I am pretty sure my second sentence says the opposite.
ie. "bonus fighter feat" = "combat feat", but "bonus fighter feat" is not use in the retraining paragraph at all.
Thanks for a clear answer.
Ok, how about this exercise. Based on how it is written and going on the fundamental presumption that Retraining works as written (ie. doesn't suffer from "Prone Shooter syndrome"), if I were to play Valeros, the official Fighter Iconic from Level 7 with the following Feat block:
Feats Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Double Slice, Improved Initiative, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Which of those feats are valid for retraining when I hit lvl 8? Remember, the basic presumption is that the mechanic must work first and foremost. If it doesn't work explicitly, you must allow for any implicit meaning of the rules to provide for it working. Only when any and all implicit allowances are absent should it be determined that the function is inherently non-functional (ie. Prone Shooter) and must be subject to errata. So how does Fighter Retrain work in this situation? And no, "Ultimate Campaign allows you to buy retraining" is not a valid answer for obvious reasons.
Kazaan I don't understand what point you are trying to make .
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point is pretty obvious, and the answer, in this case fairly simple to work out:
First eliminate all of the Feats that are pre-reqs for other Feats:
- Two Weapon Fighting
- Weapon Focus (longsword)
You can't dump these two.
Next you have to eliminate the non-combat Feats:
- Toughness
Which leaves the following Feats available for change out:
- Dodge
- Double Slice
- Improved Initiative
- Two-weapon Defense
- Weapon Specialization Longsword
You can replace them with any combat feat that he has the pre-req.s for.
For example, you could dump Improved Initiative for Mobility.
Fairly simple and explicit mechanic. Although I am sure that someone can come up with a combo that could break this mechanic.
For most situations, I don't even see why there's a question, or why you have to apply anything.
Perhaps rephrase the question as, "Does the Feat you dump have to be a Feat that you took as a bonus Feat, or can it be any combat Feat, regardless of how acquired?
If the former is the case then it can't be done without knowing the character's personal history, and could easily be a futile exercise.
ok, but if that is Kazaan's argument a ranger that qualified for his feats, even the bonus ones could have the same issue from an NPC stat block. What if the GM wants to say he retrained(Ultimate Combat) a feat, and he wants to drop a feat that may fit as a bonus feat.
My point is that Paizo not tagging an NPC's feat is not proof at all. They assume you will use the NPC as is, and if you are modifying the NPC just change the feats around to make sure all of them are qualified for.
Ok, how about this exercise. Based on how it is written and going on the fundamental presumption that Retraining works as written (ie. doesn't suffer from "Prone Shooter syndrome"), if I were to play Valeros, the official Fighter Iconic from Level 7 with the following Feat block:
Feats Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Double Slice, Improved Initiative, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Which of those feats are valid for retraining when I hit lvl 8? Remember, the basic presumption is that the mechanic must work first and foremost. If it doesn't work explicitly, you must allow for any implicit meaning of the rules to provide for it working. Only when any and all implicit allowances are absent should it be determined that the function is inherently non-functional (ie. Prone Shooter) and must be subject to errata. So how does Fighter Retrain work in this situation? And no, "Ultimate Campaign allows you to buy retraining" is not a valid answer for obvious reasons.
As a player you should mark those feats like I said before. Adding the letter "B" is not that hard. As a GM changing an NPC that is supposed to be used as is it won't matter, but if you are a stickler for the rules reverse engineering is not that hard as a poster has just shown.
Anyway if you are a stickler for the rules you have to do what the rules says, and that limits you to the actual bonus feats which you only gain at certain levels.
If you think the devs will come in here and say you can retrain any combat feats, when they specifically called out bonus feats gained at a certain level then you are mistaken.
3.5 was pretty erratic in which bonus feats they did and didn't track. I just looked through a handful of pages in one book, where the "Track" bonus feat of ranger NPCs were marked "B", while no bonus feats of fighter or monk NPCs were marked at all.
The main use for the "B" marking in 3.5 was for monsters, and PF continues that use (this is to make it clear for GMs that those feats shouldn't be switched out).
In any case, a lack of marking for bonus feats isn't conclusive of anything, since Paizo doesn't publish PC statblocks. They publish NPC statblocks, and as I mentioned in a post on the previous page, there's no reason to mark this type of thing for an NPC statblock, as the GM can even rebuild that NPC from scratch if he/she desires to change its feats or anything else.
|
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?
Yes.
I'm astonished that my opinion on this wasn't clear from my posts. : )
A fighter can retrain any feat every four levels, so long as:-
• both the feat lost and the feat gained are combat feats
• the fighter has the prerequisites of both the feat gained and the feat lost
• the feat lost is not a prerequisite for anything the fighter still has
Wether the feat lost was originally gained as the extra feat a fighter gets at first and every even level doesn't matter.
Does that answer your question? Please say yes. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar!
Hurray for being clear and concise. Your position is significantly more clear now.
I, however, disagree with your interpretation.
I think that "Fighter Bonus Feats" and "Combat" feats are not synonymous. While a "Fighter Bonus Feat" must be chosen from the list of "Combat" feats, "Combat" feats do not have to be "Fighter Bonus Feats". Otherwise other classes (who do not gain "Fighter Bonus Feats" could never select them).
The Fighter class feature that grants bonus feats specifically calls out "bonus" feats, not any feat , not regular feats, not even "combat" feats. It specifically states "bonus feats". Thus, I posit that the exchange must be one of the feats gained via his "bonus" feat class feature. While yes, it must be a combat feat, it must also be one that was chosen via the "bonus feat" class feature.
And yes, I do keep track of this with my characters.
~P
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?
Yes.
I'm astonished that my opinion on this wasn't clear from my posts. : )
A fighter can retrain any feat every four levels, so long as:-
• both the feat lost and the feat gained are combat feats
• the fighter has the prerequisites of both the feat gained and the feat lost
• the feat lost is not a prerequisite for anything the fighter still has
Wether the feat lost was originally gained as the extra feat a fighter gets at first and every even level doesn't matter.
Does that answer your question? Please say yes. : )
Yes it is clear now. I thought that was what you were saying, but I wanted to be sure so I had to give a very simple example so you would feel safe answering it without thinking I was trying to set you up..
With that said I am now convinced nothing short of dev intervention is going to convince you otherwise. I think the book is clear that bonus feats only work like I described them. Hopefully we can get an answer in a week. :)
|
|
reverse engineering is not that hard as a poster has just shown.
But it is! In the example given (7th level Valeros), there are five eligible feats but only four were gained as 'bonus' feats for being a fighter! Which four? We don't know! We can't know!
Paizo wants any stat block to be useable as is, without any knowledge of that creature's history being known. Just because DMs can change any stat block they like, it doesn't take this deliberate design decision away!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
... so... a stat block of a pre-made character, designed to be used "as is" by anyone, to be able to just jump into things without having to worry too much about rules and builds, and thus doesn't include a detail about an option to change it's own build, is the example of irrefutable proof that what was written in the rules book and explicitly stated is, in fact, NOT what paizo intended to write and publish? Publish not as an "example of a ready to play build/character", but published as the Core Rules of the game to be used for creating your own builds and characters?
o_O
~P
reverse engineering is not that hard as a poster has just shown.But it is! In the example given (7th level Valeros), there are five eligible feats but only four were gained as 'bonus' feats for being a fighter! Which four? We don't know! We can't know!
Paizo wants any stat block to be useable as is, without any knowledge of that creature's history being known. Just because DMs can change any stat block they like, it doesn't take this deliberate design decision away!
Some just broke it down, but with all that aside that stat block not having a "B" by certain feats means nothing. I showed that with my ranger example. If a GM wanted to modify an NPC ranger he would have the same issues if he felt the need to reverse engineer it, just to see which feats could be taken out.
If paizo says bonus feats must be replaced it stands to reason that you(the player) must track them, and as I have shown tracking them is not hard.
For Paizo to say you guys are not smart enough to put the letter "B" or any other designator by a feat is an insult to our intelligence.
Do you think players have issues tracking ranger bonus feats also?
Paizo also does not give the breakdown for favored class points. What if the GM wants to change those around? Are you saying those need to be explained also for an NPC, and yes I do track them when I make characters as a player.
reverse engineering is not that hard as a poster has just shown.But it is! In the example given (7th level Valeros), there are five eligible feats but only four were gained as 'bonus' feats for being a fighter! Which four? We don't know! We can't know!
Paizo wants any stat block to be useable as is, without any knowledge of that creature's history being known. Just because DMs can change any stat block they like, it doesn't take this deliberate design decision away!
It is usable "as is". If the GM modifies it then it is no longer "as is".
|
|
Yar!
Hurray for being clear and concise. Your position is significantly more clear now.
I, however, disagree with your interpretation.
I understand that there is disagreement on this issue. : )
I think that "Fighter Bonus Feats" and "Combat" feats are not synonymous. While a "Fighter Bonus Feat" must be chosen from the list of "Combat" feats, "Combat" feats do not have to be "Fighter Bonus Feats". Otherwise other classes (who do not gain "Fighter Bonus Feats" could never select them).
In 3.5 it specifically noted these feats (that PF calls 'combat feats') and specifically made it clear that even though they were called 'fighter bonus feats' that anyone could take them, fighter or not, if they meet the prerequisites.
My position is consistent with that.
The Fighter class feature that grants bonus feats specifically calls out "bonus" feats, not any feat , not regular feats, not even "combat" feats. It specifically states "bonus feats". Thus, I posit that the exchange must be one of the feats gained via his "bonus" feat class feature. While yes, it must be a combat feat, it must also be one that was chosen via the "bonus feat" class feature.
How does that make sense?
This whole 'retraining' thing started in 3.5; the 3.0 sorcerer was found to be too harsh in locking those choices in, so in 3.5 they added a new mechanic-retraining.
Sure, the spell gained could not be of a higher level than the spell lost, and both had to be sorcerer spells, but there was no stipulation that the spell lost must have originally been gained at a certain level or levels!
Yet the idea that a fighter can retrain some of his combat feats but not others, based only on an arbitrary choice, does not make sense.
Yar!
Yet the idea that a fighter can retrain some of his combat feats but not others ... does not make sense.
And yet, that is exactly what is written in the rules.
A possible reasoning other than "arbitrary" could be that they are not just "combat feats", but something more. Something special and unique to the fighter. They are also "Bonus Feats". And because they are not just combat feats, but also special "bonus feats", they and they alone can be retrained at specific intervals (which happens to be exactly what the rules specify).
Or you can chalk it up to yet another "game-ism" (in this case used as "like a game/not for reality but for mechanical balance/whatever" as opposed to the intended definition of the term, which is more akin to "using the rules to win").
~P
Stuff about 3.5
I don't mind using 3.5 as a source when the rules did not change, but the fighter bonus feats don't work the same as they did in 3.5 so that 3.5 reference does not apply.
To say every combat is a bonus feat despite the text and chart saying you only get them at certain level is at best a rules contradiction, however there is no rules contradiction. You are just reading the rules the way you want to instead of going by what they say.
If a devs chimes in and says you can only retrain the feats according to my argument will you houserule it?
|
|
Paizo also does not give the breakdown for favored class points. What if the GM wants to change those around? Are you saying those need to be explained also for an NPC, and yes I do track them when I make characters as a player.
The favoured class bonus, wether hit point or skill point or bonus spell or whatever, works exactly the same as every other hit point/skill point/spell/whatever. There is no need to tag them. Just as there is no need to tag feats.
Why would the devs thing that it's a better game for tagging any of these things?
The only dev comments I've seen on this subject were saying that:-
• you can't retrain the armour/shield proficiency feats, because the proficiencies were granted by the first level in the class and not by bonus feats. The armour prof feats said that they were granted as bonus feats to each class that had them, but this was an accidental cut&paste holdover from 3.5 and will be errata'd
• even though it wasn't intentional, the ability to retrain any bonus feat was not written as limiting it to fighter bonus feats, so technically a wizard 5/fighter 3 who gained a fighter level could retrain his wizard bonus feats. Unintended, but it works
If the devs weigh in (I hope they do), they may restate that, or they may restrict it to any combat feat, or may restrict it to only those combat feats gained as a result of being a bonus feat granted at certain levels by the fighter class. However, I would hope they think it through and leave us with a system which makes sense and works easily and simply.
No you can not retrain the wizard bonus feats by RAW, but I don't think you will be convinced.
The system is easy now, just tag the feats.
Now for my question(s).
How can you say there is no need to tag feats when part of your argument is that having feats not being tagged is why you think the rule works the way it does, and therefore makes it to hard to adjust an NPC?
If not tagging them is of no consequence then you can't really use it as part of your defense. If it does matter, then why shouldn't favored class points matter? What if 6 points go to HP, and 5 go to skills?
Read the question more carefully. It's about taking this pre-made, lvl 7 Iconic character and playing him until you achieve lvl 8 and then using the retraining option that any fighter would have at level 8. It's not asking about modifying a listed character before playing him. Or are you implying that Iconics don't level up? Once I take hold of the character, as I grow him, I can choose whatever valid options I want and, once I hit Fighter lvl 8, retraining a feat is a valid option. Is it possible to determine, on an Official Pre-build Character, to apply the rule as "You may only retrain a bonus feat taken via Fighter's Bonus Feats class ability"? The answer is "No" and the answers thus far have supported this. The fact that a person "can" mark which feats were from what source is irrelevant; that is not a necessary procedure by RAW, just a personal notation. By RAW, it is entirely impossible to adjudicate the rule in this manner for an Iconic character. Therefore, it cannot apply to any other character while maintaining consistency and parity; and in any system, consistency and parity are paramount. Thus, the conclusion is that limiting Fighter bonus feat retraining to only feats gained through any particular ability is functionally impossible; both from Fighter's Bonus Feats class ability and from any other class's Bonus Feats ability in the case of a...Yar.
... so... a stat block of a pre-made character, designed to be used "as is" by anyone, to be able to just jump into things without having to worry too much about rules and builds, and thus doesn't include a detail about an option to change it's own build, is the example of irrefutable proof that what was written in the rules book and explicitly stated is, in fact, NOT what paizo intended to write and publish? Publish not as an "example of a ready to play build/character", but published as the Core Rules of the game to be used for creating your own builds and characters?
o_O
~P
The inability to reverse engineer an NPC is faulty logic when used in and of itself. It has no bearing on the actual rules, no more than the ability to do so constitutes a rule. Both can be used to support a point, but that alone can not prove the point.
PS:The NPC in question was reverse engineered at least by feats.
The fact that a person "can" mark which feats were from what source is irrelevant; that is not a necessary procedure by RAW, just a personal notation.
So the rules have to tell you HOW to track things now also?
You are right they don't tell you to mark feats, but RAW does restrict which ones can be traded. If you remember that is fine. All RAW cares about is that you only trade out bonus feats. How you choose to track them is up to you, just like RAW never tells you how to track which spells you used. It does say you have a limit on spell usage however. The fact that it does not say subtract spells cast from available spells does not mean I don't have to keep track of it, even if it means I have to rely on memory to do so.
It also does not tell me to track ammo. I could keep going.
Now Kazaan I want you to give a quote from the rule book saying that the normal feat slots can ALSO be traded out.
Yar.
Thanks Kazaan, that does make sense. It also makes me sad that paizo didn't take the time to put a little B beside the feats gained via the fighter bonus feat class feature.
I will admit that I only read the last page so far of this thread, where it looked like Malachi was implying that the rules as written do not mean "a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned." so I probably missed quite a bit of context.
My bad.
But that doesn't change that the Pathfinder rules have a class feature that gives you something special (bonus, aka extra feats), gives you a specific and limited list that you use to fill out that class ability (combat feats, a specific and related yet separate thing), and that every few levels you can swap the bonus gained from that class ability for something else from that list, aka "learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat".
I do still have a beef with using the "iconic" stat block as an example of proof for a rules discussion. Part of that beef is with Paizo itself, either not being clear in their core rules, or not being consistent with their rules as they appear in other material. The other part of that beef is from a "these are the basic rules of the game, here you go new person to the game, read and learn" standpoint. The iconic stat block does not appear in the CRB. A new person learning the game from the book that is supposed to be the central/primary/main source of info and rules to the game, of which should be the only book one needs to play this game, suddenly needs other, non-core sources in order to understand it?
That bothers me.
Especially so when - as it is being used in this specific scenario (or at least, as it seems to me to be being used) - to negate, contradict, change the meaning of, or confuse what would have been clear without it.
Take the ability without any reference to anything else. Only the CRB. No 3.x, no other books, no forums, nothing. It says:
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.
From the CRB, we know that all characters gain a feat at 1st level and every odd number level thereafter (3,5,7,etc). From the above quote we know that Fighters get "bonus" feats from a class ability called "bonus feats". These "bonus" feats must be selected from a specific list of feats, marked in the CRB as "combat" feats. These "bonus" feats, which must also be "combat" feats, can be swapped out one at a time at 4th level and every 4 levels after, for a different "bonus" feat which must be a "combat" feat.
Going by only this, we can see that the Fighter's "bonus" feats are a separate thing from his normally gained feats that all characters gain, and that "combat" feats can be gained with these normal feats, the "bonus" feats must also be "combat" feats. The swapping of feats, as is clear from what is written, must swap a "bonus" feat for another "bonus" feat. Thus, a "combat" feat taken as a "bonus" feat for another "bonus" feat which must also be another "combat" feat.
Yes, that was a lot of words. But the concept and the application of it is actually rather simple. And provided we don't over-complicate with with other sources, over-thinking, referencing other versions of this game and how it was, it can remain that clear.
But then we include the iconic stat block (which is nowhere in the CRB), and 3.x references, and suddenly it might no longer mean what was a moment ago so clear by what was actually written.
Again, that is what bothers me.
EDIT: also... *points to wraithstrike* ...what he said. ^_^
~P
|
|
Kazaan puts the case well.
How can you say there is no need to tag feats when part of your argument is that having feats not being tagged is why you think the rule works the way it does, and therefore makes it to hard to adjust an NPC?
It's the other way round; the lack of tags is not the reason I think that any combat feat can be retrained, it's simply evidence that Paizo thinks so too! Not proof, but evidence.
Would I houserule it if the devs were to specifically rule that only feats gained as bonuses from fighter levels may be retrained?
I very, very rarely houserule. I find that too much houseruling makes it difficult to make use of official pruduct, and I make a lot of use of that. So it would have to be pretty spectacularly bad for me to change it.
For example, I do not houserule that paladins can be of any good alignment, even though I wholeheartedly believe that this is a desirable evolution of the 'holy warrior of good'. But I have houseruled the 3.5 exception to reach weapons back in; it should never have gone away and makes a mockery of common sense and verisimilitude!
The question we are discussing is of that magnitude. The idea that combat feats can sometimes be retrained and sometimes not, based on a divide which doesn't exist in the lives of the characters in the game, and that Paizo themselves ignore in their own publications, is so absurd that I'd feel that I'd have no option but to houserule some sanity back into the game.
I have high hopes that Paizo themselves will see the merits of the respective cases and rule or errata or FAQ or whatever is needed.
I still think the reach weapon question is more urgent though. : )
|
|
Pirate, Wraithstrike, you have both made clear your position on your interpretation of the RAW, and though we disagree, I respect that you have come to your decision using reason.
I want to ask you a different question. If you had been given the task of writing some 'retraining' rules for fighters, with the principle that fighters can alter the emphasis of their combat training to meet changing needs, what would make sense to you? How would you have written it?
Fighters get more combat feats than any other class. In effect, they get more and more often, building up a bigger list of feats known. Would it make sense to you that only some of the feats would be eligible for retraining, based arbitrarily on having originally gained the feat at an even level rather than an odd level?
I wonder, how do you deal with Inquisitor bonus teamwork feats?
Do you let inquisitors use a standard action to change any of their teamwork feats, because people can't be expected to know which one was the most recent bonus teamwork feat they took?
Yar!
Malachi: I'm not sure, but if that were the only aspect I had control over, I'd be torn between two option: a) as (I think) it currently is, with only the feats gained from the bonus feat class feature being re-trainable, representing the special bonus of being a Fighter (aka Advanced Combat Specialist), above and beyond the normal feats that everyone develops over time, to be able to learn more (bonus) feats that are more flexible in nature than the norm (while still gaining normal feats as normal/like everyone else); or b) any "combat" feat, but such a clause would be listed as a separate class feature titled "Retraining" and would specifically call out "any combat feat" instead of what is currently written under the "bonus Feat" heading, calling out "bonus feats".
Now that I've written that out, I think I'd actually lean towards option a, partially for the simplicity of a class feature being flexible with itself, rather than opening it up to / modifying a larger grouping which everyone is able to gain but is inflexible for everyone else. That is, rather than a class feature adding something and modifying how a potential part of something else works, it only adds something and explains that extra somethings own flexibility.
I don't think it's arbitrary. I think of it as a way to show a Fighters tactical mind and ability to be flexible via "bonus feats" without stepping all over the toes of a default/basic premise of all characters (that being that feats gained normally via normal advancement are set-in-stone choices).
When I GM in my home games however, I do allow for some retraining of any feat for any character, but ONLY if it is because the character ended up advancing and developing as a character in ways that the player didn't initially expect, and admits that a certain feat choice no longer makes sense and/or proved to be nonsensical in the first place (especially if the feat in question was never used in game), and I will often (not always, but sometimes) include a side quest or extra cost for the retraining as well. And with such requests, how I deal with it is always based upon (all of) the current circumstances, not arbitrarily.
Now, Forseti does bring up an interesting point!
Teamwork Feat: At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, the inquisitor gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as teamwork feats. The inquisitor must meet the prerequisites of the selected bonus feat.
As a standard action, the inquisitor can choose to learn a new bonus teamwork feat in place of the most recent bonus teamwork feat she has already learned. In effect, the inquisitor loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. She can only change the most recent teamwork feat gained. Whenever she gains a new teamwork feat, the previous teamwork feat becomes set and cannot be changed again. An inquisitor can change her most recent teamwork feat a number of times per day equal to her Wisdom modifier.
It reads to me that the standard action retraining they can do is in regards to the most recently gained Teamwork feat gained via this class feature. But if your interpretation is true, than it should be applicable to the most recent Teamwork feat gained via any means (for example, taking a teamwork feat for the normal feat gained at level 5), or for any pregenerated Inquisitors, any/all of their teamwork feats despite the RAW stating "most recent". (unless this IS marked in the iconic inquisitor's stat block. I haven't seen it recently, so I'm not sure).
~P
Now, regarding the Inquisitor ability to retrain the "most recent" teamwork feat, going on the same principal that the un-marked nature of NPC stat blocks providing for a clear counter-example we can reach a conclusion through the same deductive process.
Premise: Since you are not required to designate the source of selected feats and officially published stat blocks corroborate this premise, there is no way, by RAW, to determine which teamwork feat was selected "most recently".
The need for the replaced feat to be "most recent" is significantly more restrictive than the Fighter retraining mechanic so, in this case, we can deductively conclude that the clause about retraining the "most recent teamwork feat" for Inquisitors is fundamentally broken; it cannot be followed while maintaining consistency and parity in the same way you cannot follow both the Racial Heritage FAQ and the Half-Breed FAQ because doing so leads to logical paradox; Reductio ad Absurdum.
PS: I already foresee the argument, "If Inquisitor retraining is mis-worded, it's just as possible that Fighter retraining is mis-worded". This is the fallacious version of Reductio ad Absurdum, the Strawman Fallacy; if premise A leads logically to ~A, then premise B is invalid. While being similar, the Fighter retraining issue and the Inquisitor retraining issue are separate issues and Fighter has a viable alternative to "it's broken" whereas Inquisitor does not. So this doesn't indicate that my position is incorrect, just that Inquisitor needs an errata.
Obviously, by RAW, you are required in some cases to designate the source of selected feats. The fact that it is clearly and irrefutably required when playing an inquisitor invalidates the assumption that it is never required. When the assumption that it is never required is taken off the table, there's no reason to twist the wording on fighter bonus feats in such a manner that it follows that incorrect assumption.
As far as I know, the notion that it shouldn't be required to track the exact manner in which a given character build has come into being is not RAW. It is just an objective stated by developers. If the rules are to meet that objective, the rules need errata.
Until such a time as those errata materialize, I will have inquisitors track what their most recent bonus teamwork feat is at my table, and fighters will only be allowed to retrain the feats they gained as bonus feats at even numbered levels.
Kazaan puts the case well.
How can you say there is no need to tag feats when part of your argument is that having feats not being tagged is why you think the rule works the way it does, and therefore makes it to hard to adjust an NPC?It's the other way round; the lack of tags is not the reason I think that any combat feat can be retrained, it's simply evidence that Paizo thinks so too! Not proof, but evidence.
We already explained why they were not tagged. If you have a disagreement with the explanation then you should have provided a counter argument. So far I have not seen one.
In case you missed it, there is no reason to tag an NPC's bonus feats, is because the NPC is made ready to play, and it does not matter which feats are tagged most of the time.
Thinking about this though I have found a reason to tag bonus feats, and it shows that Paizo just did not think of a reason. That kills your argument though.
Here is one reason why the feats should be tagged:
Let's say I have a ranger, and lets say due to a debuff that drops my dex I would lose access to a feat. Now let's also say that feat is a bonus feat, and as a ranger I don't need to meet the prereqs for it. As you know the ranger stat blocks don't have their feats tagged, but they should, so the nontagging of feats is not proof that Paizo is saying it does not matter. Without the ranger feat being tagged I have no way to know if I still have access to that feat without reverse engineering. In short it is a lack of foresight, on Paizo's part, and it has nothing to do with how they view the rule.
Pirate, Wraithstrike, you have both made clear your position on your interpretation of the RAW, and though we disagree, I respect that you have come to your decision using reason.
I want to ask you a different question. If you had been given the task of writing some 'retraining' rules for fighters, with the principle that fighters can alter the emphasis of their combat training to meet changing needs, what would make sense to you? How would you have written it?
Fighters get more combat feats than any other class. In effect, they get more and more often, building up a bigger list of feats known. Would it make sense to you that only some of the feats would be eligible for retraining, based arbitrarily on having originally gained the feat at an even level rather than an odd level?
Yes it makes sense, because I would have no idea how it would work in play, and I would also not say you get bonus feats at every even level, go on to say you can only replace bonus feats, while I know that I intend it to be any feat slot.
Why did Paizo not just say you can replace any combat feat.
I will also add that the ability to replace any combat feat would have been a different class ability than the bonus feats. For your interpretation here is how I would have written it.
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 also known as “fighter bonus feats" must be selected from those listed as combat feats.
Adapt and Overcome: 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. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability.
Now, Forseti does bring up an interesting point!
Teamwork Feat: At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, the inquisitor gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as teamwork feats. The inquisitor must meet the prerequisites of the selected bonus feat.As a standard action, the inquisitor can choose to learn a new bonus teamwork feat in place of the most recent bonus teamwork feat she has already learned. In effect, the inquisitor loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. She can only change the most recent teamwork feat gained. Whenever she gains a new teamwork feat, the previous teamwork feat becomes set and cannot be changed again. An inquisitor can change her most recent teamwork feat a number of times per day equal to her Wisdom modifier.
It reads to me that the standard action retraining they can do is in regards to the most recently gained Teamwork feat gained via this class feature. But if your interpretation is true, than it should be applicable to the most recent Teamwork feat gained via any means (for example, taking a teamwork feat for the normal feat gained at level 5), or for any pregenerated Inquisitors, any/all of their teamwork feats despite the RAW stating "most recent". (unless this IS marked in the iconic inquisitor's stat block. I haven't seen it recently, so I'm not sure).
~P
I am waiting for the reply to this one since RAW does not tell us to mark teamwork feats, and the fact that it is not an instruction per RAW was what Kazaan presented as an argument
Now Kazaan I want you to give a quote from the rule book saying that the normal feat slots can ALSO be traded out.Ah, the great failing of people to understand how 'implicit meaning' works.
PS: I already foresee the argument, "If Inquisitor retraining is mis-worded, it's just as possible that Fighter retraining is mis-worded". This is the fallacious version of Reductio ad Absurdum, the Strawman Fallacy; if premise A leads logically to ~A, then premise B is invalid. While being similar, the Fighter retraining issue and the Inquisitor retraining issue are separate issues and Fighter has a viable alternative to "it's broken" whereas Inquisitor does not. So this doesn't indicate that my position is incorrect, just that Inquisitor needs an errata.
Actually I don't think the fighter bonus feats are misworded. I think you are just reading them incorrectly, and if Paizo says you can only trade out X, there is no need to be an additional rule saying you need to track X or make a notation. The rules don't mention a notation because they don't care how you track them, as long as X is tracked. That goes for the inquisitor and the fighter, and any other class.
We will see if I am failing when the devs clarify my position. :)
Now, regarding the Inquisitor ability to retrain the "most recent" teamwork feat, going on the same principal that the un-marked nature of NPC stat blocks providing for a clear counter-example we can reach a conclusion through the same deductive process.
Premise: Since you are not required to designate the source of selected feats and officially published stat blocks corroborate this premise, there is no way, by RAW, to determine which teamwork feat was selected "most recently".
The need for the replaced feat to be "most recent" is significantly more restrictive than the Fighter retraining mechanic so, in this case, we can deductively conclude that the clause about retraining the "most recent teamwork feat" for Inquisitors is fundamentally broken; it cannot be followed while maintaining consistency and parity in the same way you cannot follow both the Racial Heritage FAQ and the Half-Breed FAQ because doing so leads to logical paradox; Reductio ad Absurdum.
PS: I already foresee the argument, "If Inquisitor retraining is mis-worded, it's just as possible that Fighter retraining is mis-worded". This is the fallacious version of Reductio ad Absurdum, the Strawman Fallacy; if premise A leads logically to ~A, then premise B is invalid. While being similar, the Fighter retraining issue and the Inquisitor retraining issue are separate issues and Fighter has a viable alternative to "it's broken" whereas Inquisitor does not. So this doesn't indicate that my position is incorrect, just that Inquisitor needs an errata.
Obviously, by RAW, you are required in some cases to designate the source of selected feats. The fact that it is clearly and irrefutably required when playing an inquisitor invalidates the assumption that it is never required. When the assumption that it is never required is taken off the table, there's no reason to twist the wording on fighter bonus feats in such a manner that it follows that incorrect assumption.
Did Kazaan just say you the RAW is broken, and that you should not have to track the inquistor's teamwork feats, even though it is written in a manner that says you need to know which order they were taken in? O.o
...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?
Except that quote doesn't say that "Bonus Feats = Combat Feats/Fighter Bonus Feats". It says that Bonus Feats must be chosen from the list called Combat Feats/Fighter Bonus Feats. Being chosen from a list does not make anything on that list qualify as something that was chosen. If it wasn't selected (word used in the section), it does not qualify as a "bonus feat". Bonus Feat = 1. Being on the Combat Feats list, and 2. Being chosen with the Bonus Feats class ability.
Either "Fighter Bonus Feat" was meant to refer to "Bonus Feat", or it was meant to refer to "Combat Feat". Frankly for our purposes that distinction is irrelevant. In either case, what matters is that the PF list of feats available for consideration for said Bonus Feats is called "Combat Feats". To be a Bonus Feat, the feat must be selected from that list. There is nothing in the reading that states that any of the feats on that list actually become Bonus Feats until they are actually chosen, using the "Bonus Feats" class ability from the Fighter Class. That's the disconnect here. You're calling all rectangles squares, simply because there's a section that states that all squares must meet the criteria necessary to be defined as a rectangle.
If you're arguing that "Fighter Bonus Feat" was simply shortened to "Bonus Feat" for the rest of the section, then you've got to explain why "Bonus Feat" is being used twice, but differently, within the same section.
These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats.
These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as Combat Feats[.]
Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter’s bonus feat.
Any feat designated as a combat feat can be selected by fighters and gunslingers as a bonus feat.
Plus, you've got to explain why you disagree with the pretty obvious intention to simply change the name of the list from "Fighter Feat/Fighter Bonus Feat" to "Combat Feat" (and then simply make note of the fact that Combat Feats are often referred to by their old 3.5 name of Fighter Bonus Feat due to carryover).
And again, it's still irrelevant because of what I mentioned above.
Where'd my post go?
Isn't it customary to state why an offending post was removed?
Yar.
Thanks Kazaan, that does make sense. It also makes me sad that paizo didn't take the time to put a little B beside the feats gained via the fighter bonus feat class feature.
If you are still around this is for you also. Yeah I know you agree with me, but I want you to see this.. :)
Kazaan puts the case well.
How can you say there is no need to tag feats when part of your argument is that having feats not being tagged is why you think the rule works the way it does, and therefore makes it to hard to adjust an NPC?It's the other way round; the lack of tags is not the reason I think that any combat feat can be retrained, it's simply evidence that Paizo thinks so too! Not proof, but evidence.
That is not the reason. As I said before it is because its is not needed for a ready-made NPC in most cases, and the dev team probably most likely feels like it will cause more problems than it will solve.
I was about to try to get the ranger issue addressed, when SKR stepped in.
Where'd my post go?
Isn't it customary to state why an offending post was removed?
I never saw your post here, and I have checked for a response from others more than once.
Check your post tab under your profile. If it is there, and not here it is probably a glitch, and it might show up later.
RavingDork - the post #'s are sequential back to yesterday, I don't think any are missing.
On-topic:
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 thereafterPF 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
Nicely put, except we don't get that in PF, we get:
* they can retrain a bonus feat at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafterYou said earlier that you read the rules as saying "Combat feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and *not* saying "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats". But you twist that around in your reading of the retraining paragraph to the exact opposite, that "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and thus = Combat Feats.
|
|
My posting time has been limited in the last couple of days, but I'll give some of these a shot. : )
You said earlier that you read the rules as saying "Combat feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and *not* saying "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats". But you twist that around in your reading of the retraining paragraph to the exact opposite, that "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and thus = Combat Feats.
In effect: yes! Not that all things described everywhere in the rules as a 'bonus feat' means it's a 'fighter bonus feat', but specifically in this section 'bonus feats' is 'fighter bonus feats'!
I'm on my phone, so I can't see any inquisitor stat blocks; do the ones published by Paizo include the 'latest' bonus teamwork feat in the general list of feats possessed by that inquisitor? I know that my friend who plays one doesn't write that feat on his sheet at all; he just chooses which one he wants each morning and notes it on the same scratch paper he writes his prepared spells, current hit points, etc. He changes it when he spends the standard action, or wakes up. : )
Thanks for the research, Wraithstrike!
(I'd also like to go back in time and be consistent about the term "bonus feat" and whether or not it allows you to bypass prerequisites, i.e., if it's a bonus feat, you bypass prerequisites, if it's a [some other term], you have to meet the prerequisites.)
You must meet the prerequisites for the extra feats you get a a fighter!
I suspect that while SKR is on his jaunt back to the past he may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'. Ask him! : )
|
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?
Yes.
I'm astonished that my opinion on this wasn't clear from my posts. : )
A fighter can retrain any feat every four levels, so long as:-
• both the feat lost and the feat gained are combat feats
• the fighter has the prerequisites of both the feat gained and the feat lost
• the feat lost is not a prerequisite for anything the fighter still has
Wether the feat lost was originally gained as the extra feat a fighter gets at first and every even level doesn't matter.
Does that answer your question? Please say yes. : )
I don't think your Rulebook says the same thing that everyone else's Rulebook says.
A fighter gets a bonus feat at first level and at every even level. The feats that can fill these slots are labeled as "combat" feats. There is nothing special about them beyond the fact that they can be used to fill those bonus feat slots that a fighter gets. At fourth level, and every fourth level thereafter, the fighter may choose to change one of the "combat" feats located in one of the bonus feat slots, he doesn't get to change a combat feat that was placed in a normal feat slot.
The fact that Paizo doesn't mark what came from where in their NPC stat blocks is irrelevant, the way I've described it is how it works for PCs.
My posting time has been limited in the last couple of days, but I'll give some of these a shot. : )
You said earlier that you read the rules as saying "Combat feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and *not* saying "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats". But you twist that around in your reading of the retraining paragraph to the exact opposite, that "Bonus Feats = Fighter Bonus Feats", and thus = Combat Feats.In effect: yes! Not that all things described everywhere in the rules as a 'bonus feat' means it's a 'fighter bonus feat', but specifically in this section 'bonus feats' is 'fighter bonus feats'!
I'm on my phone, so I can't see any inquisitor stat blocks; do the ones published by Paizo include the 'latest' bonus teamwork feat in the general list of feats possessed by that inquisitor? I know that my friend who plays one doesn't write that feat on his sheet at all; he just chooses which one he wants each morning and notes it on the same scratch paper he writes his prepared spells, current hit points, etc. He changes it when he spends the standard action, or wakes up. : )
Thanks for the research, Wraithstrike!
(I'd also like to go back in time and be consistent about the term "bonus feat" and whether or not it allows you to bypass prerequisites, i.e., if it's a bonus feat, you bypass prerequisites, if it's a [some other term], you have to meet the prerequisites.)You must meet the prerequisites for the extra feats you get a a fighter!
I suspect that while SKR is on his jaunt back to the past he may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'. Ask him! : )
1. Where is that quote from?
2. SKR cant rewrite rules alone. :)3. What does that have to do with this debate?
Yar!
Thanks wraithstrike for that link. Reading that brought a smile to my face and lessened my previously stated sadness.
Personally, I don't need everything handed to me while the "gwown ups" hold my hand in order to play this game. While I am personally a huge fan of details and a level of minutia that might drive most people insane, I'm also more than happy to make calls as I see fit, make assumptions about missing details based on context, and even reverse engineer (or outright hand wave) something to determine what needs to be done in the moment of an event/circumstance in the game as it comes up.
I can respect what SKR said there, and am honestly okay with that. It makes me happy that it has also been said publicly (though I know the various staff have implied similar things numerous times in the past already as well). Just knowing that some minutia not being included (and this particular instance about marking feats in NPC stat blocks IS a truly fine point of minutia) was not a mistake, but an "it's really not worth the time, money and effort to include all of that, and we trust our customers to use their heads to figure some of this stuff out", is good enough for me and my games.
Malachi: I don't really see how you got to "...may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'" from that quote you posted. Seems like a desire to make things more clear so that confusion about those abilities - like the one being discussed in this thread - would not come up due to a more clear wording of those abilities, possibly by using both clearer and concise terminology, and a better explanation of how it works. It is really neutral/ambiguous about how it may or may not change / how he would have it work. Just "go back in time" and make things clearer and consistent over multiple publications.
~P
Yar!
Malachi: I don't really see how you got to "...may very well re-write the fighter's retraining shtick along the lines of 'retrain any combat feat'" from that quote you posted.
+1000
If you mean the SKR quote, it's from the very post you linked to!
Here's another part of that post you quoted from:
Honestly, I'd fight very hard to not include that sort of information, as it's only useful in a few very specific circumstances, adds a lot more work to the formatting and editing of a stat block, makes the stat block look more cluttered, and introduces more ways a stat block can be "wrong" (in the eyes of the people who love to nitpick stat blocks). And if we did it for rangers, we'd have to do it for monks and any other class that get prereq-bypassing bonus feats (like witches with the cauldron hex, who get Brew Potion as a bonus feat even if they're not 3rd level). And then people would wonder why we're not marking fighter bonus feats, and so on.
Don't you think what he's saying here implies there's actually a need to mark them?