| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
What is this? I don't even...
When did I ever say the "restatement" was for the entire line? I said that while yes, the restatement was to give another phrase for "combat feat", the entire point of explaining what "combat feats" are is to provide context for the bonus feats, which is the entire point of the subsection.
The line defines the phrase "bonus feats". Then the rest of the section repeatedly uses the phrase "bonus feats". It stands to reason, by common usage of the English language, that that initial definition of "bonus feats" carries through the rest of the section. The initial definition of "bonus feats" was "combat feats" (or "fighter bonus feats"). Ergo, all subsequent usages of the phrase "bonus feats" within that same section carry the same meaning. They're all combat feats (or fighter bonus feats, if you'd rather).
It says "These bonus feats must be selected from combat feats (or fighter bonus feats)." What other kinds of feats is a fighter able to choose if not restricted to the fighter bonus feat list? It doesn't say "A fighter gets a 'fighter bonus feat'." It says "bonus feat". Then it defines it. Then it uses "bonus feat" again, later. How is it that "bonus feat" means something entirely different when used later?
That does actually make some kind of sense.
No it doesn’t. A class feature that makes the class more powerful (even) if he multiclass doesn’t make sense.
I don’t mind if Paizo gives the fighter more love, but this reading doesn’t give the fighter more love. It gives the multi classed fighter more love.
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.
It's intuitive to think that the new bonus feat could simply replace any feat the fighter learned (from the combat feat list), except the section says the new bonus feat must replace a previous bonus feat. Bonus feats must be chosen from the combat feats, but being a combat feat doesn't mean being a bonus feat (think squares and rectangles).
Honestly, in a home game I probably wouldn't have a problem running it that way, though.
What is this? I don't even...
When did I ever say the "restatement" was for the entire line? I said that while yes, the restatement was to give another phrase for "combat feat", the entire point of explaining what "combat feats" are is to provide context for the bonus feats, which is the entire point of the subsection.
The line defines the phrase "bonus feats". Then the rest of the section repeatedly uses the phrase "bonus feats". It stands to reason, by common usage of the English language, that that initial definition of "bonus feats" carries through the rest of the section. The initial definition of "bonus feats" was "combat feats" (or "fighter bonus feats"). Ergo, all subsequent usages of the phrase "bonus feats" within that same section carry the same meaning. They're all combat feats (or fighter bonus feats, if you'd rather).
It says "These bonus feats must be selected from combat feats (or fighter bonus feats)." What other kinds of feats is a fighter able to choose if not restricted to the fighter bonus feat list? It doesn't say "A fighter gets a 'fighter bonus feat'." It says "bonus feat". Then it defines it. Then it uses "bonus feat" again, later. How is it that "bonus feat" means something entirely different when used later?
Even I get this and English isn't even my first language.
|
That does actually make some kind of sense.No it doesn’t. A class feature that makes the class more powerful (even) if he multiclass doesn’t make sense.
I don’t mind if Paizo gives the fighter more love, but this reading doesn’t give the fighter more love. It gives the multi classed fighter more love.
How? How is it giving a multi-class fighter more love than a single-class fighter?
The ability to retrain is gained at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th levels in the fighter class! So, taking a level in another class won't let you retrain.
If you mean retraining combat feats gained through non-fighter levels, well, if you hadn't chosen to take that level in a non-fighter class you could have taken it in a fighter class. You're not getting a free lunch, nor are you making levels in fighter pointless.
"These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats."
"Bonus feats must be combat feats."
Whatever the hell else they want to call combat feats is irrelevant. That's not even an issue here. What matters is that they specifically tell you what the bonus feats are. They are combat feats.
And then they tell you what you can do with the bonus feats (which are defined as combat feats). You can change out a previous bonus feat (which was defined as one of the combat feats previously) for another bonus feat (which was defined as one of the combat feats previously).
Don't care how many names they give combat feats. I'm not talking about that. I never was. The point is that they specifically tell you what the phrase "bonus feat" means. They specifically use that same phrase throughout the passage. It means the same thing in the first paragraph as it does the second. Fighter bonus feats and combat feats are the same thing. And for this section, they are both synonymous with the phrase "bonus feats".
You can't trade out any feat. You can't trade out a bonus feat taken from or provided by another class. It refers specifically to "bonus feats" and then defines that phrase for the purposes of the section. You can trade out a bonus feat (taken from the combat feats list) for another bonus feat (taken from the combat feats list).
THESE BONUS FEATS MUST BE COMBAT FEATS. That's all I've said. That's the only point I've ever attempted to make. The section dealing with the bonus feats a fighter gets as a part of the class ability "Bonus Feats" states, explicitly, that the bonus feats must be combat feats. Ergo, A fighter's "bonus feats" must be combat feats. They must be taken from that list. Those that are exchanged must be from that list and replaced with ones from that list. They define, explicitly, what they mean, for the purposes of the fighter's bonus feats class ability, when they use the phrase "bonus feats". Whenever the phrase is used throughout that section, it means a feat which must be chosen from the combat feats list. So yes, in this case all foods which can be selected must be selected from that which we call muffins. Because we are told that, for the purposes of this food selection, all foods are muffins.
What, exactly, is the definition of "bonus feats" for the purposes of this section if not what I've been saying it is (which is the feats a fighter gets at even levels that must be taken from the combat feats list)? It's a specific class feature defined in the same place as the rest of the class features.
What other feats are allowed to be exchanged if it's not limited to those selected by the "bonus feats" class ability?
And I don't know how much clearer I can be that I have no disagreement that the phrases "fighter bonus feats" and "combat feats" are synonymous. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've stated precisely that more than once. So I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it. I've not been discussing the phrase "fighter bonus feats" really at any point.
"These bonus feats" specifically means the feats a fighter chooses as a part of this class ability. That doesn't mean every bonus feat for every class in the game. What "bonus feats" might mean elsewhere in the game is irrelevant because that's not the definition applicable to this section (lest you also want to argue that Wizards are allowed to learn spells from the Cleric spell list because the word "Spells" is used in the class ability descriptions of both classes). This fighter-specific definition for "bonus feats" doesn't make a bit of difference anywhere else in the rule book, but it certainly applies for this section.
Are you ultimately arguing that if a fighter has 5 levels in wizard and learned still spell, he can trade in still spell when he gets to 4th level as a fighter? Why? Simply because the term "bonus feat" is used instead of "combat feat" or "fighter bonus feat"? If that's the case, can the fighter then replace still spell with silent spell when he learns a new bonus feat? If not, why not? The same "ambiguous" bonus feat phrase is used referencing the new feat the fighter gets to pick up.
And no worries, I've been playing DCUO for the last two hours.
The best I've come up with so far is that a Skilled Focus human could take one level of either Cleric (Darkness, Nobility, Rune; Separatist may be useful here), Monk, or Wizard (Necromancy subschool). That would grant three bonus feats at first level, and one additional bonus feat at both 8th and 16th level, which could be retrainable at character levels 5, 9, 13, and 17.
I suppose it could help a high-level fighter select multiple high-level feat trees, without having too many of those "Now I qualify for two things I want but can only afford one" situation.
Naw, it means I know how to argue until people scream in frustration and pull their hair out. Or didn't you notice the beginning of the usage of vulgarities and caps lock. lol
Bludgeoning someone into frustration is not "good argument."
For clarity, here is the section again.
"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."
For some reason, you think the 2nd paragraph "bonus feat" is not the same as the 1st paragraph "bonus feat". 1st paragraph states bonus feats must be selected from combat feats. 2nd paragraph says you can learn a new bonus feat, in place of one you have already learned, if you meet these conditions. It does not say, "You can replace a bonus feat you have already learned, with any feat you qualify for" so the limitation of "combat feats" from the 1st paragraph still applies.
Naw, it means I know how to argue until people scream in frustration and pull their hair out. Or didn't you notice the beginning of the usage of vulgarities and caps lock. lolBludgeoning someone into frustration is not "good argument."
For clarity, here is the section again.
"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."
For some reason, you think the 2nd paragraph "bonus feat" is not the same as the 1st paragraph "bonus feat". 1st paragraph states bonus feats must be selected from combat feats. 2nd paragraph says you can learn a new bonus feat, in place of one you have already learned, if you meet these conditions. It does not say, "You can replace a bonus feat you have already learned, with any feat you qualify for" so the limitation of "combat feats" from the 1st paragraph still applies.
Indeed, so you have to learn from the combat feats. Never does it specify that your bonus feats must come from fighter levels, only that they must be fighter bonus feats, specifically called out as combat feats, and must be replaced with the same.
The section itself is called "Bonus feats" and all references within the section refer to the section itself, and not the general case of bonus feats.
I think rule interpretation via pronoun gender would raise more problem than it would solve.
But that's just it. We're getting into parsing language so obsessively that we're wasting time. For instance, RAW it's effectively impossible to make multiclass Paladin/Fighter.
Why? Because the Paladin class features clearly refer to a female. No question about it. And the Fighter class features refer to a male. Only hermaphroditic PCs can possibly make such a multiclass choice.
Ridiculous? Absolutely. RAW? Again, absolutely.
But someone could make a thread - and probably will, any moment now - asking PDT to add wording that specifically tells us we can substitute the sex of our PCs for those iconic examples given. Without it, there's no rule that allows for male Paladins.
Ravingdork? Maybe. Shallowsoul? Maybe. Doesn't matter. It's just another question where someone parsed the language in a twisted manner that isn't even remotely unclear.
The section itself is called "Bonus feats" and all references within the section refer to the section itself, and not the general case of bonus feats.Do you have anything to back up this statement?
It is how sections of text work. Do you have anything to refute it?
Nope fighter bonus feat and bonus feat means two different things. Because bonus feat is never called out as fighter bonus feats. Bonus feats have to be chosen from fighter bonus feats.
There's no change there. None. Bonus feat is your selection at every point in the entire thing. Never is bonus feat called out as a combat feat, a bonus feat from fighter levels, or a fighter bonus feat. It has to be chosen from them. It is not them. Not ever. lol
Trolololol!
Wizards can learn Cleric spells, too! I know this is true because both classes have a class ability called "Spells" and the entry for Wizard never explicitly defines "Spells" as being class-restrictive! Sure, it says that Wizards cast "arcane spells", but it never says that they don't cast divine spells, too! Plus, "A Wizard may know any number spells!" Just "spells"! Like Clerics! Woo!
Be right back, gonna make a Wizard that casts heal! Clerics are antiquated!
Also, at 5th level she's gonna take Power Attack because she gets a bonus feat and the Fighter section says Bonus Feats have to come from the Combat Feats list.
Just curious...
Is there any other class ability that lets you change something you gained from a different class?
I get that you're exaggerating for affect but unfortunately its not the same.thing. so while it may not be the way that the majority of people read the paragraph that doesn't invalidate the second reading. Everyone can complain all they like but.it doesnt invalidate the question.
You're missing my point, then. I'm not invalidating the question, I'm invalidating his sole justification for his answer. I ordinarily wouldn't do it, but he's refusing to actually respond to any clarifying questions I asked. Instead his response is, "You just keep saying the same thing" or "You still haven't proved me wrong", both of which ignore the lengths I've gone to to actually have a comprehensive discussion on the merits (for the benefit of other people because he's clearly trolling at this point).
Reductio ad absurdum and all that.
Regardless of the Devs intent I would be fine with if fighters just could swap out any combat feat.
Let’s say you play a human fighter. At level one you pick Iron will, Power attack and Cleave.
At level 8 you want to swap out Cleve and pick improved weapon focus.
Would it really be fair to deny you swapping out the feat unless you could prove you actually picked cleave as the fighter bonus feat?
I feel it is unnecessary to force players to keep track of when they picked the feat. Was it at level 2 or level 3? Heck, the fighter can use a bit more love and players can use less bookkeeping.
I wouldn't mind if they get to swap out cobat feats at every even-numbered fighter level after level 4, just as Sorcerers get to swap out spells at every even-numbered sorcerer level after 4th..
BTW, Fighter feats does not always equal a Combat feats. The tactician may choose Skill Focus or any teamwork feat, in addition to combat feats, as bonus feats.
^ Like I said, I really wouldn't have a problem running it that way in my home games. I don't think it's unreasonable. I'd never let someone swap out a bonus feat gained from a different class, though.
I feel it is unnecessary to force players to keep track of when they picked the feat. Was it at level 2 or level 3? Heck, the fighter can use a bit more love and players can use less bookkeeping.
I don't know about you, but I don't alphabetize my feat list. Its pretty much listed in order, from level 1 feat, human racial feat (if appropriate), other level 1 bonus feats (such as fighter). The next one would be the level 2 fighter feat, then the level 3 feat, then level 4 fighter feat, and so on.
*Note: I don't have or use hero lab, but I would think it would have to keep track of what level/ability you selected a feat with for validating a build.
|
Regardless of the Devs intent I would be fine with if fighters just could swap out any combat feat.
Let’s say you play a human fighter. At level one you pick Iron will, Power attack and Cleave.
At level 8 you want to swap out Cleve and pick improved weapon focus.
Would it really be fair to deny you swapping out the feat unless you could prove you actually picked cleave as the fighter bonus feat?I feel it is unnecessary to force players to keep track of when they picked the feat. Was it at level 2 or level 3? Heck, the fighter can use a bit more love and players can use less bookkeeping.
I wouldn't mind if they get to swap out cobat feats at every even-numbered fighter level after level 4, just as Sorcerers get to swap out spells at every even-numbered sorcerer level after 4th..
BTW, Fighter feats does not always equal a Combat feats. The tactician may choose Skill Focus or any teamwork feat, in addition to combat feats, as bonus feats.
FWIW, Hero Lab does separate normal from fighter feats. For those that do it the traditional paper way, it wouldn't be too much to make a mark (*, superscript B, underline, etc) to differentiate. Unless you haven't been keeping track, of course.
I feel it is unnecessary to force players to keep track of when they picked the feat. Was it at level 2 or level 3? Heck, the fighter can use a bit more love and players can use less bookkeeping.I don't know about you, but I don't alphabetize my feat list. Its pretty much listed in order, from level 1 feat, human racial feat (if appropriate), other level 1 bonus feats (such as fighter). The next one would be the level 2 fighter feat, then the level 3 feat, then level 4 fighter feat, and so on.
*Note: I don't have or use hero lab, but I would think it would have to keep track of what level/ability you selected a feat with for validating a build.
I too list them in order. I use excel and keep track of everything, skills and feats included.
I just don't see the point in denying someone swapping out a combat feat just because it was picked as a human bonus feat and not as a fighter bonus feat.
I just don't see the point in denying someone swapping out a combat feat just because it was picked as a human bonus feat and not as a fighter bonus feat.
If they want to change their human bonus feat, I'd let them use the UCamp retraining rules to train to change it. Additionally, they could change it to any feat they qualify for, and not be limited to combat feats.
I don't see that it is broken to let them trade out any combat feat they've gained... but then would you let a monk/fighter multiclass trade out their monk bonus feat (that happened to be a combat feat) with any combat feat (if they hadn't kept good track of which feat came from where)?
I just don't see the point in denying someone swapping out a combat feat just because it was picked as a human bonus feat and not as a fighter bonus feat.If they want to change their human bonus feat, I'd let them use the UCamp retraining rules to train to change it. Additionally, they could change it to any feat they qualify for, and not be limited to combat feats.
I don't see that it is broken to let them trade out any combat feat they've gained... but then would you let a monk/fighter multiclass trade out their monk bonus feat (that happened to be a combat feat) with any combat feat (if they hadn't kept good track of which feat came from where)?
I would let a fighter trade out any combat feat he gained leveling up as a fighter regardless if he picked it a level 2 or 3 or whatever.
I would not let him trade out bonus feats from other classes just as a sorcerer can't trade out spells she gained if she leveled up as a bard.edit:
But seriously this isn’t much of a problem to me. I would let fighters swap out combat feats every level past level 8 (or 10) and perhaps even daily at higher levels.
|
|
I feel it is unnecessary to force players to keep track of when they picked the feat. Was it at level 2 or level 3? Heck, the fighter can use a bit more love and players can use less bookkeeping.I don't know about you, but I don't alphabetize my feat list. Its pretty much listed in order, from level 1 feat, human racial feat (if appropriate), other level 1 bonus feats (such as fighter). The next one would be the level 2 fighter feat, then the level 3 feat, then level 4 fighter feat, and so on.
*Note: I don't have or use hero lab, but I would think it would have to keep track of what level/ability you selected a feat with for validating a build.
Although it is possible to note which feats were from the fighter class ability which grants bonus combat feats, the point is that Paizo do not! Paizo have a list of feats for each stat block, alphabetised, with no such notation.
Humans gain +1 skill point per level. Do you note which skill gets that particular skill point, so you know which ones to lose when you get reincarnated to something non-human? Neither 3.0 nor 3.5 tracked these feats or skill points separately.
Paizo even deliberately changed how increasing your Int bonus affects skill points; it is now retroactive! The stated reason for this is that you should be able to look at a stat block and not have to work out at which level the Int bonus increased; Int 18 should give +4 skill points per level, no matter at what level it changed from 17 to 18. Do you really think Paizo want us to track feats separately? What about skill points?
This is why I've come to the conclusion that fighters can retrain any combat feat no matter the source of the feat, as the source is not recorded in official Paizo stat blocks and I don't believe for a single moment that they expect us to track them! It still has to be a combat feat, though.
|
|
...would you let a monk/fighter multiclass trade out their monk bonus feat (that happened to be a combat feat) with any combat feat (if they hadn't kept good track of which feat came from where)?
Yes (The usual caveats apply re: feats that are prerequisites).
Partly because of the non-tracking of feats, but partly from the logic of it all. These feats aren't (Su) or (Sp), they are (Ex). If I've got, say, Dodge as a feat, and I am allowed to retrain Dodge to another combat feat (so long as I don't have any other feat with Dodge as a prerequisite), then why would it make sense to be able to do this if you gained it at level 1 as a fighter bonus feat but not if you gained it at level 1 as your normal feat or your human bonus feat?
It would make just as little sense to disallow retraining Dodge if you gained it as a Monk bonus feat! 'Dodge' is 'Dodge', no matter how you gained it!
...would you let a monk/fighter multiclass trade out their monk bonus feat (that happened to be a combat feat) with any combat feat (if they hadn't kept good track of which feat came from where)?Yes (The usual caveats apply re: feats that are prerequisites).
Partly because of the non-tracking of feats, but partly from the logic of it all. These feats aren't (Su) or (Sp), they are (Ex). If I've got, say, Dodge as a feat, and I am allowed to retrain Dodge to another combat feat (so long as I don't have any other feat with Dodge as a prerequisite), then why would it make sense to be able to do this if you gained it at level 1 as a fighter bonus feat but not if you gained it at level 1 as your normal feat or your human bonus feat?
It would make just as little sense to disallow retraining Dodge if you gained it as a Monk bonus feat! 'Dodge' is 'Dodge', no matter how you gained it!
What about monks gaining stunning fist and IUS as bonus feats? Would you let a monk/fighter trade those out too? Or let a level 2 ranger/4 fighter trade out his ranger bonus feat of rapid shot? What if later he wanted to trade it back? Now he doesn't meet the prereqs.
|
|
What about monks gaining stunning fist and IUS as bonus feats? Would you let a monk/fighter trade those out too? Or let a level 2 ranger/4 fighter trade out his ranger bonus feat of rapid shot? What if later he wanted to trade it back? Now he doesn't meet the prereqs.
Fair question. : )
If the feat in question was gained by choosing from a list, but still had to meet the prerequisites for your choice, then I'd allow it.
If it was gained as a class feature without needing to meet the prerequisites or was limited in use in a way that the feat would not when purchased normally, then I would say that it couldn't be retrained because it only resembled the feat without actually being the feat! (cf. spells versus spell-like abilities)
So, the bonus ranger feat 'Rapid Shot' can't be retrained because you can get it without having Point Blank Shot and can only use it while wearing light, medium or no armour. It's more like a class ability, like the weapon, armour and shield proficiencies; although you can get these proficiencies through feats they are not gained through feats but through a level in a class.
The monk's Unarmed Strike ability is like that; just because Improved Unarmed Strike is a feat it doesn't mean that the monk gained his Unarmed Strike with a feat, it's a class ability. The monk's version also works differently than the feat, so it can't be retrained.
Stunning Fist (the monk ability) works differently than Stunning Fist (the feat), so it can't be retrained.
Endurance gained for being a 3rd level ranger can't be retrained because it wasn't chosen from a list of options, and so is a class ability common to all rangers (that haven't traded it out as a class feature for an Alternate Class Feature, which is chosen when the character levels up not retrained afterward).
Sometimes you have to use your judgement, with guidelines of course. : )
|
|
Paizo even deliberately changed how increasing your Int bonus affects skill points; it is now retroactive!
Except that it was always this way.
As far as skills, there are items that require you to keep track of that stuff so that if you lose the item, the correct bonus is removed.
Why does Paizo not keep track of feats for NPCs? Because it is irrelevant for them to do so. 1) the NPC is, normally, intended as a short term character. 2) any possible retraining will have already occurred once the stat block comes into play.
PC fighters have the opportunity to note which of their feats come from the fighter bonus feats and those that don't. Also, they'll be around long enough, theoretically, to make it worth it to keep track.
|
|
Except that it was always this way.
Paizo even deliberately changed how increasing your Int bonus affects skill points; it is now retroactive!
Er...no it wasn't! Check p10 of the 3.5 PHB:-
For example, when Mialee becomes a 4th level wizard, she decides to increase her Intelligence score to 16. That score gives her (stuff)...and it also increases the number of skill points she gets per level from 4 to 5....She does not retroactively get additional skill points for her previous levels (that is, skill points she would have gained if she had had an Intelligence score of 16 starting at 1st level).
...would you let a monk/fighter multiclass trade out their monk bonus feat (that happened to be a combat feat) with any combat feat (if they hadn't kept good track of which feat came from where)?Yes (The usual caveats apply re: feats that are prerequisites).
Partly because of the non-tracking of feats, but partly from the logic of it all. These feats aren't (Su) or (Sp), they are (Ex). If I've got, say, Dodge as a feat, and I am allowed to retrain Dodge to another combat feat (so long as I don't have any other feat with Dodge as a prerequisite), then why would it make sense to be able to do this if you gained it at level 1 as a fighter bonus feat but not if you gained it at level 1 as your normal feat or your human bonus feat?
It would make just as little sense to disallow retraining Dodge if you gained it as a Monk bonus feat! 'Dodge' is 'Dodge', no matter how you gained it!
That is not RAW or RAI with regard to your feat idea.
I already mentioned how the the book says under the fighter "bonus feat" class feature that the bonus feats, fighter bonus feats, and combat feats were all the same thing.
Once they made the connection they switched to saying bonus feats because otherwise it would be a waste of space.
By your logic I can trade out a sorcerer's spells at 4th level for a cleric's spells since "sorcerer's spells" is not repeated every time.
What about monks gaining stunning fist and IUS as bonus feats? Would you let a monk/fighter trade those out too? Or let a level 2 ranger/4 fighter trade out his ranger bonus feat of rapid shot? What if later he wanted to trade it back? Now he doesn't meet the prereqs.Fair question. : )
If the feat in question was gained by choosing from a list, but still had to meet the prerequisites for your choice, then I'd allow it.
If it was gained as a class feature without needing to meet the prerequisites or was limited in use in a way that the feat would not when purchased normally, then I would say that it couldn't be retrained because it only resembled the feat without actually being the feat! (cf. spells versus spell-like abilities)
So, the bonus ranger feat 'Rapid Shot' can't be retrained because you can get it without having Point Blank Shot and can only use it while wearing light, medium or no armour. It's more like a class ability, like the weapon, armour and shield proficiencies; although you can get these proficiencies through feats they are not gained through feats but through a level in a class.
The monk's Unarmed Strike ability is like that; just because Improved Unarmed Strike is a feat it doesn't mean that the monk gained his Unarmed Strike with a feat, it's a class ability. The monk's version also works differently than the feat, so it can't be retrained.
Stunning Fist (the monk ability) works differently than Stunning Fist (the feat), so it can't be retrained.
Endurance gained for being a 3rd level ranger can't be retrained because it wasn't chosen from a list of options, and so is a class ability common to all rangers (that haven't traded it out as a class feature for an Alternate Class Feature, which is chosen when the character levels up not retrained afterward).
Sometimes you have to use your judgement, with guidelines of course. : )
Using your judgement and following the rules are not the same thing. You are incorrect on this interpretation.