Fighter Class Feature: Bonus Feats: Learning a New Feat


Rules Questions

251 to 289 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pirate wrote:
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.

Then permit me to explain! First, I'll re-quote SKR:-

SKR wrote:
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.

If SKR got his wish and went back in time, some things would be different. Monks, for example, would get 'bonus' feats of Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist, and they'd be defined as 'bonus' feats, not because they are extra feats on top of the usual one every odd level, but because they are gained without needing to meet the prerequisites. Rangers would get Track and (at 3rd) Endurance. Whether or not these feats would normally have prerequisites is neither here nor there! This kind of 'bonus' feat is an ability which defines the class; one without which the class just wouldn't be the same (archetypes notwithstanding).

But if you can only choose a feat from a given list (even if that list is as large as 'any combat feat') if you do meet the prerequisites, then some folks of that class will be able to take it and some will not; hardly class-defining. And to the point of quoting SKR, in his time jaunt he would re-write the whole 'fighter bonus feat' section without using the word 'bonus' at all!

At the moment, that section includes the phrases 'bonus feat', 'fighter bonus feat' and 'combat feat'. Without using the word 'bonus' SKR would only be left with 'combat feat'. He would have to write that fighters gain a combat feat at first and every even level. And what can they retrain? Combat feats! At this point in his history-correcting re-write, why on earth would it occur to him to restrict that retraining only to the combat feats gained at each even level as a consequence of this class ability and forbid the retraining of combat feats gained each odd level?

Consistent with his opinion of the importance of minutiae compared to ease of play, which way do you honestly think the time-bothering SKR would go!

I've got a pretty good track record with this kind of thing myself! One of the nicest surprises I've ever had was when SKR himself agreed with me and posted in a thread about the duelist's Canny Dodge ability. He's all about ease of play combined with making sense!


No, what he says in that quote is that he would rewrite "bonus feats that still require you to meet prerequisites" as "some other term".

Such as, for instance, "extra feats" or "additional feats" (just to pick something).

That quote doesn't in any way say he would simply eliminate the word "bonus" without adding anything else.

It also doesn't say that only the fighter would receive this treatment. All cases of "bonus feat that still requires you to meet prerequisites" would be referred to by the new "some other term".

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Are wrote:

No, what he says in that quote is that he would rewrite "bonus feats that still require you to meet prerequisites" as "some other term".

Such as, for instance, "extra feats" or "additional feats" (just to pick something).

That quote doesn't in any way say he would simply eliminate the word "bonus" without adding anything else.

It also doesn't say that only the fighter would receive this treatment. All cases of "bonus feat that still requires you to meet prerequisites" would be referred to by the new "some other term".

None of us can know what this theoretical time-travelling dev would choose for names, but we can use our reason and knowledge to make predictions.

'Combat feat' is a term which exists, which existed when it was written for PF, and which would still have meaning post time-fix. He doesn't need to invent a new term which would be a synonym for 'bonus'! Saying a fighter gains a combat feat at first and every even level does the job nicely!

In all cases in the other classes, even as written today, the word 'bonus' is superfluous! Any replacement would be equally redundant. A fighter doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' combat feat, just to gain a combat feat! A wizard doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' meta-magic or item creation feat, just to gain a meta-magic or item creation feat! Call it what it is! In the case of the fighter, 'what it is' is 'a combat feat'!


But when the current rules for fighters clearly (to anyone not being wilfully contrary) imply that only these extra feats at even numbered levels can be changed at levels divisible by 4, wouldn't he need a means to distinguish them from feats gained normally?

I mean, he hasn't at any point expressed the intention to change the fighter retraining rules, why would you assume he would?

Also, why did this become a discussion about the hypothetical instead of about the rules as presented now?


I don't know what to say to that, other than my reasoning and knowledge comes to a different conclusion than yours. I don't think there's any point for me in discussing this further, so I'll simply leave the thread :)


Malachi SKR is only saying that he would like a term for extra feats that reqjire prerequisites and another term for extra feats that do not. He in no way hinted towards a rewrite of how the fighter works


Malachi you keep trying to bend the words to your will. The game does not work that way. Another problem with your ruling is that it allows the fighter to be a 1 level dip class, and that is something Paizo tried to stop by making it a disadvantage to multiclass.

So from a RAW, RAI, and philosophical standpoint you are in correct.

I think that SKR quote I provided should also be enough proof that they intend for those fighter feats to be tracked by us, even if they are not tracked by them, much like the ranger feats.

I am done for now unless I see a rules based argument. We will just have to wait on an FAQ or a dev to chime in.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

None of us can know what this theoretical time-travelling dev would choose for names, but we can use our reason and knowledge to make predictions.

'Combat feat' is a term which exists, which existed when it was written for PF, and which would still have meaning post time-fix. He doesn't need to invent a new term which would be a synonym for 'bonus'! Saying a fighter gains a combat feat at first and every even level does the job nicely!

In all cases in the other classes, even as written today, the word 'bonus' is superfluous! Any replacement would be equally redundant. A fighter doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' combat feat, just to gain a combat feat! A wizard doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' meta-magic or item creation feat, just to gain a meta-magic or item creation feat! Call it what it is! In the case of the fighter, 'what it is' is 'a combat feat'!

Bonus feats are not superfluous. A bonus feat is any feat you gain via class abilities, rather than levels.

Some bonus feats allow you to bypass pre-requisites (monk, ranger) and some are just additional feats.

Personally, I would agree that "bonus feats" should all be pre-req bypassing, and feats which do not bypass should be called "additional feats".

Example Text: At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains an additional feat to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These addtional feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats.

Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new additional feat in place of an additional feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the additional 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 additional feat at the time he gains a new additional feat for the level.


Tarantula wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

None of us can know what this theoretical time-travelling dev would choose for names, but we can use our reason and knowledge to make predictions.

'Combat feat' is a term which exists, which existed when it was written for PF, and which would still have meaning post time-fix. He doesn't need to invent a new term which would be a synonym for 'bonus'! Saying a fighter gains a combat feat at first and every even level does the job nicely!

In all cases in the other classes, even as written today, the word 'bonus' is superfluous! Any replacement would be equally redundant. A fighter doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' combat feat, just to gain a combat feat! A wizard doesn't need to gain a 'bonus' meta-magic or item creation feat, just to gain a meta-magic or item creation feat! Call it what it is! In the case of the fighter, 'what it is' is 'a combat feat'!

Bonus feats are not superfluous. A bonus feat is any feat you gain via class abilities, rather than levels.

Some bonus feats allow you to bypass pre-requisites (monk, ranger) and some are just additional feats.

Personally, I would agree that "bonus feats" should all be pre-req bypassing, and feats which do not bypass should be called "additional feats".

Example Text: At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains an additional feat to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These additional feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats.

Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new additional feat in place of an additional feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the additional 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 additional feat at the time he gains a new additional feat for the level.

This is precisely the case. The word "bonus" is not superfluous and absolutely nothing in the quotation from SKR implied that he thinks the word is superfluous. The quotation demonstrates his wish that there was a different word (not a lack of any word) to use for an extra feat gained, but one for which you still must meet all the prerequisites. Tarantula used "additional", which works great to demonstrate the point.

If you read SKR's quotation to say that "bonus" is superfluous and I really wish we'd have just used "combat", you're imputing way too much of your own bias in there. He wasn't even speaking specifically about this section in that minor bit of text - he was lamenting a more general point, which is that the phrase "bonus feat" has multiple (sometimes disparate) applications throughout the rule book. That's a different matter entirely.


So, a summary of the issues thus far:

1) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate an extra feat slot from those you normally get at odd-levels. Any method used is analogous to a "commented out" line of code; invisible to the compiler (an analogue for RAW in this analogy).

2) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate a bonus feat that bypasses prerequisites from one that doesn't.

3) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate the "most recent" bonus teamwork feat for Inquisitor.

4) Coming up with a RAW mandate to track the source of all earned feats would be cumbersome, take a lot of work for limited benefit, inflate stat blocks, and is generally undesirable to the devs.

So, proposed a solution involving minimal changes:

1) Clarification that "bonus feat slots" are just that; just extra options for feats which may or may not have limitations on what kinds of feats you can put there. This would codify that Fighter's feat retraining sub-ability of their Bonus Feats class ability applies to any "free-use" feat slot. Class abilities that give a specific feat (ie. Monks getting Improved Unarmed Strike) are already tracked and typically "class-reliant" abilities so they are separate and fixed.

2) Clarification that Fighter retraining, being a sub-ability of Bonus Feats, deals with Combat Feats only, removing the option to trade out a non-combat feat or a combat feat for a non-combat feat.

3) Slight re-tooling such that, if you have a "disregards prerequisites" bonus feat ability with multiple options (ie. Monk bonus feats), those feats are free to qualify for sans-prereqs even if you spend a normal odd-level feat slot or, for example, a fighter bonus feat slot to get them. For example; a vanilla Monk can take, among other things, Dodge and Combat Reflexes. Instead of having one default feat slot as well as 1 "bonus" slot that ignores prereqs for lvl 1, the Monk Bonus Feats ability designates all listed feats as "ignores prereqs" so, even without the prerequisite Dex score, he could take both Dodge and Combat Reflexes at level 1. Then, he could take a level of Fighter at character level 2 and be able to take Deflect Arrows as his Fighter Bonus Feat, even though he doesn't meet its prereqs.

4) Errata for Inquisitor to either eliminate the "most recent" restriction on retraining Teamwork feats or a mandate to track this specific "in flux" teamwork feat until it becomes set. Will also require clarification as to whether any teamwork feat can occupy this "flux" slot (and, thus, push out the previous occupying feat) or if only teamwork feats taken by the Bonus Feats ability qualify for the flux spot (ie. if you take a Teamwork Feat by any other means, it is automatically set as any normal feat and doesn't qualify for "flux" retraining).

These changes will not require significant changes to any stat blocks save those involving at least a 3rd level of Inquisitor (which would be a minimal addition). Most clarification can be handled by FAQ with very minor wording changes possible for ease of understanding in the abilities themselves. The only significant Errata beyond stat blocks is in the rules for Inquisitor's bonus teamwork feats to illustrate the "flux" feat slot. Simple, straightforward, and (most importantly) maintains consistency and parity in the system. Finding problems is great, but finding solutions is better.


I highly disagree with your #3 Kazaan. Allowing any bonus feat granted to bypass pre-reqs based on different class levels is a bad concept. It regulates monks even further to dip-hood.


Kazaan wrote:

So, a summary of the issues thus far:

1) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate an extra feat slot from those you normally get at odd-levels. Any method used is analogous to a "commented out" line of code; invisible to the compiler (an analogue for RAW in this analogy).

2) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate a bonus feat that bypasses prerequisites from one that doesn't.

3) There's no RAW-mandated way to differentiate the "most recent" bonus teamwork feat for Inquisitor.

RAW doesn't mandate specific ways to keep track of many things that obviously need to be kept track of. Yet we keep track of everything that is relevant to make the game work. Why would these 3 points be any different?

I find it wholly absurd to see these 3 points as problems. If there is an obvious requirement to keep track of something, you find a way that suits you.

How do you keep track of the number of spell slots a sorcerer has remaining for the day? I can't find a RAW-mandated way to do that.


Forseti wrote:


RAW doesn't mandate specific ways to keep track of many things that obviously need to be kept track of. Yet we keep track of everything that is relevant to make the game work. Why would these 3 points be any different?

I find it wholly absurd to see these 3 points as problems. If there is an obvious requirement to keep track of something, you find a way that suits you.

How do you keep track of the number of spell slots a sorcerer has remaining for the day? I can't find a RAW-mandated way to do that.

I mentioned this point before. Strangely enough it was never addressed. Maybe you can get an answer from him.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Malachi SKR is only saying that he would like a term for extra feats that reqjire prerequisites and another term for extra feats that do not. He in no way hinted towards a rewrite of how the fighter works

I have inadvertently caused some confusion: SKR is saying that feats which are granted without the need to meet the prerequisites should be treated differently than those that require them. That's why he has a problem with the same word ('bonus') being used for both. If he didn't think they should be treated differently then he wouldn't have a problem with using the same word to describe both. This is simply comprehension of what SKR posted.

The rest of my post was not what SKR said, but simply setting time in motion again after SKR is faced with the task of changing the RAW in the way he said. If he differentiates between the two types, he cannot fail to see that the only distinguishing feature of the extra feats a fighter is granted is that they must be combat feats. At this point, he must realise that there is no difference between a combat feat a fighter gains at second level to one he gains at third. There is no need for him to invent a synonym for 'bonus', that would be superfluous. I contend that he would have no reason or motive to restrict retraining to some combat feats but not others.

Wraithstrike wrote:
Another problem with your ruling is that it allows the fighter to be a 1 level dip class.

????

How? A fighter can only retrain at 4th, and even then he could have chosen the feats correctly the first time!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


I have inadvertently caused some confusion: SKR is saying that feats which are granted without the need to meet the prerequisites should be treated differently than those that require them. That's why he has a problem with the same word ('bonus') being used for both. If he didn't think they should be treated differently then he wouldn't have a problem with using the same word to describe both. This is simply comprehension of what SKR posted.

SKR wrote:

(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.)

That means if its a bonus feat you bypass the prereq, otherwise you don't which supports what I said. Of course that assumes he could travel back in time and rewrite the rules.

Wraithstrike wrote:
Another problem with your ruling is that it allows the fighter to be a 1 level dip class.
Malachi wrote:

????

How? A fighter can only retrain at 4th, and even then he could have chosen the feats correctly the first time!

It does not say every 4th fighter level so I only need to be a fighter. This makes just as much sense as every combat feat equals bonus feat even though the chart and word say you only get bonus feat slots at certain levels.

PS:I have not gone crazy, and I dont think one level of fighter really allows that, but it I do think my argument makes as much sense as the "bonus feat can be at any level" argument.

edit:A ruling has been issued. You can ignore this post.


Malachi to avoid a derail:

Manyshot: Can I fire two arrows with my shot, then cancel the full attack and take a move?
No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.

I think this explanation shows you are not locked in unless a special ability locks you in.

You can inbox your reply if you have another interpretation/explanation of why it takes manyshot to lock you, if you are not locked into a full attack anyway.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

4 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqk

Fighter: What feats can I retrain at level 4, 8, and so on?

Class entries in the Core Rulebook are written assuming that your character is single-classed (not multiclassed). The fighter's ability to retrain feats allows you to retrain one of your fighter bonus feats (gained at 1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, and so on). You can't use it to retrain feats (combat feats or otherwise) from any other source, such as your feats at level 1, 3, etc., your 1st-level human bonus feat, or bonus feats from other classes.

You may want to asterisk your fighter bonus feats on your character sheet so you can easily determine which you can retrain later.


I heart you Design Team. :)


Yar!

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

This is simply comprehension of what SKR posted.

The rest of my post was not what SKR said, but simply setting time in motion again after SKR is faced with the task of changing the RAW in the way he said. If he differentiates between the two types, he cannot fail to see that the only distinguishing feature of the extra feats a fighter is granted is that they must be combat feats. At this point, he must realise that there is no difference between a combat feat a fighter gains at second level to one he gains at third. There is no need for him to invent a synonym for 'bonus', that would be superfluous. I contend that he would have no reason or motive to restrict retraining to some combat feats but not others.

...and yet, my personal comprehension skills tell me something different. Check it out: (my alterations are italicized)

The following is not what SKR said, but simply setting time in motion again after SKR is faced with the task of changing the RAW in the way he said. If he differentiates between the two types, he cannot fail to see that the only distinguishing feature of the extra feats a fighter is granted is that they must be combat feats, are gained at levels no one else gains them, and allows retraining amongst itself every four levels... quite a few differences indeed!. At this point, he must realise that there is a fair difference between a combat feat a fighter gains at second level to one he gains at third. There may actually be a need for him to invent a synonym for 'bonus' in order to make this clearer. I contend that he would maintain that there is a good reason or motive to restrict retraining to these specific feats but not others.

And the fun part is, that is just as valid an interpretation of what SKR said in that other thread.

EDIT: oh, look at that, an official clarification. *walks away whistling innocently*

~P

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My comments about "bonus feats" terminology have nothing to do with this discussion.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
My comments about "bonus feats" terminology have nothing to do with this discussion.

I tried to tell 'em....

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some personal sniping. If you believe someone is trolling, flag it and move on. Don't respond.


Thanks again PDT. Makes me feel like my question wasn't a waste of time when it gets an answer. :)

Silver Crusade

Well, the design team has resolved the issue. I won't try to pretend differently, even though I think it's not as good a way of running the retraining part.

Looks like I got this one wrong. : /


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Well, the design team has resolved the issue. I won't try to pretend differently, even though I think it's not as good a way of running the retraining part.

Looks like I got this one wrong. : /

Too bad, too. Though I thought you were wrong the whole time, I agreed with your idea, and like it. Cut down on red tape. PF has way too much as it is. I may houserule it in the future. I was hoping they would go with you in the end, though I doubted it.

Uh...just to be clear, I agree with any combat feat being retrained, as long as it was gained from a level of fighter (not necessarily a bonus feat, just a feat gained at a level where you gained a level of fighter). Wouldn't want people getting Monk feats and then retraining those.

Good argument Malachi!


Red, there is at least the UCamp rules for retraining feats that fighters (or anyone else) can use. The only limitation is if the feat had a limited list (such as fighter bonus feats can only be combat feats) your replacement feat has to come from the same list.

The only thing it takes is money and time.


In the first place, I don't have Ucamp, so that's irrelevant to me.

In the second, I just like to see less red tape. PF is far too complex as it is, and casters have far too much power as compared to martial characters. Fighter is also generally considered the worst of all the martial characters. A little minor boon would not have been anything bad. I get it the rules do not support it, but the rules aren't particularly good anyway. Which is why I said I may houserule it. Because it's not a rule. ;-)

Oh, and in the third place, my guys just kinda "re-train" whenever they like, though they keep the basic premise the same, and don't game it, so it's cool.

Uh...no offense, Paizo. You guys work hard, and do excellent with what you have, I just think D&D as a whole kinda needs a re-working. Looking forward to see what WotC does with Next.

Liberty's Edge

Awesome, thanks PDT!


You don't have it, but it is official paizo material and is as equally relevant as APG, UM or UC is.

Monk's track which feats they got without meeting pre-reqs. So do rangers. Fighters track which feats were bonus so they know which they can retrain. It isn't hard to add a little B or * next to feats.

Less red tape would be nice. The easiest way to do that is to release only the Core book, and no splat books ever.


Tarantula wrote:
You don't have it, but it is official paizo material and is as equally relevant as APG, UM or UC is.

It is also equally irrelevant if I do not possess any of those books. I don't understand your point. Some GMs only allow Core and APG material, and everything else on an approval basis. So even if a new feature is in a paizo book, it may not be allowed at his table. If no one owns UM, a player can't be a magus, since no one can look at the rules in the book. Same concept. No one owns UCamp, so no one can retrain in that way at my table.

Tarantula wrote:
Monk's track which feats they got without meeting pre-reqs. So do rangers. Fighters track which feats were bonus so they know which they can retrain. It isn't hard to add a little B or * next to feats.

No it isn't. And you have to by the rules, in order to know what you can retrain. I would just rather you didn't have to if you were a single-classed fighter. My preference.

Tarantula wrote:
Less red tape would be nice. The easiest way to do that is to release only the Core book, and no splat books ever.

There are ways of making the game simpler while allowing options. GURPS is actually pretty good for this. The game is as simple or complex as you like, essentially. Savage Worlds is very simple by default, but can become very intricate if the players wish. All while maintaining simplicity of the game.

At any rate, we are off-topic. Please respond by PM if you wish to continue.


Moderater Wraithstrike.. :)

TRA: Tarantula is not speaking for your position. He is speaking for the game as whole. That is why he said Ucamp matters.

Tarantula: TRA is only speaking of their personal preference not the game as whole.


wraithstrike wrote:

Moderater Wraithstrike.. :)

TRA: Tarantula is not speaking for your position. He is speaking for the game as whole. That is why he said Ucamp matters.

Tarantula: TRA is only speaking of their personal preference not the game as whole.

That's funny. But very correct. We are talking past each other.


Tarantula wrote:
Thanks again PDT. Makes me feel like my question wasn't a waste of time when it gets an answer. :)

Regardless that I thought the answer was obvious, on hindsight there obviously was a need for a FAQ answer.

Even better, your thread also provided a FAQ answer that included a general rule/guideline that may be useful in any further discussions regarding rules.

My apology on being snappy in some of my posts.
Good work Tarantula.


Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqk

Fighter: What feats can I retrain at level 4, 8, and so on?

Class entries in the Core Rulebook are written assuming that your character is single-classed (not multiclassed). The fighter's ability to retrain feats allows you to retrain one of your fighter bonus feats (gained at 1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, and so on). You can't use it to retrain feats (combat feats or otherwise) from any other source, such as your feats at level 1, 3, etc., your 1st-level human bonus feat, or bonus feats from other classes.

You may want to asterisk your fighter bonus feats on your character sheet so you can easily determine which you can retrain later.

Thanks for the answer.

This post Spear training and gloves of dueling is marked by 36 as FAQ candidate. It is now marked as Answered in the FAQ, but there is no FAQ answer in the FAQ.

Have we missed something?


Yar!

It may be a timing issue (sometimes it takes longer than normal for an update to go through). On the other hand, there have been a few that were marked as such a while ago, and I still haven't seen the relevant FAQ entry. There is an entire other thread bringing just this issue to light over HERE.

*shrugs*

~P


Edit:
It was marked as answered 6 days ago so timing isn't an issue.

Hm, same problem in other threads. something is amiss.
Thanks for the info.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was wondering about that spear business last week too.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

"Hey this other thread was marked as answered, what's up with that?" is not an efficient way to get these things resolved. If you can't find the answer to the question, start a new thread and FAQ-flag it.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
"Hey this other thread was marked as answered, what's up with that?" is not an efficient way to get these things resolved. If you can't find the answer to the question, start a new thread and FAQ-flag it.

Thanks for the advice.

251 to 289 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fighter Class Feature: Bonus Feats: Learning a New Feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.