|
| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is a question that comes up somewhat frequently, and there is contradictory rules text.
In the Advanced Players Guide the example reads:
For example, a dwarf with rogue as his favored class adds +1/2 to his trap sense ability regarding stone traps each time he selects the alternate rogue favored class benefit; though this means the net effect is +0 after selecting it once (because +1/2 rounds down to +0), after 20 levels this benefit gives the dwarf a +10 bonus to his trap sense (in addition to the base value from being a 20th-level rogue).
This is a dwarf taking 20 levels of a FCB that alters a class feature not gained until 3rd level.
Likewise, in the Advanced Race Guide the example reads:
For example, a half-orc with gunslinger as her favored class adds a +1/4 bonus on attack rolls and a +1/2 bonus on damage rolls when using the pistol whip deed each time she selects that favored class bonus, though this means the net effect is +0 on each after selecting it once (because both +1/4 and +1/2 rounds down to 0). After 20 levels, this benefit gives the half-orc a +5 bonus on attack rolls and a +10 bonus on damage rolls when using the pistol whip deed (in addition to the base value from being a 20th-level gunslinger).
This is a half-orc taking 20 levels of a FCB that alters a class feature not gained until 3rd level.
However, there is an official post that contradicts these examples here:
Related Point: Can I apply the aasimar or elf oracle's favored class bonus to a revelation I do not yet have? Can I do so for the aasimar bard’s favored class bonus?
No, when choosing which class feature’s effective level to increase, you can only select a feature that you already have. For example, an aasimar flame oracle cannot choose to improve the wings of fire revelation with her favored class bonus until she actually gains the revelation at 7th level or beyond; she could not start augmenting it at 1st level.
This response is normally taken to mean that you cannot take a FCB that modifies a class feature before you have it, but that conflicts with both given examples printed in two separate rulebooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it should be modified to apply only to features that have to be chosen (specific rogue talent, specific revelation). Boosting a feature you WILL gain in the class is fine from level 1.
Though that gets weird with Qiggong (spelling?) Monk.
I had always understood it as the way Xethik indicated.
For example:
Magus: Select one known magus arcana usable only once per day. The magus adds +1/6 to the number of times it can be used per day. Once that magus arcana is usable twice per day, the magus must select a different magus arcana.
Cannot be used to select an arcana that one does not have.
But
Paladin: Add a +1 bonus on concentration checks when casting paladin spells.
selecting that is fine because you are not making a choice for something.
Basically, the restriction is against selecting something that you have to make a choice for and do not have.
|
There is a more recent comment by John Compton saying that he and the Design Team are considering the repercussions of this ruling, and that he'd get back to us all after that conversation has concluded.
This is actually an FAQ post, so it is official (and binding in PFS), but of course home games may feel free to ignore it.
There is a more recent comment by John Compton saying that he and the Design Team are considering the repercussions of this ruling, and that he'd get back to us all after that conversation has concluded.
This is actually an FAQ post, so it is official (and binding in PFS), but of course home games may feel free to ignore it.
Alrighty. From how the OP posted it, it looked more like a forum post quote than a FAQ quote... But if it is in the FAQ then we cannot ignore it for RAW/RAI.
So for the purpose of the rules forum the answer is that you cannot take FCB's in a class ability that you don't yet possess, regardless of it being an automatic get at a later level and regardless of the quoted examples that go against the ruling.
For my games I will always houserule differently and I will try to get that houserule through in any game where I'm a player (But I won't argue hard for it of course).
I am unclear as to what constitutes an official FAQ post. The first part of John Compton's post, the part regarding half-elfs and half-orcs, did get incorporated into the FAQ, but I can't find the part we are discussing, the related point, in any of the FAQ's.
|
I always build characters using the person rule of "you can't get +1/x of something you don't yet have access" limiter.
I'll ignore the examples, because they were probably not written by the design team and probably where not audited for rules compliance by the design team.
That's a safe stance to take, for sure. And agreed on the examples; they frequently pick poor examples that are sometimes questionably legal at best.
However, as a DM, I have a hard time justifying not allowing them to take it ahead of time. After all, if they don't take that choice when it comes then they just have FCBs sitting there doing nothing. If they do, they get a tiny bit more power. That tiny bit of extra power isn't a big deal, especially since my table isn't a table of optimizers.
I always build characters using the person rule of "you can't get +1/x of something you don't yet have access" limiter.
I'll ignore the examples, because they were probably not written by the design team and probably where not audited for rules compliance by the design team.
That's a reasonable stance, but you have things like Beast of the Society. A trait that affects a feature you can't have at 1st strongly points to understanding Xethik and Claxon have: optional features are treated differently than automatically gained ones.
Claxon (sorry but your name makes me think so much as a car horn)
It's alright, I'm often brash, loud, and annoying just like the horn. I'm guessing you're from the UK, or at least not from the US.
I'm not from the UK, but from the infamous country called France.
Eh, tomato, potato. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there Pathfinder rulebooks in French?
Dude, I saw some posted on Reddit in German. The german names sounded so much more awesome...well read so much more awesome.
Grundrgelwerk just sounds awesome.
|
|
I'll ignore the examples, because they were probably not written by the design team and probably where not audited for rules compliance by the design team.
Except they were clearly listed as part of the rules text that gives the rules for using Alternate Class Features, and the two separate examples both make the same "mistake" if it's actually not allowed.
It could use clarification, so please hit FAQ.