of the fighter learning a bonus feat, and the "fighter" does not have access to wizard or monk bonus feats, it only makes sense with them already saying in the bonus feat section that bonus feats are referring to "fighter bonus feats" that they can only intend for fighter bonus feats to be replace. These are the same bonus feats that are only used for combat feats.
So the fact that this information is listed under "Bonus feats(the listed class feature" means you don't think the bonus feats aka "fighter bonus feats" are referring to the class feature that give a bonus feat at every even level, but may instead be referring to the bonus feats that a monk or wizard has instead?
PS:I am sure you don't really mean access to wizard bonus feats. I am just starting from that argument until we get down to what you are trying to say.
edit: What I am saying is that the only feats that can be retrained(replaced with fighter bonus feats) are the bonus feats that are the fighter's class feature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does actually make some kind of sense.
Take a single class human fighter. he will get a feat at each odd level, just by being a creature! He will also get a bonus feat at first level for being a human, and a bonus fighter (combat) feat at first level and every even level for being a fighter.
Although the bonus fighter feats must be combat feats, the others don't have to be. But a lot of those will be combat feats anyway!
So, at (for example) 15th level, he will have a list of feats: 1 for being human, 8 for being a creature(!), and 8 for being a fighter. He will have a list of 17 feats, at least 8 of which are combat feats, but there may be as many as 17 combat feats! We can't tell which of these combat feats were taken as fighter bonus feats and which were taken using his race or hit dice/character level, assuming he has more than 8. This information is not recorded!
When the fighter gains a level he will be a 16th level fighter, and he will gain a bonus combat feat and the chance to retrain a combat feat. If he was limited to only retraining those feats taken specifically at each even level, then that information would have to be recorded somewhere. But that's not how the game works!
It makes sense that the ability to retrain feats should apply to any feat which is defined as a combat feat in it's description, both for the feat being replaced and the replacement feat. It does not make sense that either feat could be one that is not a combat feat.
This is an evolution of my opinion. Previously I believed the feat being lost must have originally been gained as a result of the fighter bonus feat class feature. Having pondered, I think it could have been any combat feat from any source (as long as it's not a prerequisite etc.), but not a feat that isn't a combat feat.
As SKR mentioned, no class' weapon or armour/shield proficiencies were granted as the result of feats, so they can't be retrained.
I could write TZO instead.