|
I think that the question is, if you look, there is no mention of Prestige Classes in the retraining. If you want to argue RAW, you cannot train lvls of a Prestige Class. So all this arguing is moot. If you are going to make a correlation (or logical conclusion) then you HAVE to step into RAI.
Anyway, as I said, because there is ambiguity, I would err on the side of caution and ask the player to play another character.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here.Based on the ruling that you can retrain feats that you qualify for, but didn't when you took them,Where was this ruling made?
Oh, you mean the fighter thing. Do we know general retraining to work the same way?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
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 respectfully disagree that following the Rules As Intended is "breaking the explicit rules of PFS." My personal belief is that GMs *should* adhere to the Rules as Intended. I know I take the intent of a rule into account when making a ruling at a PFS table.
I searched the guide, and these are the most relevant quotes I could find relating to following and/or enforcing the rules:
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. (p. 5)
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. (p.32)
To me, both of these statements mean that I should use my best judgement to enforce the rules of the game. If there is a situation with multiple possible interpretations, I will absolutely use the one that seems closest to the design intent of the authors!
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.
In that particular example, we *know* that the intent of the authors is to allow SLAs to count as pre-requisites. They have stated on these very message boards that building a character that way is OK, at least for now. So no, banning someone for doing something like that would be incorrect. But let's assume for a moment that I hadn't read the forums and didn't know that the designers had expressed an intent on that particular issue. In that case, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider the character illegal, since you could make a strong argument that the intent of the Prestige Class requirements is for characters to have the appropriate *spells*, rather than *spell-like abilities*.
Expect Table Variation!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To be fair to Victor, he seems to be interpreting all these "I'm going to rule according to RAI" statements within the scope of situations where the rules only say one thing, rather than having multiple possible interpretations. In those situations, yes, it would be incorrect to contradict clear rules.
I think that the question is, if you look, there is no mention of Prestige Classes in the retraining. If you want to argue RAW, you cannot train lvls of a Prestige Class. So all this arguing is moot. If you are going to make a correlation (or logical conclusion) then you HAVE to step into RAI.
Where are you getting that? The rules for retraining class levels as given in Ultimate Campaign explicitly mention class synergy for prestige classes. Why would they do that if you cannot retrain prestige class levels?
And the general description of class level training simply says "class levels" without specifying core, base, or prestige.
|
|
I think that the question is, if you look, there is no mention of Prestige Classes in the retraining. If you want to argue RAW, you cannot train lvls of a Prestige Class. So all this arguing is moot. If you are going to make a correlation (or logical conclusion) then you HAVE to step into RAI.Where are you getting that? The rules for retraining class levels as given in Ultimate Campaign explicitly mention class synergy for prestige classes. Why would they do that if you cannot retrain prestige class levels?
And the general description of class level training simply says "class levels" without specifying core, base, or prestige.
Did I miss that? I was trying to look for a prestige class in the Ultimate Campaign synergy list, and I didn't see one... If they are there, then I admit that I am wrong. :p I just didn't see it.
Sorry, looking at it again, I see it in the text above the table! >.< Oh well, nom nom, my footses tastes great! :p
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So,the character retrains and, momentarily, loses a level of Fighter. It stillhas a BAB of 5 without that level. Can the character take a level of Arcane Archer? It meets all the pre-requisities, so yes.
The easiest way to thing of this is like so:
In order to obtain the benefits of the AA class, one must meet the prereqs. So remove the benefits of the AA class, and if you can meet the prereqs without any of the levels of AA, then you qualify for the AA class. If you are a 1st level Wizards and 7 level AA, then you don't qualify for AA with 1 level of Wizard and a +0 BAB.
Also if you did do this, the Fighter feats granted by the bonus fighter feats would need to be junk feats and not used as prereqs as you can't train away a feat used as a prereq.
|
|
So,the character retrains and, momentarily, loses a level of Fighter. It stillhas a BAB of 5 without that level. Can the character take a level of Arcane Archer? It meets all the pre-requisities, so yes.The easiest way to thing of this is like so:
In order to obtain the benefits of the AA class, one must meet the prereqs. So remove the benefits of the AA class, and if you can meet the prereqs without any of the levels of AA, then you qualify for the AA class. If you are a 1st level Wizards and 7 level AA, then you don't qualify for AA with 1 level of Wizard and a +0 BAB.
Also if you did do this, the Fighter feats granted by the bonus fighter feats would need to be junk feats and not used as prereqs as you can't train away a feat used as a prereq.
This.
|
|
I think this is a late game strategy in the context of PFS, and would need further study to see if it was problematic. Playing 5-7 prestige a level isn't cheap even before the GP cost. A moot point considering the clarification given, but I would be interested in a breakdown of what a character could be were it allowed.
