|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you do the following.
1- Take Improved Unarmed Strike
2- Take feats that require improved unarmed strike as a prereq
3- Take Monk and gain improved unarmed strike
4- Retrain the initial improved unarmed strike.
Retraining rule, "The old feat can't be one you used as a prerequisite for a feat, class feature, archetype, prestige class, or other ability."
So the initial improved unarmed strike was technically used as a prerequisite, but you now have the feat again and are still meeting all your requirements.
If the rules disallow something that "was ever used as a prereq" it would mean that even if you retrained the feats that were dependent on Improved Unarmed Strike so it was no longer a prereq, you could not retrain it since at one time it was used as a prereq.
Should it really read, "The old feat can't currently be used as a prerequisite ..."
EDIT: I looked on the boards, but only found similar, but not exactly the same questions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I've seen this question come up before.
I'll see if I can find it...
Edit #1: nope, that was me just answering it...
Edit #3: I apparently have a faulty memory...
|
|
He already knows the retraining rules.
What the OP is asking is whether the *first* Improved Unarmed Strike feat can be retrained, since *that* was the feat he used as a prerequisite.
I'm of the camp that you can, since that was how I answered the last time this question came up.
But a hyper pedantic reading of the retraining rules may mean you can't.
Since this is probably for PFS (see you at the next PaizoCon?), you could also ask your local VC how they'd rule it.
|
|
This one is for a home/non-PFS Serpant's Skull campaign, though I may use a similar build for PFS. I am trying to build a combat maneuver fighter for cinematic/fun options ... and taking monk late in the game makes more sense for the backstory. If it's PFS I could just start as a monk (since it's not built yet!)
A pedantic reading of the rules even disallows your "Edit #2" above.
Yep, see you PaizoCon ... without a shiny new swarm suit! Other than PaizoCon, I have only ever played PFS in play-by-post. I guess I could ask the on-line VC.
RAW and a pedantic reading says no, but RAI the intent is to be sure you have the prereq so I don't think most GM's would mind you retraining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you deliberately took a feat you intended to retrain at a later level? For me retraining exists so you can say "I took this and it hasn't been as enjoyable/useful as I thought, I'd like to swap it out." If people are starting to factor it into builds I'm inclined to not use it officially and instead allow retrains in exceptional circumstances.
RAW you probably can. But I'd be unimpressed as a GM.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you deliberately took a feat you intended to retrain at a later level? For me retraining exists so you can say "I took this and it hasn't been as enjoyable/useful as I thought, I'd like to swap it out." If people are starting to factor it into builds I'm inclined to not use it officially and instead allow retrains in exceptional circumstances.
RAW you probably can. But I'd be unimpressed as a GM.
Why would it matter?
|
So you deliberately took a feat you intended to retrain at a later level? For me retraining exists so you can say "I took this and it hasn't been as enjoyable/useful as I thought, I'd like to swap it out." If people are starting to factor it into builds I'm inclined to not use it officially and instead allow retrains in exceptional circumstances.
RAW you probably can. But I'd be unimpressed as a GM.
Why would it matter?
Exactly. Retraining is there to allow you to modify your PC for whatever circumstances arise. It takes time and money .Resources that could have been better spent in making your PC better in other ways.
Do you have the pre-requisite covered? Then there is no issue.
I am retraining my PC that took ranger levels to get 2WF w/o the need for a dex. I wanted to 2WF with Dorn Dergar, I have decided that I am go in a different direction, just because, and have retrained out my ranger levels and other feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like it's taking a system that's meant to say "hey. Not everyone makes the best choices. Here's a system to let them undo some of those mistakes" and transforming it into yet another way to eke out yet more power for your character.
I agree with pretty much everyone here: the rules are there to make sure you still meet any prerequisites for other feats/abilities after retraining, so if you have two separate instances of an ability, you can retrain one of them, because after the change you still meet the prerequisites.
It's similar to using the retraining rules to swap out feats for ones with high requirements: if you build a character organically, you can't do it, but since you can retrain, it's entirely possible for (say) an 11th level character to have both Greater Two-weapon fighting and Improved Vital Strike.
IMO, if you take a feat that is learned as a class feature, i dont see why you cant take something else instead of said class feature.
Example: You start your caree as a unarmed fighter taking imp. unarmed strike, and later on your life, enter a monastic order to become a monk. I would allow you to retrain that feat because you already knew the basics, but now you have the proper training to become a monk.
If it was someone with no knowledge of the basics (imp. unarmed strike), he would probably take longer to learn the monk's martial arts.
It feels like it's taking a system that's meant to say "hey. Not everyone makes the best choices. Here's a system to let them undo some of those mistakes" and transforming it into yet another way to eke out yet more power for your character.
If you imagine retraining to be like a respekt in a computer game, i can see what you meen. But i disagree.
But retraining is somthing that happens in the game World it takes time and you need a trainer so who known there May even be roleplay involved. If some dude want his barbarian to use dragon style from level 3 but dont think picking up a monk level until level 9 is a timely plan why do he have to pay a feat he will never get back. Compared to the guy that take the monk level at level 3? How will that make folks do less power GMing?And it is the Martial artist archtype off cause.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like it's taking a system that's meant to say "hey. Not everyone makes the best choices. Here's a system to let them undo some of those mistakes" and transforming it into yet another way to eke out yet more power for your character.
What about those who can make the best choices, and don't make mistakes?
Can they not retrain, just because they have better system mastery?
If it was two different players, and they both made the same build, with the same choices, and both want to retrain the same way, would you allow one to do so, but not the other, just because one knew they wanted to do it earlier?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let's see if this is about how it goes?
Level 1: Take Imp. Unarmed Strike
Level 3/5/7: Take Feats that required Imp. Unarmed Strike
Level 8: Take a level of monk and gain "Unarmed Strike"
Now you want to retrain out your level 1 feat since you meet the pre-requisites? However, your character I thought had to be 'legal' at all levels. Since you didn't take monk until level 8, your feats that require Improved Unarmed Strike would have to be taken after that in order for you to meet the pre-requisites.
John
|
From a pure standpoint of character perspective, the character would essentially lose the free feat feature because while training to be a monk, they didn't need to be taught how to use their body as a weapon. This could be flavored as them taking that time to learn something else, like a combat maneuver feat. That would be for a different thread though.
From RAW, it seems it could go two ways.
**You have two instances of the same feat and can retrain one later.
**You already had it before the new class was taken, so you lose out on that feature.
There is no rules precedent for either, so this would be how your GM calls it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd never rule that you could replace named Feats granted by a Class (unnamed Bonus Feats, however, are a different story), unless you were retraining to an Archetype that replaces that specific Feat.
However, I would allow this:
Character is a Tengu Fighter at lv1, takes Weapon Focus (Claws) as his CL1 Feat, and Weapon Focus (Bite) with his lv1 Fighter Bonus Combat Feat.
At lv2, the Character takes Warpriest, and thus gains Weapon Focus. In the Downtime during which he levels up, I'd allow him to retrain either WF(Bite) or WF(Claws), and replace it with something like Feral Combat Training for one of those classes (he has IUS for the purposes of meeting Feats from being a Tengu, anyway).
However, if he takes Irori as a Deity, he just gets two instances of Improved Unarmed Strike, since both his Race and his Class specifically give him that feat. Again, to me, you can't retrain specifically-named feats and replace them with whatever you want - it's a very-specific Class Ability and Race Ability, so you're stuck with two instances of it.
Basically, for the purposes of retraining, retroactive-prerequisites are fine. Weird, and I don't suggest them, but fine. At least as long as they CAN be retrained.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once I realized that by RAW, if you took Snake Style, Snake Sidewind, Snake Fang you could never retrain Snake Style or Snake Sidewind I realized that the intention is just to ensure you aren't throwing away prerequisites you STILL NEED.
I think the retrain rules meet a few different needs
1. Fixing a build you screwed up on
2. Changes dictated by story
3. Ability to trade out now useless feats for useful feats in the high level area ... which includes retraining feats that don't make sense anymore based off of later build choices (like picking up a second instance of Unarmed Strike)
5. What I see as the main reason I would use it (besides #1) is that many feat taxes are just plain boring. Why spend your first couple to few levels with a character that can't do much for pay-off that does not hit for many many sessions. While it may be more "realistic" to say he had to work hard (and be boring) to achieve greatness, I want everyone to be playing a FUN character (not necessarily a MAXED character, just a fun one.)
I agree, of course, that you can't retrain a specific feat given by class/archetype, and if your retrain a bonus feat it needs to be one of the other valid bonus feat choices for that class.
It feels like it's taking a system that's meant to say "hey. Not everyone makes the best choices. Here's a system to let them undo some of those mistakes" and transforming it into yet another way to eke out yet more power for your character.What about those who can make the best choices, and don't make mistakes?
Can they not retrain, just because they have better system mastery?
If it was two different players, and they both made the same build, with the same choices, and both want to retrain the same way, would you allow one to do so, but not the other, just because one knew they wanted to do it earlier?
Someone with system mastery don't need a do-over mechanic. They can create powerful characters without it. If someone takes a feat knowing they'll retrain it then I'd be disgruntled with them. How quickly people have taken a do-over mechanic and turned it into an entitlement is amazing. If this is the attitude it fosters I'd rather just not use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this exactly the reason why the retraining rules exist, so you can avoid getting stuck with dud options? I have a feat (or other feature), but then I get the feat/feature later on as a free bonus, which is useless and redundant, so I retrain the first version out and keep the bonus version.
An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.
Do you mean the money spent by the player buying Ultimate Campaign? Or the money spent by the character?
An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.Do you mean the money spent by the player buying Ultimate Campaign? Or the money spent by the character?
I meant the character. If the DM allows the option, paying the cost of the option entitles them to it's benefits. It's not called do-over option 12, it's retraining and the reason for the retraining is no part of the rules.
Remember, this is the rules forum. The rule doesn't care if you have mastery in the system or not.
Isn't this exactly the reason why the retraining rules exist, so you can avoid getting stuck with dud options? I have a feat (or other feature), but then I get the feat/feature later on as a free bonus, which is useless and redundant, so I retrain the first version out and keep the bonus version.
Here's a question: Do you as DM feel it's fine for a player to take feat X because it's the optimal choice at their current level, with the explicit plan of retraining it in 5 levels because it won't be the optimal choice then? E.g. Concentration checks are something low level sorcerers struggle with but by about level 10 it's no longer an issue. A player knows this and so takes the combat casting feat at level 1 with the plan to retrain it for quicken spell at level 10.
Do you feel that's following the intent of this rule?
Personally I see retraining rules as existing to help newer players (or players exploring options they're unfamiliar with) a safety net. I don't see it as a tool to increase your DPR across all levels. If your GM/table view this rule in a different light them by all means optimise away. My intent was to raise the question as to whether or not someone should use this rule in this way. Given the mind view this rule seems to foster I personally won't be using it (after all, groups are always able to give the new person some slack if their enjoyment is being seriously impacted).
I meant the character. If the DM allows the option, paying the cost of the option entitles them to it's benefits. It's not called do-over option 12, it's retraining and the reason for the retraining is no part of the rules.An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.Do you mean the money spent by the player buying Ultimate Campaign? Or the money spent by the character?
No-one is arguing that a character pay the gold and then not get the benefit. Would you as DM count any gold spent on this towards calculating their WBL?
Remember, this is the rules forum. The rule doesn't care if you have mastery in the system or not.
Is there room in this forum to ask "should you use this rule in the manner you plan to? Does that fit the mentality that the table/DM expects this rule to be use in at your table?" Or is this the RAW-only forum?
|
|
I meant the character. If the DM allows the option, paying the cost of the option entitles them to it's benefits. It's not called do-over option 12, it's retraining and the reason for the retraining is no part of the rules.An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.Do you mean the money spent by the player buying Ultimate Campaign? Or the money spent by the character?No-one is arguing that a character pay the gold and then not get the benefit. Would you as DM count any gold spent on this towards calculating their WBL?
Remember, this is the rules forum. The rule doesn't care if you have mastery in the system or not.Is there room in this forum to ask "should you use this rule in the manner you plan to? Does that fit the mentality that the table/DM expects this rule to be use in at your table?" Or is this the RAW-only forum?
This is the RULES forum. Your question, as to whether you should it a rule in such-and-so a fashion, belongs in either the ADVICE forum, or, maybe, the General Discussion forum. This forum is dedicated to discussion of the rules as written, with a splash of rules as intended, where the rules are unclear.
Whether using a specific rule as it was written is cheesy is a discussion for some other forum, really.
Now, on your question about a Sorcerer retraining the Combat Casting feat, taken at low level when it is needed, into some other feat, useful at the level at which it is retrained, would your attitude be different if the player was new to Sorcerers and/or spellcasters in general, and, as their PC leveled, found that a feat he had taken in terror of failing to cast originally, is no longer providing any practical benefit later?
Do you have any issues with Fighters retraining a bonus feat at every Fighter level divisible by 4? How about Sorcerers and Bards retraining a spell known at every level divisible by 4? Even if the spell being retrained was Sleep?
I meant the character. If the DM allows the option, paying the cost of the option entitles them to it's benefits. It's not called do-over option 12, it's retraining and the reason for the retraining is no part of the rules.An entitlement they spent money and time on... You might have a point if it was without cost.Do you mean the money spent by the player buying Ultimate Campaign? Or the money spent by the character?No-one is arguing that a character pay the gold and then not get the benefit. Would you as DM count any gold spent on this towards calculating their WBL?
Remember, this is the rules forum. The rule doesn't care if you have mastery in the system or not.Is there room in this forum to ask "should you use this rule in the manner you plan to? Does that fit the mentality that the table/DM expects this rule to be use in at your table?" Or is this the RAW-only forum?
#1 Yes, that's gold they can use for potions, wands, scrolls and/or retraining. It's not a freebie.
#2 You are asking if it's cool to add extra restrictions to a rule? Sure, but that's not really what the rule threads are for. They are for finding out is something is legal rules-wise. Rules forum IS a talk about RAW. You're more talking about house-rule or general.
As to if I find it fine, then yes, yes I do. That's what the option is for. You pay your gold, you get the goodies. Profit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question: Do you as DM feel it's fine for a player to take feat X because it's the optimal choice at their current level, with the explicit plan of retraining it in 5 levels because it won't be the optimal choice then? E.g. Concentration checks are something low level sorcerers struggle with but by about level 10 it's no longer an issue. A player knows this and so takes the combat casting feat at level 1 with the plan to retrain it for quicken spell at level 10.
Do you feel that's following the intent of this rule?
Absolutely. Keeping your abilities useful at all levels of play is integral to maintaining the fun for most players. Nobody likes playing a character that can't pull its weight properly.
|
|
Is there room in this forum to ask "should you use this rule in the manner you plan to? Does that fit the mentality that the table/DM expects this rule to be use in at your table?" Or is this the RAW-only forum?
You're talking about a different playstyle rather than a rules interpretation. Whether you like it or not doesn't come into it, though if you were saying "I don't think that's how it was intended to work", that might be a valid argument.
It sounds like (and I might be wrong) that you're thinking more along the lines of "it might or might not be intended to work that way, but I don't like it and wouldn't allow it".
|
|
In this case (the reason for my original post), retraining Unarmed Strike because the character gains it later when he takes monk is less optimized than taking monk at first level. Taking monk first gives him an extra feat for an extra 6 levels (as opposed to picking it up at 7th level). So, planning to retrain a feat later is not necessarily about min/maxing.
I just thought it made sense for him to take Lore Warden and maintain Lore Warden until his training necessitated him going out to gain some other skills (in particular Master of Many styles so Panther and Snake can be active at the same time ... this is not an issue until level 7.)
For PFS sake, it would be good to know whether retraining a now redundant feat CAN be done as RAW suggests not.
Thanks for all the feedback folks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
What happened to #4?
Underpants Gnomes.
Isn't this exactly the reason why the retraining rules exist, so you can avoid getting stuck with dud options? I have a feat (or other feature), but then I get the feat/feature later on as a free bonus, which is useless and redundant, so I retrain the first version out and keep the bonus version.Here's a question: Do you as DM feel it's fine for a player to take feat X because it's the optimal choice at their current level, with the explicit plan of retraining it in 5 levels because it won't be the optimal choice then? E.g. Concentration checks are something low level sorcerers struggle with but by about level 10 it's no longer an issue. A player knows this and so takes the combat casting feat at level 1 with the plan to retrain it for quicken spell at level 10.
Do you feel that's following the intent of this rule?
Personally I see retraining rules as existing to help newer players (or players exploring options they're unfamiliar with) a safety net. I don't see it as a tool to increase your DPR across all levels. If your GM/table view this rule in a different light them by all means optimise away. My intent was to raise the question as to whether or not someone should use this rule in this way. Given the mind view this rule seems to foster I personally won't be using it (after all, groups are always able to give the new person some slack if their enjoyment is being seriously impacted).
Fighters can do it with feats anyway, without UCG retraining rules. All spontaneous casters can do it anyway with spells known without UCG retraining rules. So I really do nor see what the angst is all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this exactly the reason why the retraining rules exist, so you can avoid getting stuck with dud options? I have a feat (or other feature), but then I get the feat/feature later on as a free bonus, which is useless and redundant, so I retrain the first version out and keep the bonus version.Here's a question: Do you as DM feel it's fine for a player to take feat X because it's the optimal choice at their current level, with the explicit plan of retraining it in 5 levels because it won't be the optimal choice then? E.g. Concentration checks are something low level sorcerers struggle with but by about level 10 it's no longer an issue. A player knows this and so takes the combat casting feat at level 1 with the plan to retrain it for quicken spell at level 10.
Do you feel that's following the intent of this rule?
Personally I see retraining rules as existing to help newer players (or players exploring options they're unfamiliar with) a safety net. I don't see it as a tool to increase your DPR across all levels. If your GM/table view this rule in a different light them by all means optimise away. My intent was to raise the question as to whether or not someone should use this rule in this way. Given the mind view this rule seems to foster I personally won't be using it (after all, groups are always able to give the new person some slack if their enjoyment is being seriously impacted).
Yes to the question. I hate the idea that you some how are a better Rper if you suffer some levels where you suck with your character. Also i like the idea of a party retraining some skills and feats before a important mission. i Think it makes the characters more alive that stuff other than XP Can evolve them.
You're talking about a different playstyle rather than a rules interpretation. Whether you like it or not doesn't come into it, though if you were saying "I don't think that's how it was intended to work", that might be a valid argument.
I don't believe it's intended as a direct powerup for players to enable them to optimise even further. System mastery already allows people to trivialise the game of Pathfinder, so i find it doubtful that Paizo would introduce a rule with the sole intent of allowing those with good system mastery to trivialise encounters from an even lower level. The spirit and intent for this rule (IMO) is to provide a safety net for those who don't have high system mastery.
Rules forum IS a talk about RAW. You're more talking about house-rule or general.
Not at all. I was actually talking about the intent of the rule and why it existed and whether or not the OP was using it within that framework. RAI or the Spirit of the Rule.
This is the RULES forum. Your question, as to whether you should it a rule in such-and-so a fashion, belongs in either the ADVICE forum, or, maybe, the General Discussion forum. This forum is dedicated to discussion of the rules as written, with a splash of rules as intended, where the rules are unclear.
Given this is a RAW only forum I'll stop derailing this thread. It would be helpful if the description was updated to reflect RAW only discussions are permitted so that people don't come in here trying to talk about the spirit of the rule or whether or not a rule introduces power creep (which I assume is equally disallowed).
Here's another thread for the derail where I've responded to people's posts here (so to avoid derailing this conversation further)
From fighter's retrain rules, "The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability"
So, the original question still applies there too ... CAN you retrain it since it WAS used as a prerequisite?
Yes for the same reasons.
From fighter's retrain rules, "The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability"
So, the original question still applies there too ... CAN you retrain it since it WAS used as a prerequisite?
I'm reading it as you cannot retrain a feat that's is needed as a "prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability". That means that as long as nothing is missing from the prerequisites they need after retraining, you're good.
A better way to say it would be 'retraining requires that you continue to qualify for all your feat, prestige class, or other ability. If you would fail to qualify, you are required to replace all features that would no longer apply first.'
|
|
You're talking about a different playstyle rather than a rules interpretation. Whether you like it or not doesn't come into it, though if you were saying "I don't think that's how it was intended to work", that might be a valid argument.I don't believe it's intended as a direct powerup for players to enable them to optimise even further. System mastery already allows people to trivialise the game of Pathfinder, so i find it doubtful that Paizo would introduce a rule with the sole intent of allowing those with good system mastery to trivialise encounters from an even lower level. The spirit and intent for this rule (IMO) is to provide a safety net for those who don't have high system mastery.
Rules forum IS a talk about RAW. You're more talking about house-rule or general.Not at all. I was actually talking about the intent of the rule and why it existed and whether or not the OP was using it within that framework. RAI or the Spirit of the Rule.
This is the RULES forum. Your question, as to whether you should it a rule in such-and-so a fashion, belongs in either the ADVICE forum, or, maybe, the General Discussion forum. This forum is dedicated to discussion of the rules as written, with a splash of rules as intended, where the rules are unclear.Given this is a RAW only forum I'll stop derailing this thread. It would be helpful if the description was updated to reflect RAW only discussions are permitted so that people don't come in here trying to talk about the spirit of the rule or whether or not a rule introduces power creep (which I assume is equally disallowed).
Here's another thread for the derail where I've responded to people's posts here (so to avoid derailing this conversation further)
Just as a note about system mastery, and the benefit of a rule for retraining: The rules are in the Ultimate Campaign book, not the CRB. I sincerely doubt that many people who are buying the Ultimate Campaign book are novices to the rules, and making efficient builds.
Just as a note about system mastery, and the benefit of a rule for retraining: The rules are in the Ultimate Campaign book,...
They're also on the PRD. That free document.
Thanks!
Such mayhem from a little thing as me wanting to take Monk at 7 instead of 1. It's almost as if I asked if I could use Sleeves of Many Garments to make a swarmsuit.
Don't get me started... :(