RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sure, Seth. But there's a problem there.
Some GMs (Brian, myself,...) understand that the rules allow a Sorcerer 1 / Fighter 6 / Arcane Archer 1 to retrain the Fighter levels with Arcane Archer levels, one-by-one. Others (Andrew, yourself, ...) do not, based in part on SKR's comments that the development team didn't intend for that.
Right now, lacking any guidance, it's reasonable that a player may ask a GM if the conversion is legal, and get an answer of "yes". (Or probably, "as I understand the rule, yes, but there's an FAQ in the winds") So, after an expenditure of 7 prestige per level, and some gold, he encounters a GM such as yourself who says, "that's not legal. Change out those levels of Arcane Archer to something else."
1) Does it cost him prestige and gold to change back?
2) Does he get back his prestige and gold that he paid for the change in the first place?
3) When he gets back to GMs who didn't have a problem with the retraining, can he shift back to the character that everybody at the table agrees is okay? (I'm assuming so.)
4) Does he need two versions of the PC, one a Sorcerer 1 / Arcane Archer n, and the other a Sorcerer 1 / Fighter n? Maybe he designates them 10482-2a and 10482-2b. When he sits down at a table, he asks the GM what her position is on the topic, and pulls out the appropriate version of the character.
--
Note to Andrew, Jon, etc.
Guys, you're using terms like "common sense" and "patently ridiculous". To me, that's one of those "proofs by obviousness" that college students use in mathematical arguments when they don't actually have any support.
We're talking about retraining, which is already a wonky in terms of common sense. ("I used to be an Oracle, afflicted by the gods with a curse that can never be circumvented. So ... I spent a week studying with a rogue, and now my god-cursed vision is all cleared up.")
As for what feels right or not, I'll remind you that the development team recently okayed racial SLAs to fulfill Prestige Class prerequisites. (This was a clarification, not a rules change.) If someone had come to your table 6 months ago using aasimar SLAs to get into Mystic Theurge at level 4, I imagine that you would be using the same language ("patently ridiculous," "common sense") to reject that PC.
|
1) No, it doesn't cost him anything to change back.
2) If it was a newer player who I determined legitimately didn't know that its a ridiculous supposition to begin with, then I'd refund them their expenditures. If its an experienced player, I will indicate they should have known better and not refund it.
3) No. Once you change your character and its noted on your ITS, that's what your character is. Shifting back is cheating.
4) That would be silly in my opinion.
Chris,
This is one of the most ridiculous instances of "But RAW says..."
Seriously. How could anyone think that RAW actually supports a Prestige Class counting as part of the prerequisite for itself? And this is an opinion not considering SKR's comment about intention.
|
Chris, I'm sorry and I'm not meaning to be offensive to anyone, but I'm with Andrew on this one (and that's not something I can say about a lot of the discussions that come up on these boards). I don't see how anyone could reasonably assume that a Prestige Class can be used to satisfy its own pre-requisites. The pre-requisites are there to determine if you can take the first level in the class. The instant you don't qualify for those pre-requisites you can no longer enjoy the benefits of the class. You can't say, "Well, my second level grants me the BAB I need to qualify for the first level," because you no longer qualify for that second level either. It's such an obvious part of the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset to me that I don't even see how this came up as a possibility except in the case of someone intentionally trying to break the system.
|
Seriously. How could anyone think that RAW actually supports a Prestige Class counting as part of the prerequisite for itself? And this is an opinion not considering SKR's comment about intention.
Andrew/Jonathan, you're getting sucked into the specifics too much again I don't think Chris's retraining option is correct either but the real question is, how to deal with a character who's legality is questionable?
Bob has a character option which I think is illegal. Chris thinks it's legal. (At the moment certain retains are good examples, but previously this may have included worshipers of Lisala, Paladins of Asmodeous, crossblooded/wildblooded sorcerers.)
Slightly genericified example: Bob has a character and there is some debate over whether it is legal or not. Chris thinks it is legal and I think it's not.
Bob sits at my table for 3-14159 Death By Pie and I notice the "error" and work with him to fix it and make a note on his chronicle sheet. (This doesn't cost anything, it's not using retraining, it's fixing a mistake)
Next Bob sits at Chris's table. Chris looks at the most recent chronicle sheet and sees that a non error was erroneously fixed. What does Chris do?
Does he undo the mistake I made and set the character back to what it was before. (Since if the original bit is not an error I have no power to magically change Bob's character.)
Does he say well that change has been made, I don't want to second guess another GMs resolution of an issue but it is a legal option and you can retrain back into it if you want.
What do I do when Bob sits back at my table after Chris mistakenly fixes my fix?
Does your answer depend on if you think Bob is a new player who is just following character building advice from a local respected GM or is the cheesiest weasel on the block?
There is currently not a good answer to this question and Chris is trying to figure it out.
|
|
Andrew/Jonathan, you're getting sucked into the specifics too much again I don't think Chris's retraining option is correct either but the real question is, how to deal with a character who's legality is questionable?
Actually, that's a different thread. This thread is about the legality of using a prestige class to qualify for itself while in the process of retraining.
|
|
Seriously. How could anyone think that RAW actually supports a Prestige Class counting as part of the prerequisite for itself? And this is an opinion not considering SKR's comment about intention.Andrew/Jonathan, you're getting sucked into the specifics too much again I don't think Chris's retraining option is correct either but the real question is, how to deal with a character who's legality is questionable?
Bob has a character option which I think is illegal. Chris thinks it's legal. (At the moment certain retains are good examples, but previously this may have included worshipers of Lisala, Paladins of Asmodeous, crossblooded/wildblooded sorcerers.)
Slightly genericified example: Bob has a character and there is some debate over whether it is legal or not. Chris thinks it is legal and I think it's not.
Bob sits at my table for 3-14159 Death By Pie and I notice the "error" and work with him to fix it and make a note on his chronicle sheet. (This doesn't cost anything, it's not using retraining, it's fixing a mistake)
Next Bob sits at Chris's table. Chris looks at the most recent chronicle sheet and sees that a non error was erroneously fixed. What does Chris do?
Does he undo the mistake I made and set the character back to what it was before. (Since if the original bit is not an error I have no power to magically change Bob's character.)
Does he say well that change has been made, I don't want to second guess another GMs resolution of an issue but it is a legal option and you can retrain back into it if you want.
What do I do when Bob sits back at my table after Chris mistakenly fixes my fix?
Does your answer depend on if you think Bob is a new player who is just following character building advice from a local respected GM or is the cheesiest weasel on the block?
There is currently not a good answer to this question and Chris is trying to figure it out.
I've answered this question upthread, and in Chris's thread about the protocol for such.
This thread is not the thread to have this particular conversation, as it is off topic.
This thread is here to discuss bootstrapping a prestige class.
You are correct. There is not a good answer to the larger question:
"Should GM's enforce changes on a character on their interpretation of a rule"
There really are so few things in this game that a GM could be 100% sure about and not admit there is some ambiguity to the rule, that I don't see this happening very often.
Same goes for a Player. (The argument, "But RAW says XXX, and I don't care about RAI.") isn't a good example. Because it isn't a valid argument in my mind.
But the point is, as precedent has set prior to retraining rules, if a character is illegal, it must be made legal, and the changes to make it legal should not cost the character anything as far as gold or prestige goes (unless that is where the illegality comes in).
Secondly, despite how "sure of myself" I sound on these boards, I do quietly admit some level of ambiguity in many situations. As such, if I can admit there is ambiguity (no matter how sure of myself I am in my interpretation of the rule) I'm not going to enforce a wholesale change in that character. I'll just indicate they can't use that aspect of the character at my table. If it nerfs their entire build, they have the option to rebuild (for free), play another character, play a pregen, or go home.
If the player chooses the rebuild option, then that rebuild is permanent. They can't go back on it later just because they are sitting at a GM's table who agrees with them. The rebuild will be noted on their ITS. Keeping two different character sheets to account for the fact there may be table variation, is cheating in my opinion.
If a character later finds out that I was indeed wrong (and can prove it), then I would have no problem reversing the rebuild (or giving my blessing for another GM or VO to do so.) If they can't get a hold of me, for whatever reason, I would not be insulted if the other GM or VO just did the reversal. But as long as there is still a level of ambiguity, or a huge preponderance of precedence and other FAQ answers seem to be ruling against them, then I would expect any other GM or VO to respect and enforce the rebuild the player did to fall into line with the rule so they could play their chosen character at my table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Im not concerned about SKRs post. My reasoning is purely the 'common sense' one. You dont get to use levels of Arcane Archer to help qualify for Arcane Archer.
And no, I wouldnt make the player pay to change it back.
I would also give the character a refund on the retraining. Basically negating that the retraining ever happened.
Unless this player has a known history of borderline legal stuff that constantly has to get changed. Eventually I'm not going to refund these changes, because obviously they haven't learned to make sure things are legal before they do them.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's such an obvious part of the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset to me that I don't even see how this came up as a possibility except in the case of someone intentionally trying to break the system.
To be fair, a couple months ago everybody and their dog would have said the same about needing to be at least 5th level before qualifying for any PrC's at all.
Then came the ruling that SLAs can be used for prereqs, and several people followed that to its logical conclusion of early-entry PrCs (at least, casting-based PrCs), and were met with the sentiment quoted above: entry no earlier than X level is "such an obvious part of the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset to me that I don't even see how this came up as a possibility except in the case of someone intentionally trying to break the system". (And of course, some went further to include name-calling and attacks on people's integrity.)
Until the design team came out and said that yes, that's exactly what the FAQ means, and it's on purpose.
And that was just with a FAQ! Not even an eratta, let alone an entire new subsystem of rules!
In this particular case, I personally agree that the "PrC boostrapping" being discussed is a no-go, but I'm not going to call it "an obvious part of the ruleset", and I'm certainly not going to presume that those who think it should work are "intentionally trying to break the system", because the last time those things were said about something this big, they were dead wrong.
Ahem...
BECAUSE SEAN DOESN'T KNOW THE RULES AND IT'S NOT IN THE FAQ YET SO IT'S NOT REALLY THE INTENT AND UNTIL THAT'S THE CASE --
I can't even do that anymore.
|
Though it pains me to say this, prior to SKR's post, I can see how one might have made a credible argument that retraining RAW might have altered meeting certain class requirements in such a manner.
I believe it is plain to see that such was clearly unintentional though, as SKR verified. There are very few newer rule implementations that completely alter core game mechanic foundation in such a manner.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm going to try to be very careful here, but I'm likely to make some mistakes. I'm hoping that, if I do, somebody will correct my examples.
Arcane Archer has the following prerequisites: BAB +6, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow or shortbow, and the ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.
My position is that the Pathfinder rules require that a feat or class continually meet prerequisites, but not the original pre-requisites, and that a character aspect that is bereft of pre-requisites is temporarily suppressed, rather than illegal.
Example -- I want my fighter PC to take Combat Expertise after the next adventure, when he will hit 3rd level, but he only has an Int of 12. So I buy a headband of vast intelligence +2, leave it on for 24 hours, and buy Combat Expertise. Come 4th level, he raises his Intelligence to 13. If he removes the headband now, he keeps the feat, even though he no longer has the piece of equipment that enabled him to learn it. Pathfinder rules don't care if the original source of the pre-requisite is still around.
Moreover, and this is important: let's say that somewhere during 3rd level, he loses the headband. He no longer has access to the feat, but he's not an illegal character, because he had met the pre-requisites when he selected the feat. And if he regains the pre-requisite at 4th level, he regains the use of the feat.
That's the way I understand the Pathfinder rules to work. And I apply that understanding to the issue at hand.
(Now, until the retraining rules, there was no way that a "BAB +6" could be lost. But there have been ways to lose feats, or ability scores, and whenever that happened, the rules say that other things depending on them are suppressed. when the pre-requisite comes back, from any source, the suppressed character features re-activate.)
---
Let's say that my Wizard 1 / Fighter 6 / Arcane Archer 1 wants to retrain one of the Fighter levels to Duelist, another prestige class with a pre-requisite of BAB +6. Is it your position that such a retraining would also be illegal? (After all, Fighter 5 / Arcane Archer 1 would allow him to take the level in Duelist?)
I think it's consistent with your position that yes, that retraining would be illegal because then the prerequisite for Duelists would include the level of Arcane Archer, and the prerequisite for Arcane Archer would include Duelist.
(There's some analogue to writing well-founded logical proofs here, I think...)
But I don't think that the rules require a character to be subjected to that level of auditting every time he retrains something. He met the pre-requisites for Arcane Archer when he took the first level; that made that initial choice legal. He meets the pre-requisites now; that makes the current use of the class legal.
Another Example -- If a wizard 1/ Fighter 7 / Arcane Archer 3 suffers Ability Drain that reduces his Int to 10, he loses the ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells. He's not an illegal character, but he does have those levels of Arcane Archer suppressed until he can meet the pre-requisite again. When he gains level 12, he can put his Ability Gain into Intelligence and not only regains the use of the prestige class, but can continue to gain levels in it. That is, the new level of Arcane Archer enables him to use the previously gained levels.
To my perspetive, you are arguing that some prerequisites have a special status here that the retraining rules don't mention, that it's just common sense that retraining doesn't work that way.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that Sean K Reynolds has already posted that the intention was not to allow a retrain into a build that would not have been legal without the retrain.
The intent is known and clear.
The alternative is ridiculous.
Why are we still having this discussion?
Same reason there are still people who don't think SLAs qualify for the things they do: different levels of online awareness. Someone not aware of SKR's commentary could very well come to the conclusion that this works, without any intent of breaking the system.
I guess all I'm really saying is that we shouldn't be looking at things like this and assuming the "intent to break" is the only reason someone could believe X.
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Valparaiso
|
Jiggy:
For what's it worth I'm not even convinced this even really does break the system. Most prestige classes are overall less powerful than regular classes.
Can anyone think of any particular Prestige Class where getting abilities some levels earlier through retraining is overpowered?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Jiggy:
For what's it worth I'm not even convinced this even really does break the system. Most prestige classes are overall less powerful than regular classes.
Can anyone think of any particular Prestige Class where getting abilities some levels earlier through retraining is overpowered?
Mammoth Rider.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) No. Once you change your character and its noted on your ITS, that's what your character is. Shifting back is cheating.
My friend, I think this is wrong as a general position.
If you're a GM for a local game day, and a players comes in with a character that both she and you agree is legal, then she's cool. But she goes to a convention, and finds another GM who says that her character is wrong and makes her change out a feat or trait. Or a couple levels in a prestige class.
She comes back to the local game day, and you both determine that the GM at the con didn't have a foundation to object. (Let's say that he hadn't read a FAQ or forum post that supports your position that her character meets pre-requisites.)
Changing back to a legal character that she didn't have to change in the first place is cheating? Is that really the language you want to use?
|
|
3) No. Once you change your character and its noted on your ITS, that's what your character is. Shifting back is cheating.My friend, I think this is wrong as a general position.
If you're a GM for a local game day, and a players comes in with a character that both she and you agree is legal, then she's cool. But she goes to a convention, and finds another GM who says that her character is wrong and makes her change out a feat or trait. Or a couple levels in a prestige class.
She comes back to the local game day, and you both determine that the GM at the con didn't have a foundation to object. (Let's say that he hadn't read a FAQ or forum post that supports your position that her character meets pre-requisites.)
Changing back to a legal character that she didn't have to change in the first place is cheating? Is that really the language you want to use?
Taking that one sentence out of context certainly makes it seem I'm being very closed-minded about the approach.
But if you look at everything, both in this thread, and your other thread, that I've written on this topic...
You'll find that I also state that if the player finds out that the GM that made them change things was wrong, then they can certainly change it back at no cost to themselves (and full refund if retraining rules were used).
However, they must then take the steps to carry with them the absolute unequivocal proof that they are right. And if then a GM still says no, they can take it up the ladder with the proof they have.
Each situation is going to have its own circumstances that have to be looked at individually.
But as a General rule, yes, I stand by the singular line you quoted.
|
|
I agree with Chris's sentiments.
When it comes to game mechanics integrity, at a PFS table I consider it my duty only to correct clear RAW issues (such as "Woops, I didn't realize I needed X feat for Y feat - let me fix that"), not to impose my perception of what those mechanics should be (such as "You cannot have the Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero archetype - select the one you wish to remove and we will mark the alterations on your chronicle sheet")
The reason I feel as such is to avoid circumstance as Chris describes. If I strongly disagree with a mechanics interaction that is not clearly incorrect, I would only consider not allowing it function at my table. The next GM has a right to see the matter differently.
|
|
Furthermore...
They have the option to play their character without that thing. Feat, class ability, whatever.
If not playing with that thing so badly nerfs their character that they become very underoptimized or unplayable, then they have the option to make changes.
Once they've chosen the route to make chances prior to getting a 100% official clarification (in other words, they are unwilling to accept table variance on the entire build of their character) then they need to keep the changes they made.
When table variance is an issue, making a change to get rid of the table variance is a choice, not a necessity.
If they make that choice, they should live with it and not flip back and forth based on what the table variance might say.
|
|
Actually, Im not concerned about SKRs post. My reasoning is purely the 'common sense' one. You dont get to use levels of Arcane Archer to help qualify for Arcane Archer.
And no, I wouldnt make the player pay to change it back.
You also can't tell him, "You don't get anything back for training to the illegal setup. You should have known better." The rules for pathfinder become stranger and stranger by the day. I mean serious,y spell-like abilities count as the level they can normally be cast at for prerequisites? That's just...silly? If it's illegal, you refund everything, no questions asked. And if you told me I wasn't getting anything, I'd be on the phone immediately to a venture officer to have that changed.
|
|
I agree with Chris's sentiments.
When it comes to game mechanics integrity, at a PFS table I consider it my duty only to correct clear RAW issues (such as "Woops, I didn't realize I needed X feat for Y feat - let me fix that"), not to impose my perception of what those mechanics should be (such as "You cannot have the Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero archetype - select the one you wish to remove and we will mark the alterations on your chronicle sheet")
The reason I feel as such is to avoid circumstance as Chris describes. If I strongly disagree with a mechanics interaction that is not clearly incorrect, I would only consider not allowing it function at my table. The next GM has a right to see the matter differently.
Except that Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero combination is not my perception.
That's obviously not allowable and its obvious a misprint on the Pistolero in that it didn't say it replaces gun training. Its obvious, because otherwise it would allow you to double dip on both gun training and pistol training, and you know that isn't right.
It really, really, really, really frustrates me when people try to throw "RAW" in anyone's face, when something is so obviously out of whack, as an excuse as to why they get to break the game.
|
|
You also can't tell him, "You don't get anything back for training to the illegal setup. You should have known better." The rules for pathfinder become stranger and stranger by the day. I mean serious,y spell-like abilities count as the level they can normally be cast at for prerequisites? That's just...silly? If it's illegal, you refund everything, no questions asked. And if you told me I wasn't getting anything, I'd be on the phone immediately to a venture officer to have that changed.Actually, Im not concerned about SKRs post. My reasoning is purely the 'common sense' one. You dont get to use levels of Arcane Archer to help qualify for Arcane Archer.
And no, I wouldnt make the player pay to change it back.
I think you and Seth agree.
And I agree with you in general.
Unless it was a problem player that constantly kept having to have things rebuilt because of skirting the gray line and illegality... only then would I even be tempted not to give them a refund on an illegal retrain.
|
|
I agree with Chris's sentiments.
When it comes to game mechanics integrity, at a PFS table I consider it my duty only to correct clear RAW issues (such as "Woops, I didn't realize I needed X feat for Y feat - let me fix that"), not to impose my perception of what those mechanics should be (such as "You cannot have the Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero archetype - select the one you wish to remove and we will mark the alterations on your chronicle sheet")
The reason I feel as such is to avoid circumstance as Chris describes. If I strongly disagree with a mechanics interaction that is not clearly incorrect, I would only consider not allowing it function at my table. The next GM has a right to see the matter differently.
Except that Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero combination is not my perception.
That's obviously not allowable and its obvious a misprint on the Pistolero in that it didn't say it replaces gun training. Its obvious, because otherwise it would allow you to double dip on both gun training and pistol training, and you know that isn't right.
It really, really, really, really frustrates me when people try to throw "RAW" in anyone's face, when something is so obviously out of whack, as an excuse as to why they get to break the game.
On a personal level, I agree with you that it is clearly a blatant oversight. Until it is corrected through FAQ though, I consider enforcing it to be enforcing personal perception of game mechanics, and not actual game mechanics.
Just my point of view. No harm in you disagreeing.
|
|
I agree with Chris's sentiments.
When it comes to game mechanics integrity, at a PFS table I consider it my duty only to correct clear RAW issues (such as "Woops, I didn't realize I needed X feat for Y feat - let me fix that"), not to impose my perception of what those mechanics should be (such as "You cannot have the Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero archetype - select the one you wish to remove and we will mark the alterations on your chronicle sheet")
The reason I feel as such is to avoid circumstance as Chris describes. If I strongly disagree with a mechanics interaction that is not clearly incorrect, I would only consider not allowing it function at my table. The next GM has a right to see the matter differently.
Except that Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero combination is not my perception.
That's obviously not allowable and its obvious a misprint on the Pistolero in that it didn't say it replaces gun training. Its obvious, because otherwise it would allow you to double dip on both gun training and pistol training, and you know that isn't right.
It really, really, really, really frustrates me when people try to throw "RAW" in anyone's face, when something is so obviously out of whack, as an excuse as to why they get to break the game.
On a personal level, I agree with you that it is clearly a blatant oversight. Until it is corrected through FAQ though, I consider enforcing it to be enforcing personal perception of game mechanics, and not actual game mechanics.
Just my point of view. No harm in you disagreeing.
That being said, because I do realize there are going to be the frustrating RAW crowd... I would not enforce a rebuild on the character.
I would just ask them to choose an archetype to play while at my table. Chances are, because of Grit concerns, that would be Mysterious Stranger, and so they wouldn't get their Dex bonus for damage.
I probably wouldn't enforce a rebuild at all (unless I had the actual proof of illegality available). If the player felt they had no other choice but the rebuild, because they had to play that character for whatever reason, and deemed not using some feature as severely nerfed and/or unplayable, then I'd give them the option to rebuild that feature for free.
But before they did so, I'd warn them that we would be marking this change on their ITS, and it would be considered a permanent change.
I would leave the choice up to the player completely in making such a change. But make sure they understand that its their choice, and its irrevocable.
|
|
You also can't tell him, "You don't get anything back for training to the illegal setup. You should have known better." The rules for pathfinder become stranger and stranger by the day. I mean serious,y spell-like abilities count as the level they can normally be cast at for prerequisites? That's just...silly? If it's illegal, you refund everything, no questions asked. And if you told me I wasn't getting anything, I'd be on the phone immediately to a venture officer to have that changed.Actually, Im not concerned about SKRs post. My reasoning is purely the 'common sense' one. You dont get to use levels of Arcane Archer to help qualify for Arcane Archer.
And no, I wouldnt make the player pay to change it back.
Im confused on the point of your post. It sounds like you are upset by what I said, but from what I am reading, it sounds like you are agreeing with my post, but just going into more detail.
?????
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, while I agree that this whole concept shouldn't work, and wasn't intended to work, I feel the need to point out that a developer comment on RAI doesn't actually trump RAW until they actually change the rules. PFS GM aren't supposed to not pay attension to the parts of RAW they disagree with.
Chris, I think(like 90% sure) Pathfinder rules explicitly stat that ability penalties, damage, and drain don't turn off feats that need the ability score as a pre-req. In Pathfinder, it doesn't actually lower the ability score, it just applies a penalty to the score modifier for every 2 points lost.
However, let's assume I'm a duelist, and I somehow lose one of the feats that is a Pre-req. While I agree that I shouldn't be able to use any of my duelist abilities, I'm not sure that the base attack and base save bonuses would go away too.
The rules aren't really clear on that matter, especially with retraining added to the mix.
As much as I think bootstrapping should never be allowed (and feel the same way about SLA prestige class cheese), I don't see clear RAW saying you can't do this, and I do see some RAW arguements supporting it.
I won't be approving any such retrains should a player want to do a retrain at my table.
I will not allow such a character with such a retrain at my table.
Its this type of RAW arguments that really chap my hide when folks agree that RAI it shouldn't be allowed, and they agree that they believe it shouldn't be allowed, but because of RAW, I "have to do it."
No I don't have to allow it. Not when we KNOW what the rule's intentions are.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Chris, I think(like 90% sure) Pathfinder rules explicitly stat that ability penalties, damage, and drain don't turn off feats that need the ability score as a pre-req. In Pathfinder, it doesn't actually lower the ability score, it just applies a penalty to the score modifier for every 2 points lost.
Actually, ability drain actually lowers the affected ability score.
Anyway, as far as bootstrapping's concerned:
It's not a matter of "the rules say you can, but SKR is contradicting it". It's a matter of "the rules could be interpreted two different ways, and SKR has told us which one is correct".
There are lots of rules which have more than one possible interpretation. Just because interpretation X is among them, doesn't mean "RAW says X", at least no more than "RAW says Y" and "RAW says Z". X and Y are both possible interpretations, so choosing X because SKR said so is no more contrary to the rules than picking Y for any other reason.
In short: there are two viable interpretations of the rules at hand. Using SKR's input to decide which to enforce does not contradict any existing rules, and is therefore completely valid.
|
|
To add to that Jiggy,
Lets say SKR's input is Interpretation X and the other is Y.
I would argue that there is enough rules language out there to say that Y is indeed not a valid interpretation.
The retrain rules, as noted above many times, specifically say that if you retrain something that acts as a prerequisite for something else, you lose access to that something else.
So if you lose access to a PRC because you've retrained something that gave you access to it, and without considering the PRC, you do not qualify for the PRC, you do not have access to use your PRC, and if you do not have access to use your PRC, you cannot use your PRC's whatever to then qualify for the PRC.
This is backwards logic. It is counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. It flouts in the face of common sense and reason.
|
|
This isn't a question for the Pathfinder Society forums. Since Jiggy's above link references a clarification from the design team on this issue, I won't bother to move this thread, but in general, questions about how the rules work that aren't dependent on specific Pathfinder Society changes or additional rules should be posted in the general rules forum.
Mark,
To make this relevant to the PFS Forums, I just want to be clear in case I notice something like this, should it appear at one of my tables.
Will this work in PFS?
Erring on the side of caution, I would just call table variation and tell the player that he can't play that character at my table, but I would hate for him to invest that much into his character and find out that it is, in fact illegal.
Thanks!
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a question for the Pathfinder Society forums. Since Jiggy's above link references a clarification from the design team on this issue, I won't bother to move this thread, but in general, questions about how the rules work that aren't dependent on specific Pathfinder Society changes or additional rules should be posted in the general rules forum.Mark,
To make this relevant to the PFS Forums, I just want to be clear in case I notice something like this, should it appear at one of my tables.
Will this work in PFS?
No. There's nothing in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play that alters from the base assumptions of the game what you can legally retrain from and to. Since no such Pathfinder Society-specific rules exist, the rules as presented in Ultimate Campaign and any FAQs/errata to that document are considered the way it works in the Pathfinder Society campaign.
|
|
Its this type of RAW arguments that really chap my hide when folks agree that RAI it shouldn't be allowed, and they agree that they believe it shouldn't be allowed, but because of RAW, I "have to do it."
No I don't have to allow it. Not when we KNOW what the rule's intentions are.
Both Jiggy and Mark Moreland's post aside, it doesn't matter how much this kinda of argument chaps your hide. As a venture officer, and a 4+ star GM (the stars aren't loading on this page for some reason), if you are choosing to ignore the RAW, not only are you breaking the explicit rules of PFS, but shame on you because you know better.
You can choose to do anything you want at any table you want for any reason, no one can force you to do anything. But thinking and preaching that you are above the rules of the society is setting a terrible example for the community. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean that PFS rules don't say that you should to follow it, even if RAI is clear.
I think that the SLA count for pre-reqs rules is the dumbest thing ever, and absolutely terrible for the game. While no one can actually stop me from banning anyone who plays a PC using those rules from my tables, do you think that would be a good example to set to the other players at the table? To other GM's near me? And I'm only a 1 star non-venture officer. If I see my Venture Lt doing something, I'm going to assume it's okay to do that in PFS. Paizo is trusting you with the responsibility of representing their company in an official capacity. It is incredibly poor form to abuse that trust.
For clairity's sake, the arguements I'm making in this post have nothing to do with the specifics of the bootstrapping, they are meant to be comments in general about GM behavior.
In this case, assuming there is ambiguity here (because I disagree that there is any), I am allowed to make an interpretation as I see fit.
I disagree with you whole-heartedly that in this situation, RAW says anything like bootstrapping is legal.
Anytime there is ambiguity, a GM has to make a decision on how he's going to rule it at his table.
When there is ambiguity, there is no clear RAW to follow, so a player throwing RAW in your face is not appropriate. That's what chaps my hide.
I have a right to make a ruling on ambiguity, whether you like or agree with the ruling or not.
|
|
My post was more strongly worded than I inteded, and I apologize.
That arguement holds a lot more water in a debate, to me. But RAI being clairified by a designer, by itself, doesn't not provide ambiguity if the RAW says something else.
No problems.
On the flip side Victor, if a designer has to clarify RAI, then that most likely means there is ambiguity, and as such, the likelihood of only one RAW interpretation is pretty slim. Don't you think?
|
Developer
|
I just wanted to check, because it has been said (EDIT: was my understanding) that posts by developers are not considered official, that it had to be in FAQ, or official PFS posts.
Thanks.
A clarification on this rule needs to come from the design team in the main rules FAQ. The clarification from Pathfinder Society is that we won't be making an official clarification. If the design team feels one is necessary, they will make it. Please direct FAQ requests to them in the rules forum, as my first post indicated.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My post was more strongly worded than I inteded, and I apologize.
That arguement holds a lot more water in a debate, to me. But RAI being clairified by a designer, by itself, doesn't not provide ambiguity if the RAW says something else.
His point, though, is that in this case the rules don't say something else. As I was saying earlier, this isn't a case of the rules stating one thing and SKR/Andy/whoever wanting to contradict that singular meaning of the rules.
This is a case of rules that could be read more than one way, and a GM selecting which of those interpretations to use.
|
|
That being said, because I do realize there are going to be the frustrating RAW crowd... I would not enforce a rebuild on the character.
I would just ask them to choose an archetype to play while at my table. Chances are, because of Grit concerns, that would be Mysterious Stranger, and so they wouldn't get their Dex bonus for damage.
I probably wouldn't enforce a rebuild at all (unless I had the actual proof of illegality available). If the player felt they had no other choice but the rebuild, because they had to play that character for whatever reason, and deemed not using some feature as severely nerfed and/or unplayable, then I'd give them the option to rebuild that feature for free.
But before they did so, I'd warn them that we would be marking this change on their ITS, and it would be considered a permanent change.
I would leave the choice up to the player completely in making such a change. But make sure they understand that its their choice, and its irrevocable.
Seems a reasonable approach to me.
Based on the ruling that you can retrain feats that you qualify for, but didn't when you took them, you could make a shield-basher at lv 11 with these feats
Imp shield bash and twf at lv 1, then at 7th they take Shield slam, and then snag Shield Master.
With retraining, you could get Imp TWF, and 2 weapon rend, and Bashing Finish. You have +11 bab, and all the pre-recs for Bashing Finish and TWRend, but there's no way to make this character without retraining.
Is that legal, there's never a point where the character doesn't meet Pre-recs.
Do those who argue you can never have a w1/f5/aa3 even using the retraining say that having +6 bab has to be from a Non-AA classes?