So the argument is, Piazo intended for fighters to retrain any combat feat, regardless of how they got it, because they thoughts players were too dumb/lazy to know when they took what?
If this turns out to be true, then I'll be offended.
So the argument is, Piazo intended for fighters to retrain any combat feat, regardless of how they got it, because they thoughts players were too dumb/lazy to know when they took what?
If this turns out to be true, then I'll be offended.
This is another one of those rules that 99% of us knows how it works. Those arguing that all a bonus feat is a bonus feat no matter the source are mostly playing devil's advocate I hope.
|
Using your judgement and following the rules are not the same thing. You are incorrect on this interpretation.
Well....yes and no. : )
My extrapolation is not RAW, but my point was that it's not possible to follow RAW if you don't tag each feat to where it came from!
We both expect the rules to make sense. A first level human fighter has three feats that he can choose, one that any first level creature gets, one bonus fighter feat (which must be a combat feat) and one human bonus feat. Say he chooses Weapon Focus(longsword), Combat Reflexes and Dodge. There's no doubt that, when he hits 4th level, he can retrain whichever of these feats was gained as a fighter bonus feat. But which one was that feat? There's no way to tell from a Paizo stat block, and there is nothing in the CRB which requires each feat to be tagged!
Any of these feats could have been that fighter bonus feat, and any could have been retrained if it was. How does it make sense that he could retrain only the feat gained as a fighter bonus but not the other two? Even if you could remember which was which.
More than that, if I make a 1st level human fighter I know I get three feats. I choose three feats (making sure that at least one is a combat feat, but it's likely all three are combat feats!). At no point did I decide which feat is linked to which source if more than one is a combat feat!
Since it's not reasonable to limit which of these feats can be retrained and which can't, both for administrative and (more importantly) common sense reasons, if RAW says retraining is limited to those feats originally gained as bonus fighter feats then RAW cannot reasonably be followed!
Because of that, we have to use our common sense!
As you know, I originally thought as you did, but the more I thought about it the more I realised the problems with limiting retraining to those feats specifically gained as fighter bonus feats, and the more I realised that he must be able to retrain any combat feat.
Using your judgement and following the rules are not the same thing. You are incorrect on this interpretation.Well....yes and no. : )
My extrapolation is not RAW, but my point was that it's not possible to follow RAW if you don't tag each feat to where it came from!
We both expect the rules to make sense. A first level human fighter has three feats that he can choose, one that any first level creature gets, one bonus fighter feat (which must be a combat feat) and one human bonus feat. Say he chooses Weapon Focus(longsword), Combat Reflexes and Dodge. There's no doubt that, when he hits 4th level, he can retrain whichever of these feats was gained as a fighter bonus feat. But which one was that feat? There's no way to tell from a Paizo stat block, and there is nothing in the CRB which requires each feat to be tagged!
Any of these feats could have been that fighter bonus feat, and any could have been retrained if it was. How does it make sense that he could retrain only the feat gained as a fighter bonus but not the other two? Even if you could remember which was which.
More than that, if I make a 1st level human fighter I know I get three feats. I choose three feats (making sure that at least one is a combat feat, but it's likely all three are combat feats!). At no point did I decide which feat is linked to which source if more than one is a combat feat!
Since it's not reasonable to limit which of these feats can be retrained and which can't, both for administrative and (more importantly) common sense reasons, if RAW says retraining is limited to those feats originally gained as bonus fighter feats then RAW cannot reasonably be followed!
Because of that, we have to use our common sense!
As you know, I originally thought as you did, but the more I thought about it the more I realised the problems with limiting retraining to those feats specifically gained as fighter bonus feats, and the more I realised that he must be able to retrain any combat feat.
How a player keeps track of how he gained a feat is up to him to figure out. If you are going to say "Paizo did not say but a "B" to indicate a bonus" feat then how do know if Manyshot from the ranger classes is gained from the ranger's bonus feats or if a player just chose it at the wrong level?
The wording of the class feature also limits which feats can be retrained. That is RAW and RAI. It specifically calls out the ones listed from the bonus feat class feature, and not any combat feat.
|
|
The wording of the class feature also limits which feats can be retrained. That is RAW and RAI. It specifically calls out the ones listed from the bonus feat class feature, and not any combat feat.
I agree with your interpretation of the RAW and RAI!
But that doesn't take the problems away!
Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag which feats came as fighter bonus feats or ranger feats gained through Combat Style, and there is no reason to believe that they expect us to do so!
So the RAW has to be interpreted somehow, and that interpretation must be workable! My extrapolation is not RAW, and is not the only way to get the RAW to make sense, but the fact remains that we have to make it make sense!
Also, from our shared respect for common sense, how does it make sense that the fighter in my above example can retrain one of those combat feats but not the other two, when any of the three could have been the fighter bonus feat? If it makes sense that a fighter can retrain Dodge into Weapon Specialisation, then it makes sense! It does not make sense that, of two identical fighters, one could retrain dodge but the other can't, just because one chose it as his fighter bonus feat and the other chose Combat Reflexes, even though both fighters know exactly the same feats!
Characters have no concept of the game system! They know that they can both use longswords better than they would have been able due to their extra training, and that both have trained to react to opponents letting their guard down and have been trained to be elusive in combat. They don't know anything about 'fighter bonus feats'! There is no way that the characters differ, so the idea that one can only retrain Dodge and the other can only retrain Combat Reflexes fails the common sense test!
The wording of the class feature also limits which feats can be retrained. That is RAW and RAI. It specifically calls out the ones listed from the bonus feat class feature, and not any combat feat.I agree with your interpretation of the RAW and RAI!
But that doesn't take the problems away!
Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag which feats came as fighter bonus feats or ranger feats gained through Combat Style, and there is no reason to believe that they expect us to do so!
So the RAW has to be interpreted somehow, and that interpretation must be workable! My extrapolation is not RAW, and is not the only way to get the RAW to make sense, but the fact remains that we have to make it make sense!
Also, from our shared respect for common sense, how does it make sense that the fighter in my above example can retrain one of those combat feats but not the other two, when any of the three could have been the fighter bonus feat? If it makes sense that a fighter can retrain Dodge into Weapon Specialisation, then it makes sense! It does not make sense that, of two identical fighters, one could retrain dodge but the other can't, just because one chose it as his fighter bonus feat and the other chose Combat Reflexes, even though both fighters know exactly the same feats!
Characters have no concept of the game system! They know that they can both use longswords better than they would have been able due to their extra training, and that both have trained to react to opponents letting their guard down and have been trained to be elusive in combat. They don't know anything about 'fighter bonus feats'! There is no way that the characters differ, so the idea that one can only retrain Dodge and the other can only retrain Combat Reflexes fails the common sense test!
So if you agree with me by RAW and RAI are you saying what you propose is a houserule?
As for how he can retrain one, but not the other has nothing to do with common sense, but the rules. How you fluff it to make sense is up to you. I am not trying to make the rules make perfect sense. I am only presenting the intent of the rules. There are a lot of things in the rules that don't make sense, and we can make up fluff/flavor to talk around it, but they still won't really make sense.
If I only take one level of fighter I could retrain all of my combat feats if you wish to ignore the rules, and go by your proposal, and why would I not do so? The fighter becomes a very good one level dip at that point.
[
Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag which feats came as fighter bonus feats or ranger feats gained through Combat Style, and there is no reason to believe that they expect us to do so!
That is incorrect. If I tell you that you can trade in the cookies from the blue jar, but not the ones from the red jar, I should not have to tell you to label them by which jar they came from. You know what I expect. It is up to you to find a way to keep track of them.
The fact the RAW and RAI restrict you to only trading out the "bonus feats" is proof of that. Otherwise the restriction would not be to the 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.
As you can see the new bonus feat has to replace an older bonus feat. Now without us finding a way to keep track of them, there is no way to know the difference.
Note:It does not say trade out any combat feat. It specifically calls out "bonus feats".
|
|
[
Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag which feats came as fighter bonus feats or ranger feats gained through Combat Style, and there is no reason to believe that they expect us to do so!
That is incorrect. If I tell you that you can trade in the cookies from the blue jar, but not the ones from the red jar, I should not have to tell you to label them by which jar they came from. You know what I expect. It is up to you to find a way to keep track of them.
The fact the RAW and RAI restrict you to only trading out the "bonus feats" is proof of that. Otherwise the restriction would not be to the 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.As you can see the new bonus feat has to replace an older bonus feat. Now without us finding a way to keep track of them, there is no way to know the difference.
Note:It does not say trade out any combat feat. It specifically calls out "bonus feats".
I don't disagree with your interpretation of the RAW. What I am saying is that the RAW is unworkable and doesn't make sense when you try to think it through, therefore we have to try to make the RAW make sense.
It is unworkable because it is impossible to apply to the characters published by Paizo themselves, unless you do the very thing I am proposing; allow retraining of any combat feat. Seriously, take any 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th or 19th level fighter from the NPC Codex and then add another fighter level and use the retraining option. Which of that published character's list of feats is eligible for retraining? If you try to limit that choice to the feats that were specifically gained through the fighter bonus feat special ability, then you have just made your task impossible, unless you can chose which combat feats to retrain! Just as I suggest. If Paizo don't care which feat was gained from where, why do you think that they would insist that we care?
It doesn't make sense that sometimes combat feats can be retrained and sometimes the very same feats cannot!
We already agree that when the RAW can be read in more than one way, we choose the way that makes sense. Some have suggested that the wording allows a fighter to retrain any feat, combat or otherwise, so long as it was gained as a bonus feat! While neither you nor I agree with that interpretation, the RAW can be read that way, and the reason that we don't agree with them is that it doesn't make sense that a fighter learns to retrain his Craft Wand feat into a Quicken spell feat. This lack of making sense is why we think that their interpretation must be wrong! Well, our position wouldn't hold water if it also made no sense!
The only thing that does make sense is to allow retraining of any combat feat. You can comfort yourself by interpreting 'fighter bonus feat' as 'combat feat'.
How? Two reasons: first, what PF calls 'combat feats' are exactly the same category of feats that 3rd ed called 'fighter bonus feats'. PF just changed the name.
Second, PF itself thinks that the two terms are synonyms:-
These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”
Any feat designated as a combat feat can be selected as a fighter's bonus feat.
Yes, you could interpert the RAW another way, but why would you when this way makes sense and the other ways don't?
|
|
Since combat feats are 'sometimes called "fighter bonus feats"', and since any reference to bonus feats in this section must refer to fighter bonus feats, then we can replace 'bonus feat' with 'fighter bonus feat':-
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new fighter bonus feat in place of a fighter bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the fighter bonus feat in exchange for the new one.
....and we can replace 'fighter bonus feat' with 'combat feat':-
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new combat feat in place of a combat feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the combat feat in exchange for the new one.
Seen in this way, it's no surprise that Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag where each feat comes from!
Does that make sense?
I get what you mean. I don't look for a rule to make sense within the game world. If I did that i would be doing a lot of rewriting. I just care that it is clear to me(the person, not the PC). My PC(fighter) does not think about why he can only relearn every other feat, no more than a sorcerer only thinks about why he can only relearn spells at every 4th level,which in game terms is when he happens to get access to higher level spells.
If you are saying combat feats are "fighter bonus feats" then you are incorrect.
Is is saying bonus feats are fighter bonus feats, and when you select one of these bonus feats you can choose a feat that is specifically listed as a combat feat. Which is to also say you can not choose a general feat when your bonus feat slot becomes available.
As an example when you get to choose a bonus car also known as a company bonus car you can choose a domestic car of your choice. Now if I buy a domestic car with my own money instead of it being provided by the company I don't get to trade that car in later. I only get to trade in the domestic car provided by my company. Now what if my domestic car is better equal to the one provided by the company, shouldn't they want to accept it? Well that would be nice, but it is not the policy.
RAW they(the others) are wrong, and I have already given you the quote as to why. Anyone can suggest anything, but if it does not match the book they are wrong. Sometimes by RAW, sometimes by RAI, and sometimes by both.
PS:The best way to read RAW is the way that matches RAI because that will match the intent of the game. That is what mean by what makes sense. We are not referring to what makes sense to us for the way we like our games to be run. That also makes sure that if we go to John's or Mike's house that we have the same understanding.
Except there's a misapplication. Bonus feats from the class ability are combat feats (aside from a few particular archetypal exceptions), but not all combat feats are bonus feats. It's not an "If and only if" statement. You have necessity, but not sufficiency, meaning you can't just substitute the latter for the former and have the statement still make sense.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Again, I wouldn't really take much issue (I don't think) allowing some retraining at my own table. But for the Rules section, we're supposed to be strict. Strict reading is you can trade out bonus feats gained from the fighter class ability, not any and all combat feats.
Since combat feats are 'sometimes called "fighter bonus feats"', and since any reference to bonus feats in this section must refer to fighter bonus feats, then we can replace 'bonus feat' with 'fighter bonus feat':-
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new fighter bonus feat in place of a fighter bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the fighter bonus feat in exchange for the new one.....and we can replace 'fighter bonus feat' with 'combat feat':-
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new combat feat in place of a combat feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the combat feat in exchange for the new one.Seen in this way, it's no surprise that Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag where each feat comes from!
Does that make sense?
You are reading it wrong, and I have explained why in my previous post.
The book is making bonus feat and fighter bonus feat synonymous, not combat feat. The combat feat is just a limited list you can choose from when selecting your bonus feat/fighter bonus feat.
]
Seen in this way, it's no surprise that Paizo doesn't feel the need to tag where each feat comes from!
Does that make sense?
You keep saying that and just like in my above post you are still responsible for tracking where they came from per the rules. The rules say you can only trade out the bonus feats, and they say at what level those are gained. Not every combat feat is a bonus feat, but every bonus feat is a combat feat.
As an example every laptop is computer, but not all computers are laptops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pfff. squares and rectangles > laptops and computers
;)
|
|
The bonus feats in this section refer to fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be chosen from the list of combat feats.
Combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats.
Therefore, combat feat = fighter bonus feat
AND
Fighter bonus feat = combat feat
So, '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'
Equals, 'Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new combat feat in place of a combat feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the combat feat in exchange for the new one'
So much for RAW! This interpretation is at least as sound as anyone else's.
As for RAI, since this way of interpreting it matches Paizo's published stat blocks (they don't tag the source of each feat) then it's got a better chance of being RAI than any interpretation that means Paizo's stat blocks are lacking crucial information.
The fact that it makes sense in game as well as making sense as a game mechanic is just gravy!
|
|
I'm reading the same text you guys are, and I'm not seeing 'rectangles and squares'.
I'm seeing 'rectangles and oblongs'.
I'm saying that, RAW and RAI, 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat'.
Not that one is a subset of the other, but that both are equal.
Not 'dogs' and 'poodles', but 'dogs' and 'hounds'.
Remember, if there is more than one way to interpret the RAW then go with the way that makes sense, both in game and as a game mechanic.
Trying to divine RAI, the fact that Paizo doesn't tag the feats says that they think that 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat'!
The bonus feats in this section refer to fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be chosen from the list of combat feats.
Combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats.
Therefore, combat feat = fighter bonus feat
It NEVER says combat feats are called fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”
It is saying the bonus feats which are called fighter bonus feats have to be selected from those listed as combat feats.
Example:
These CPU's which must be selected from the IMB quadcore family CPU's are sometimes called processing chips.
That means CPU which are sometimes called processing chips must be selected from the IMB quadcore family CPU's.
---------------------
Just to you understand:
IMB quadcore family CPU's="combat feats"
CPU="bonus feat "
processing chips="fighter bonus feat"
PS:There is nothing called a "combat bonus feat". You keep adding the word bonus here when it does not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's statblocks are for NPCs, not for PCs. There's no need to put that information in an NPC statblock, because the NPC won't be trading anything out. It has already been created with the feats/spells/etc that are appropriate for its background (and for the encounter it's in, if the NPC is part of an adventure).
Plus, if the GM feels that an NPC used in an adventure should have different feats/spells/etc, that GM can recreate the entire NPC, and change everything about the NPC as he/she pleases. There's no limitation; the GM can build the NPC from scratch.
Combat feats are a subset of feats just like metamagic feats are. When you choose a fighter bonus feat it must be from that list.
That is all you are being told. That is one reason why the term "combat bonus feat" is not in the book.
I'm reading the same text you guys are, and I'm not seeing 'rectangles and squares'.
I'm seeing 'rectangles and oblongs'.
I'm saying that, RAW and RAI, 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat'.
Not that one is a subset of the other, but that both are equal.
Not 'dogs' and 'poodles', but 'dogs' and 'hounds'.
Remember, if there is more than one way to interpret the RAW then go with the way that makes sense, both in game and as a game mechanic.
Trying to divine RAI, the fact that Paizo doesn't tag the feats says that they think that 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat'!
IF you have a bonus feat on your character sheet, then you necessarily selected a combat feat. However, that you have a combat feat on your character sheet does not mean you selected that combat feat with a bonus feat.
Hence, squares and rectangles.
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?Raving Dork. He's a forum poster.
Edit: Though I haven't seen him in forever. What happened to him?
*Ahem* It's Ravingdork. One word.
(I got a job, and have been playing Mechwarrior Online.)
|
|
It NEVER says combat feats are called fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”It is saying the bonus feats which are called fighter bonus feats have to be selected from those listed as combat feats.
There's no doubt that the text is saying that the bonus feat gained from this class feature must be a combat feat.
But it is also clarifying that 'combat feats' are also called 'fighter bonus feats'.
Wait, I've just had an epiphany!
I'm taking the 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' part as referring to 'those listed as combat feats'.
Are you taking 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' as referring to 'These bonus feats'?
If so, it appears that there are two legitimate ways to read this part of the RAW.
As always, I'll go with the way that leads to an interpretation that makes most sense, and for me interpreting it as 'combat feat' and 'fighter bonus feat' are synonymous leads to a rule which doesn't require tagging the origin of feats, makes sense in-game and is at least as valid an interpretation as any other.
Also, a reminder that what PF calls 'combat feats', 3rd ed called 'fighter bonus feats'.
|
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).
Did you seriously write that? Its been retroactive for the past four years—it didnt just pop up a few days ago. We aren't having a discussion about 3.5, we're having a discussion about Pathfinder. Why would I be referencing 3.5? If there was ever a post on the Internet that deserves a *Bertstare*...
I can't recall ever typing, 'combat bonus feat'!Combat feats are a subset of feats just like metamagic feats are. When you choose a fighter bonus feat it must be from that list.
That is all you are being told. That is one reason why the term "combat bonus feat" is not in the book.
It was there, but now it's gone. Oh well.
It NEVER says combat feats are called fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”It is saying the bonus feats which are called fighter bonus feats have to be selected from those listed as combat feats.There's no doubt that the text is saying that the bonus feat gained from this class feature must be a combat feat.
But it is also clarifying that 'combat feats' are also called 'fighter bonus feats'.
Wait, I've just had an epiphany!
I'm taking the 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' part as referring to 'those listed as combat feats'.
Are you taking 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' as referring to 'These bonus feats'?
If so, it appears that there are two legitimate ways to read this part of the RAW.
As always, I'll go with the way that leads to an interpretation that makes most sense, and for me interpreting it as 'combat feat' and 'fighter bonus feat' are synonymous leads to a rule which doesn't require tagging the origin of feats, makes sense in-game and is at least as valid an interpretation as any other.
Also, a reminder that what PF calls 'combat feats', 3rd ed called 'fighter bonus feats'.
3rd edition did not call fighter bonus feats "combat feats"
Bonus Feats
At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.
The called the bonus feats "fighter bonus feats" just like PFS does.
What PF has done however is gone away from the fighter bonus feats which were called that because they were only availible for fighters. Now what they do is have combat feats which generally anyone can take, and these combat feats are a subset of feats in general than you can choose from if you are using your bonus feat(the ones you get to ONLY select at certain level).
Because these bonus feats are ONLY available at certain levels, and combat feats are not, only certain feats are bonus feats. Since the text AND the chart only calls out the feats selected at certain levels as "bonus feats" those are the only ones than can legally be bonus feats.
That 7th level weapon focus feat is not a bonus feat. It is however a combat feat.
That is RAW and RAI.
I'm taking the 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' part as referring to 'those listed as combat feats'.
Are you taking 'sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”' as referring to 'These bonus feats'?
It's actually both, simultaneously. "Combat Feats" are defined in the Feats chapter as "Any feat designated as a combat feat can be selected as a fighter's bonus feat."
So, there are only two actual purposes of calling them "Combat Feats". One is to make it easy to reference them as a group, and the other is to avoid creating a separate list of "the feats a fighter is able to choose from when choosing bonus feats", which you would have to update for each new book with such feats in them.
|
|
Did you seriously write that? Its been retroactive for the past four years—it didnt just pop up a few days ago. We aren't having a discussion about 3.5, we're having a discussion about Pathfinder. Why would I be referencing 3.5? If there was ever a post on the Internet that deserves a *Bertstare*...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).
Ah! I see we were talking past each other!
I honestly thought that you were saying that it was retroactive in 3.5, just like it is in PF.
When I said that Paizo changed it, I meant that they changed the way it was in 3.5 to the way it is in PF. I know that PF's version always was retroactive.
My point was that Paizo made a deliberate design choice, where the exact point in his career that a character gained anything should not matter; two characters who have identical stats at any level should be identical no matter when feats were taken, the source of those feats, the level(s) at which the Int bonus changed, or any other reason.
This was to avoid the reader having to reverse engineer each stat block to find out when each thing happened.
I don't think that the absence of source tags for each feat is a result of laziness, or that published stat blocks have less rigour. I believe that this design philosophy extends to being able to retrain any combat feat, thus making every 1st level fighter with Weapon Focus(longsword), Combat Reflexes and Dodge equivalent to every other otherwise identical fighter. I believe it's RAI that all three feats are valid for retraining for each character when he hits fighter 4th, and the lack of source tags is consistent with their design philosophy.
EDIT: What's a *Bertstare*?
As always, I'll go with the way that leads to an interpretation that makes most sense, and for me interpreting it as 'combat feat' and 'fighter bonus feat' are synonymous leads to a rule which doesn't require tagging the origin of feats, makes sense in-game and is at least as valid an interpretation as any other.
Malachi you are welcome to do whatever you want at home but in the rules forum we are to find out what the rule actually is.
Your interpretation is not rules legal.
Now if you can say why Paizo insisted on only the bonus feats being able to be replaced and called them out as the ones being selected at "certain" levels, while not really meaning it explain.
I will be back in a few hours.
|
|
Wraithstrike, on the first page of the feats chapter (p87 of the 3.5 PHB), under 'Types Of Feats', the first sub-heading is 'Fighter Bonus Feats'. In PF the same sub-section is instead named 'Combat Feats'.
Fighters gain bonus feats from a subset of the feat list presented in Table 5-1 (page 90). Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter's bonus feat. This designation does not restrict characters of other classes from selecting these feats, assuming that they meet the prerequisites.
There is a superscript '1' after the name of any feat on the table, designating these feats.
So yes, in 3.5 fighter bonus feats (meaning the list of feats from which a fighter can select a bonus feat) and fighter bonus feats (meaning what PF calls 'combat feats') are one and the same.
I contend that when PF states that 'These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”', they are not only saying that the bonus feats must be combat feats, but also that combat feats are also called fighter bonus feats, just like they were in 3.5.
Further, I believe that the intention is to allow any combat feat to be retrained, for reasons noted above re: design philosophy, and that this interpretation of the RAW is at least as valid an interpretation as yours.
And, since this interpretation makes more sense in and out of game than the other, it should be the one we use.
Just to make sure i am not misrepresenting your position you are saying that even though bonus feats are only called out as being gained at certain levels and the clearly only mentions trading out bonus feats you feel as if the "official" intent is for any combat feat to be replaced even if it was gained with a normal feat slot? I be back in a few hours .
|
|
Did you seriously write that? Its been retroactive for the past four years—it didnt just pop up a few days ago. We aren't having a discussion about 3.5, we're having a discussion about Pathfinder. Why would I be referencing 3.5? If there was ever a post on the Internet that deserves a *Bertstare*...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).Ah! I see we were talking past each other!
I honestly thought that you were saying that it was retroactive in 3.5, just like it is in PF.
When I said that Paizo changed it, I meant that they changed the way it was in 3.5 to the way it is in PF. I know that PF's version always was retroactive.
My point was that Paizo made a deliberate design choice, where the exact point in his career that a character gained anything should not matter; two characters who have identical stats at any level should be identical no matter when feats were taken, the source of those feats, the level(s) at which the Int bonus changed, or any other reason.
This was to avoid the reader having to reverse engineer each stat block to find out when each thing happened.
I don't think that the absence of source tags for each feat is a result of laziness, or that published stat blocks have less rigour. I believe that this design philosophy...
Ah, cool, I gotcha! Bertstare is a funny GIF with Bert from Sesame Street.
Malachi, I don't think writing the letter B on your character sheet beside a feat is all that hard. It is not like trying to track skill points.
Now if you have a reason why its so hard to track bonus feats I would like to hear it.
edit:Generally speaking people write down a feat in the order they took them anyway, especially when starting at lower levels because the blank spaces for feats closer to the bottom are normally the last ones used.
Here is an old feat list from over year ago for fighter I was going to make for a PBP.
1B TWF
2B Improved Init
3 iron will
4B improved grapple
5 weapon focus(cestus)
6B ITWF
7 greater grapple
8B weapon spec(cestus)
9 double slice
10B improved crit(cestus)
You see, no reverse engineering involved.
|
|
Here is an old feat list from over year ago for fighter I was going to make for a PBP.
** spoiler omitted **
You see, no reverse engineering involved.
I write the feats in the order they are gained, but if I gain more than one feat at a given level I just write them down.
Human fighter1 Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Weapon Focus(longsword)
Which feat was gained from my fighter level and which was my human bonus feat? Don't know, don't care.
And neither does Paizo, according to their published stat blocks. Is this deliberate or just lazy?
In 3.5, any stat block that had a bonus feat from a class such as a 2nd level ranger with Rapid Shot, used a superscript 'B' to indicate that it was a bonus feat. Paizo could easily have done this. In fact, they had to have deliberately changed this for PF! This just illustrates the design philosophy.
Also, the character himself knows he can retrain, and all of these feats are combat feats. How on Earth (Golarion?) does he know that only one of these is retrainable when he has no conception as to the source of each feat beyond 'I worked hard at it as I was growing up'?
Here is an old feat list from over year ago for fighter I was going to make for a PBP.
** spoiler omitted **
You see, no reverse engineering involved.
I write the feats in the order they are gained, but if I gain more than one feat at a given level I just write them down.
Human fighter1 Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Weapon Focus(longsword)
Which feat was gained from my fighter level and which was my human bonus feat? Don't know, don't care.
And neither does Paizo, according to their published stat blocks. Is this deliberate or just lazy?
In 3.5, any stat block that had a bonus feat from a class such as a 2nd level ranger with Rapid Shot, used a superscript 'B' to indicate that it was a bonus feat. Paizo could easily have done this. In fact, they had to have deliberately changed this for PF! This just illustrates the design philosophy.
Also, the character himself knows he can retrain, and all of these feats are combat feats. How on Earth (Golarion?) does he know that only one of these is retrainable when he has no conception as to the source of each feat beyond 'I worked hard at it as I was growing up'?
Your character would have to break the 4th wall to even know that feats exist. Actually the idea of being able to forget a feat does not even make sense if you want to bring realism/common sense into it.
With that aside I am waiting for you to answer my post where I asked if I was misrepresenting your position. I want to be sure I understand you correctly.
|
|
I'm limited to short posts because I'm at work now, but briefly:-
• 'combat feat' and 'fighter bonus feat' are interchangeable terms
• the bonus feats that fighters get at 1st and every even level must be combat feats
• the only feats that can be retrained are combat feats
• in terms of interpreting RAW, this is as valid as the other
• in terms of RAI, this also matches Paizo's own stat blocks and stated design philosophy
• it is backwards compatible (what PF calls 'combat feats' 3.5 called 'fighter bonus feats')
• backward compatibility was in the minds of the devs when the fighter class was written for the CRB; that's why they bothered to say that combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats
• I realise that it's possible to read 'sometimes called fighter bonus feats' could be referring to 'the bonus feats a fighter gains every two levels' instead of referring to 'combat feats'. In such a case, the general principle is to choose the way that makes sense. The way I interpret it runs more smoothly, makes sense in-game, and doesn't require you to tag the origin of each feat
• in order to logically disagree, you would have to believe either that this interpretation does not make for a better game, or that reading that sentence as meaning 'combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats' is not a reasonable reading
• since the rules were written by game designers for players, and not lawyers for a courtroom or a computer programmer for some softwear, I contend that this is as reasonable reading of that line
• in order to logically disagree, you would have to believe either that this interpretation does not make for a better game, or that reading that sentence as meaning 'combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats' is not a reasonable reading
It is not a reasonable reading for reasons I have already given. I will also add that what makes a better game has nothing do to with what the RAI is. The RAI is whatever the devs intend the rules to be, even if it makes the game worse.
I will also have to restate that you have not answered my question yet.
Is my post clarifying your position correct?
If it is a simple "yes" will do.
If I have made an error then tell me where my misinterpretation lies.
Below is a reprint of the post I made that I am seeking an answer to.
Just to make sure i am not misrepresenting your position you are saying that even though bonus feats are only called out as being gained at certain levels and the clearly only mentions trading out bonus feats you feel as if the "official" intent is for any combat feat to be replaced even if it was gained with a normal feat slot? I be back in a few hours.
Now that I have quoted it again I will wait on your response. Please answer this before addressing anything else I have said.
I'm limited to short posts because I'm at work now, but briefly:-
• 'combat feat' and 'fighter bonus feat' are interchangeable terms
• the bonus feats that fighters get at 1st and every even level must be combat feats
• the only feats that can be retrained are combat feats
• in terms of interpreting RAW, this is as valid as the other
• in terms of RAI, this also matches Paizo's own stat blocks and stated design philosophy
• it is backwards compatible (what PF calls 'combat feats' 3.5 called 'fighter bonus feats')
• backward compatibility was in the minds of the devs when the fighter class was written for the CRB; that's why they bothered to say that combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats
• I realise that it's possible to read 'sometimes called fighter bonus feats' could be referring to 'the bonus feats a fighter gains every two levels' instead of referring to 'combat feats'. In such a case, the general principle is to choose the way that makes sense. The way I interpret it runs more smoothly, makes sense in-game, and doesn't require you to tag the origin of each feat
• in order to logically disagree, you would have to believe either that this interpretation does not make for a better game, or that reading that sentence as meaning 'combat feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats' is not a reasonable reading
• since the rules were written by game designers for players, and not lawyers for a courtroom or a computer programmer for some softwear, I contend that this is as reasonable reading of that line
A fighter can retrain bonus feats. You have established that a fighter's bonus feats must be combat feats, but that does not imply that all combat feats a fighter learns are taken as bonus feats. I see no implication anywhere at all that a fighter can retrain any and all combat feats he knows. He can just retrain the ones he took as bonus feats.
|
|
Wraithstrike, I thought my post made my position clear; I tried to make it as comprehensive as possible.
Retraining only allows you to retrain bonus feats. In context, 'bonus feats' is talking about 'bonus fighter feats', as opposed to just any old feat gained as a bonus, such as Scribe Scroll for a wizard. But 'bonus fighter feat' means 'combat feat', and vice versa! It says so in the first paragraph, and combat feats were actually officially called fighter bonus feats in 3.5.
The upshot is that when it says you can retrain bonus feats it is saying you can retrain combat feats.
Does that answer your question?
Wraithstrike, I thought my post made my position clear; I tried to make it as comprehensive as possible.
Retraining only allows you to retrain bonus feats. In context, 'bonus feats' is talking about 'bonus fighter feats', as opposed to just any old feat gained as a bonus, such as Scribe Scroll for a wizard. But 'bonus fighter feat' means 'combat feat', and vice versa! It says so in the first paragraph, and combat feats were actually officially called fighter bonus feats in 3.5.
The upshot is that when it says you can retrain bonus feats it is saying you can retrain combat feats.
Does that answer your question?
No it is not clear. I only need a "yes" if my quote summarized you position correctly.
If not then say "no" and explain where I am incorrect with my understanding of your idea.
You keep trying to explain, but I am not asking you to explain unless I misunderstood.
So if you feel the need to explain again tell me where I am misinterpretting you and then explain how I misunderstood. If you just explain, without saying "yes" or "no", it is confusing.
edit:My last post did not mention wizards or monks. I am only speaking about fighter feats and normal feats used to select combat feats.
|
|
Wraithstrike, I'm suspicious of demands for a yes/no answer. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?
So I use a full sentence to avoid any misunderstanding.
I'll risk it:-
Just to make sure i am not misrepresenting your position you are saying that even though bonus feats are only called out as being gained at certain levels and the clearly only mentions trading out bonus feats you feel as if the "official" intent is for any combat feat to be replaced even if it was gained with a normal feat slot?
Yes.
I don't agree with the way you phrase the question, as it assumes that your interpretation is obvious and mine is weird; that's why I prefer to phrase my own views:-
* You get bonus feats at certain levels; you can retrain bonus feats
If that sounds strange, try it this way, bearing in mind that 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat':-
* You get combat feats at certain levels; you can retrain combat feats
If you want to know why, re-read my recent posts.
Where does it say all combat feats are bonus feats? That's the disconnect. All bonus feats are combat feats but not all combat feats are bonus feats. They only become bonus feats once they are selected via the bonus feat class ability. There is no reason to think the two terms are purely synonymous. That is what is not logical.
|
|
Where does it say all combat feats are bonus feats? That's the disconnect. All bonus feats are combat feats but not all combat feats are bonus feats. They only become bonus feats once they are selected via the bonus feat class ability. There is no reason to think the two terms are purely synonymous. That is what is not logical.
What PF calls 'combat feats', 3.5 called 'bonus fighter feats'. In the feats chapter feats which are fighter bonus feats are noted by a superscript '1' on the table. This defines a feat as a bonus fighter feat as surely as PF defines combat feats.
If the 3.5 fighter class had the retraining ability of the PF fighter, it would read that:-
* fighters get a bonus fighter feat at first level and at every even level
* fighters can retrain a bonus fighter feat at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter
PF fighters get:-
* a 'combat feat' at first level and at every even level
* they can retrain a combat feat at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter
There is some confusion caused by the wording in the PF description:-
...These (bonus) feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats, sometimes also called "fighter bonus feats."
It then shortens 'fighter bonus feat' to just 'bonus feat' in the rest of the section, which is fair enough.
I'm reading the quoted sentence as saying that 'combat feats are sometimes also called fighter bonus feats'.
It is also possible to read the same sentence as saying that 'these bonus feats are sometimes called fighter bonus feats'.
Either way of reading it makes sense. The trouble is that one way of reading it means one thing and the other way means something else!
Both are legitimate readings, but we can only run our games if we choose one of the two ways. But which way? How do we decide?
At this point, further attempts to parse the grammar are futile, simply because it was written for normal people to read, not to program a computer! The way forward is to think through the ramifications of each interpretation, and then choose the way that results in a more playable game, matches the stat blocks put out by Paizo themselves (which demonstrates RAI), and makes sense!
* It's more playable not to have to tag which feats were granted by which source, and more playable not to have to make a choice at 1st level about which of the three combat feats you've just chosen is eligible for retraining later, and which two are not!
* Paizo don't tag some feats as bonus feats, and this is a deliberate change from 3.5 where they did. Paizo has also expressed a design philosophy that each stat block should work identically no matter the order in which things like feats were taken in previous levels, so long as it was legal at every level.
* If Dodge is not a prerequisite for something, it doesn't make sense that one fighter can retrain Dodge but the other can't!
-
* You get bonus feats at certain levels; you can retrain bonus feats
If that sounds strange, try it this way, bearing in mind that 'fighter bonus feat' = 'combat feat':-
* You get combat feats at certain levels; you can retrain combat feats
If you want to know why, re-read my recent posts.
1. So you are saying that you only get free(bonus) combat feats at certain levels, but you can retrain them even if you did not get them at those certain levels?
Once again I don't need a long explanation. Two people can agree on simple wording. If it does not apply you can always break it down if someone tries to use it against you. I have always been fair so if I am not the one you are worried about my inbox is open for you to answer me there.
Here is another way for me to ask it.
2. --->Can a fighter retrain combat feats taken with the normal feat slots?<---
You can answer 1 or 2, but you seem feel noncommittal right now, and that makes me think you are only dodging the question. If it makes any difference they both have the same meaning.
PS:Retrain=tradeout=switch etc......
I will make even easier Malachi.
If I take weapon focus(a combat feat) at level 5, which is a normal feat slot, can I trade that feat out later on under your interpretation of the "Bonus Feats" class feature of the fighter class?
|
I have to agree with Malachi that "bonus fighter feats" refers to combat feats, for the sake of backwards compatibility with 3.5. However, since the term "bonus feat" is used in the same paragraph as "fighter bonus feat", and the two are different from each other, I don't think that the term "bonus feat" in the next paragraph can be considered an abbreviation of the term "fighter bonus feat".
I have to agree with Malachi that "bonus fighter feats" refers to combat feats, for the sake of backwards compatibility with 3.5. However, since the term "bonus feat" is used in the same paragraph as "fighter bonus feat", and the two are different from each other, I don't think that the term "bonus feat" in the next paragraph can be considered an abbreviation of the term "fighter bonus feat".
So you are saying that combat feats gained with "normal" feats slots can also be traded out?