Petition to open up Retraining for the Occult Classes


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Your interpretation of the rules is no more correct or valid than theirs.

You're claiming it is. That's what I have a problem with.

It is if they retrained a class feature that is not called out in ultimate campaign. We as PFS gm's are not allowed to add to that list.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Your interpretation of the rules is no more correct or valid than theirs.

You're claiming it is. That's what I have a problem with.

+1

Which is unfortunate.

Also this thread is done, it is a constant yes it does | no it doesn't over and over again thread that Paizo customer service team would rather not have to deal with.

So can we agree to disagree until clarified and let others reading this thread choose their own interpretation?

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

If it were ambiguous, you would be correct, an exhaustive listing isn't ambiguous. I agree that occult classes should be able to retrain class features but the rules as written do not allow that.

Nefreet, at this point, Im done. I disagree with your interpretation, you disagree with mine. No amount of you telling me I'm wrong will change my mind, no amount of me telling you that you're wrong will change your mind.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

"Agree to disagree" works great for internet arguments, but less great for an organized play program's policies. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the plus side, I'm learning just how powerful my ability to interpret the rules really is...

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


So can we agree to disagree until clarified and let others reading this thread choose their own interpretation?

The problem there is that the result of any dm can interpret it how they want is that the pro retraining side wins by default, since anyone needing to retrain can just play a game with them and then send the character off somewhere else.

I think that the argument for being able to retrain would have to be better than it is to effectively impose it on the campaign. I can't see any reason for the list of class features to be there , taking up space, if it wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive list.

Retraining things not on the list is VERY questionable, at the least, which should result in -don't do it- , not -ain't no rule against it-

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, we must allow illegal purchases and builds as long as a GM has signed off on it?!

There is no allowance for Occult class feature retraining, therefore, it cannot be done.

If someone has retrained an Occult class feature it is as illegal as an Undead Lord or a lvl 1 with an effective +10 weapon... regardless of a GM signing off on it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Tempest_Knight wrote:


If someone has retrained an Occult class feature it is as illegal as an Undead Lord or a lvl 1 with an effective +10 weapon... regardless of a GM signing off on it.

It's not nearly that bad. It's certainly not violating the spirit or balance of anything for occult classes to retrain into something they could have just started out with, and by paying PP through the nose for the ability to do so at that.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I can't see any reason for the list of class features to be there , taking up space, if it wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive list.

I can.

I think this is similar to the ability damage charts on page 554, it is there so people have a rough idea of the types of things it covers.

Some examples:

  • Phrases like "err on the side of generosity" and "GM is the final arbiter of whether or not a prestige class has retraining synergy" in the chapter.
  • An FAQ on ability damage that explains the list on page 554 is not exhaustive despite appearing just as exhaustive as this list.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
So, we must allow illegal purchases and builds as long as a GM has signed off on it?!

You should absolutely never sign off on allowing a character you believe is illegal to ever play at your table. So no.

In this case, it's illegality is in question and this isn't like "I bought a 45,000 gp item with 12 fame, and my GM signed off on it" type issue.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Risner wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:


In this case, it's illegality is in question and this isn't like "I bought a 45,000 gp item with 12 fame, and my GM signed off on it" type issue.

Thats a lot easier to sort though: they don't have the item for your game, you tell them it's not an allowed purchase.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Isn't this also easy to sort out? You don't allow the PC to play at your table if you believe it's illegal for any reason. Choosing to allow the player to use the character without the item is also fine.

I'm just against people altering a player's sheet with there is a situation where I and the other GM differ on the legality of something. Such as this example.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet, at this point, Im done. I disagree with your interpretation, you disagree with mine. No amount of you telling me I'm wrong will change my mind, no amount of me telling you that you're wrong will change your mind.

I find this statement hilarious, since you don't seem to be listening to what I'm even telling you.

I'm not trying to change your mind on retraining. I'm not espousing that one interpretation is correct over the other.

I'm saying the exact opposite. That this is a matter of table variation, and that until it's clarified, respect the rulings of other GMs.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:
So, we must allow illegal purchases and builds as long as a GM has signed off on it?!

You should absolutely never sign off on allowing a character you believe is illegal to ever play at your table. So no.

In this case, it's illegality is in question and this isn't like "I bought a 45,000 gp item with 12 fame, and my GM signed off on it" type issue.

It is exactly the same...

It is not allowed by the rules, for either case.

If we MUST allow, as Nefreet contends, Occult class feature retraining that has been signed off by a prior GM, then we must allow the Undead Lord and the lvl 1 with an effective +10 weapon if they have been signed off on.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So... I think that the Guide really meant to say that I can award extra gold to players for good roleplaying. I mean, it doesn't explicitly say that, but the intention is clear when you read between the lines.

Other GMs might not agree, so expect table variation... but at least they can't take that gold away from my players.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Nefreet wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet, at this point, Im done. I disagree with your interpretation, you disagree with mine. No amount of you telling me I'm wrong will change my mind, no amount of me telling you that you're wrong will change your mind.

I find this statement hilarious, since you don't seem to be listening to what I'm even telling you.

I'm not trying to change your mind on retraining. I'm not espousing that one interpretation is correct over the other.

I'm saying the exact opposite. That this is a matter of table variation, and that until it's clarified, respect the rulings of other GMs.

I fully understand what your saying.

You are saying that since the area is grey that the most liberal interpretations of other gm's must be allowed and respected.

As I said many posts ago:

Mulgar wrote:
I do have the right to audit their characters, and ask them to fix it if its against the rules. If another GM allowed a retrain that is in a grey area I feel I'm within my right to not allow that character to play (the player can play, but must play a legal character).

and as was said just a few posts ago....

James Risner wrote:

Isn't this also easy to sort out? You don't allow the PC to play at your table if you believe it's illegal for any reason. Choosing to allow the player to use the character without the item is also fine.

I'm just against people altering a player's sheet with there is a situation where I and the other GM differ on the legality of something. Such as this example.

I am not saying "Thou shalt change thy character or else" I'm saying "I think that retraining was illegal for these reasons. I can't allow you to play that character, please choose another. If you don't have another I have all the legal pregens here for you to choose from."

I believe that until the issue is decided one way or another, you allowing their character to play is your rightful call as gm of your table.

I believe that until the issue is decided one way or another, me not allowing their character to play is my rightful call as gm of my table.

I won't force someone to go back and retrain against their will. I will offer that as a solution if they insist on playing that character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Have I told you how intense your eyes look.

Fyi, if I could swim in it Scrooge McDuck like, that would be great.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

So... I think that the Guide really meant to say that I can award extra gold to players for good roleplaying. I mean, it doesn't explicitly say that, but the intention is clear when you read between the lines.

Other GMs might not agree, so expect table variation... but at least they can't take that gold away from my players.

But I feel that I'm in my rights to refuse the character to be played at my table in that instance.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Risner wrote:
Isn't this also easy to sort out? You don't allow the PC to play at your table if you believe it's illegal for any reason. Choosing to allow the player to use the character without the item is also fine.

It may or may not be depending on..

  • How many characters they have. if you tell me my -13 is illegal well my -4,-25 and -27 are all in tier. I play one of those, no problem. If someone has a -1 or their dash 1 is the only thing in tier there's a problem , both in terms of getting stuck with a pregen and not being able to apply credit to the same character

  • How far people come to get to the store. Go home you walked here= no problem. go home after a 45 minute drive= angry geek.

  • How often you play. You missed mondays game, how's wednesday for you? No big deal. See you in two weeks? *twitch twitch twitch* must.. game...

  • Whether you need the extra special cookie on the character or not: exchange character getting booted from 9-13 All about the benjamins is worse than them getting booted from 9-14 Swamp of stinkiness.

  • party composition. Well Grabthack the dwarven bullseye was really counting on my life oracle being here to heal and face, how much worse can a pregen merisiel be...

I would not let a player do it, but i would also not overrule a dm that let another player do it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Look, we're explicitly not allowed to add items to lists that can be expanded "at the GM's discretion." How is this any different?

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Mulgar wrote:
I think that retraining was illegal for these reasons. I can't allow you to play that character, please choose another.

I fully support your right to do exactly that and I've said it several times. I think Nefreet has as well.

So why do we keep disagreeing? I keep thinking I'm hearing "they must alter there character" instead of "You can't play that".

5/5 5/55/55/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have altered the character. Pray i do not alter it further

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

James Risner wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
I think that retraining was illegal for these reasons. I can't allow you to play that character, please choose another.

I fully support your right to do exactly that and I've said it several times. I think Nefreet has as well.

So why do we keep disagreeing? I keep thinking I'm hearing "they must alter there character" instead of "You can't play that".

I have NEVER said they MUST change their character.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I have read this thread twice now and I will probably regret posting this response but here goes.

Disclaimer: I am by no means in any authority to make campaign wide decisions and this post is based off what I have read in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Ultimate Campaign (Retraining Rules), and the weekly Pathfinder Society Blogs. Opinions expressed here are my own and not those of Paizo and Pathfinder Society Campaign Management.

1.) Retraining of ACG Classes: I have seen mention of this issue in this thread and it was covered in one of the Pathfinder Society Weekly Blogs: Year of the Sky Key Q&A posted by John Compton. According to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild pg 6 and the Pathfinder Society FAQ titled "Are official blog post FAQ's or Errata updates legal for Pathfinder Society Organized Play?", this blog is binding as a rules clarification for retraining.

2.) According to page 34 of the Guide to the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the second paragraph covers our ability to make rulings that have not been covered by Campaign Management or existing Pathfinder sources.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild page 34: Table Variation second paragraph wrote:
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.

What this means, in my opinion, is that if someone comes to you requesting to retrain any aspect of an Occult Class (for example), the paragraph quoted allows a table GM to process that retraining if they choose. If I were in this situation, I would use the following guidelines:

Occult Class to Different Occult Class - Synergy exists - 5 days to retrain.

Occult Class to Non-Occult Class - No synergy exists - 7 days to retrain

Occult Class Feature to a different Class Feature - Follow Class Features entry in Ultimate Campaign

Occult Class Archetype - Follow Archetype Retraining process in Ultimate Campaign

Vigilante Retraining - This one is a tough one as there does not seem to be any synergy.

If a ruling by Campaign Management later changed the costs to retrain and/or synergies and that same player comes to me to let me know this with the appropriate reference, I would gladly refund the extra PP spent on the retrain.

3.) Illegal Purchases and Retraining - I have seen this comparison and if a player came to my table with an illegal purchase signed off by another GM; I would let them know the purchase is illegal, why the purchase is illegal, and just have them make the change. On retraining, if someone comes to me with a retrained character that was properly processed, I would abide by the GM who signed off the retrain.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Guide to the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, does empower table GMs to make decisions that are not covered under existing rules, FAQ, or Campaign Management Decision. The developers, designers, and Pathfinder Society Campaign Management; do not have a way (that I am aware of) to foresee the vast number of products and their potential impact on the Pathfinder Society Campaign as a whole. While everyone at Pazio is preparing for GenCon, please let's use the tools we have been given to make fair and fun judgements at the table. Once things calm down and Campaign Management feels there is a need to cover the topic of Occult and Vigilante retraining, I am sure they will cover it and deliver a blog like the Year of the Sky Key Q&A covering the ACG retraining.

:::Gets off Soapbox:::

5/5 5/55/55/5

Preston I cannot follow your logic here at all.

The warpriest got a retrain because its stats changed, not because of it's abilities.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Preston I cannot follow your logic here at all.

The warpriest got a retrain because its stats changed, not because of it's abilities.

This part of the blog covered the retraining synergies for the ACG Classes:

Year of the Sky Key Q&A Blog wrote:

What are the warpriest's retraining synergies (as per Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules on page 190)?

In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, determine the retraining synergies for the Advanced Class Guide classes by substituting one class name for an existing class on the table. For example, an arcanist has the same retraining synergies as a wizard, and any class that lists the wizard as a retraining synergy also has the arcanist as a retraining synergy.

Substitute the term "arcanist" anywhere the term "wizard" appears.
Substitute the term "bloodrager" anywhere the term "barbarian" appears. Bloodragers have retraining synergy with sorcerers and vice versa.
Substitute the term "brawler" anywhere the term "fighter" appears.
Substitute the term "hunter" anywhere the term "ranger" appears.
Substitute the term "investigator" anywhere the term "alchemist" appears.
Substitute the term "shaman" anywhere the term "druid" appears.
Substitute the term "skald" anywhere the term "bard" appears. Skalds have retraining synergy with barbarians and vice versa.
Substitute the term "slayer" anywhere the term "ranger" appears. Slayers have retraining synergy with rogues and vice versa.
Substitute the term "swashbuckler" anywhere the term "fighter" appears.
Substitute the term "warpriest" anywhere the term "paladin" appears.

Unless there was something else I missed.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ok, but those are the advanced class classes, not the occult ones.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ok, but those are the advanced class classes, not the occult ones.

Someone in the thread mentioned that they weren't covered in retraining. The reference to the blog I mentioned brought that to light.

The drawbacks to covering multiple responses in one thread without quoting each applicable one.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Preston Hudson wrote:

...

2.) According to page 34 of the Guide to the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the second paragraph covers our ability to make rulings that have not been covered by Campaign Management or existing Pathfinder sources.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild page 34: Table Variation second paragraph wrote:
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.
What this means, in my opinion, is that if someone comes to you requesting to retrain any aspect of an Occult Class (for example), the paragraph quoted allows a table GM to process that...

The sections above are the basis of the argument.

Is retraining occult in the rules? No, it's not in the rules.

Would you be contradicting the published rules of the game? Well you have now proven that the ACG classes could not retrain legally until the blog post clarified the synergies. This would actually support the need for PFS to call out synergies and class features allowable before a character could be legally retrain.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
Preston Hudson wrote:

...

2.) According to page 34 of the Guide to the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the second paragraph covers our ability to make rulings that have not been covered by Campaign Management or existing Pathfinder sources.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild page 34: Table Variation second paragraph wrote:
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.
What this means, in my opinion, is that if someone comes to you requesting to retrain any aspect of an Occult Class (for example), the paragraph quoted allows a table GM to process that...

The sections above are the basis of the argument.

Is retraining occult in the rules? No, it's not in the rules.

Would you be contradicting the published rules of the game? Well you have now proven that the ACG classes could not retrain legally until the blog post clarified the synergies. This would actually support the need for PFS to call out synergies and class features allowable before a character could be legally retrain.

Right, but the section of the guide that I quoted, allows table GMs to make that ruling until something official does come down from Campaign Management due to Occult Retraining not being covered by any existing ruling from either Campaign Management or from another Pathfinder Source.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Preston Hudson wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Preston Hudson wrote:

...

2.) According to page 34 of the Guide to the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, the second paragraph covers our ability to make rulings that have not been covered by Campaign Management or existing Pathfinder sources.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild page 34: Table Variation second paragraph wrote:
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.
What this means, in my opinion, is that if someone comes to you requesting to retrain any aspect of an Occult Class (for example), the paragraph quoted allows a table GM to process that...

The sections above are the basis of the argument.

Is retraining occult in the rules? No, it's not in the rules.

Would you be contradicting the published rules of the game? Well you have now proven that the ACG classes could not retrain legally until the blog post clarified the synergies. This would actually support the need for PFS to call out synergies and class features allowable before a character could be legally retrain.

Right, but the section of the guide that I quoted, allows table GMs to make that ruling until something official does come down from Campaign Management due to Occult Retraining not being covered by any existing ruling from either Campaign Management or from another Pathfinder Source.

A precedent has been set that retraining can't occur until it is properly called out per your blog post. In my opinion since the blog post exists for ACG retraining, retraining for new classes is not allowed until they are called out somewhere.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
A precedent has been set that retraining can't occur until it is properly called out per your blog post.

That's not what I see the blog doing. The blog finally addresses what synergies the ACG classes have. Until a FAQ addresses that for the OA classes, GMs still have the right to make judgements about how the retraining rules work with OA classes, so long as they do not contradict the rules while doing so.

This may mean saying 'no classes have synergy until a FAQ is provided, but you can retrain without synergy if you wish'. It may mean 'I would rule your class having synergy with this class as a reasonable course of action'. Or it may mean 'I will not allow any retraining until synergies are addressed'.

All are valid, and should be respected by subsequent GMs, while also not be considered a constraint on those GMs when ruling on retraining at their own tables.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
A precedent has been set that retraining can't occur until it is properly called out per your blog post.

That's not what I see the blog doing. The blog finally addresses what synergies the ACG classes have. Until a FAQ addresses that for the OA classes, GMs still have the right to make judgements about how the retraining rules work with OA classes, so long as they do not contradict the rules while doing so.

This may mean saying 'no classes have synergy until a FAQ is provided, but you can retrain without synergy if you wish'. It may mean 'I would rule your class having synergy with this class as a reasonable course of action'. Or it may mean 'I will not allow any retraining until synergies are addressed'.

All are valid, and should be respected by subsequent GMs, while also not be considered a constraint on those GMs when ruling on retraining at their own tables.

Exactly what I had hoped to convey.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Thank you, Preston and TOZ. I wish I could have organized my earlier thoughts as thoroughly.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Regarding the argument "The rules don't cover this, so you can't do it."

John Compton has stated, multiple times, that if the rules do not cover something, it is up to the GM, even in PFS. Most notably, in the thread on gluing together multiple alchemist flasks and throwing them as one, something that is not *at all* covered by the rules, he gave several different ways a GM might adjudicate it, all of which he said would be fine in PFS.

Likewise on the Ice Tomb hex, which was missing key information on range, he gave multiple examples of GMs negotiating adjudications.

This seems to be a similar situation. There is no ruling that the psychic classes *don't* have synergy, there is just a complete absence of information. Therefore it is up to the GM and player to come to a reasonable compromise.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

While this is a largely inoffensive case, the underlying logic still troubles me. "The rules don't say I can't do that, so I can" isn't the best mindset to encourage. Table variation should be a necessary evil, not a blanket excuse for the GM to rewrite the rules.

To be clear, I don't think occult retraining is that egregious or unreasonable, or that people in this thread are acting in bad faith; I just want to make sure that this logic is used carefully, if at all.

Mr. Thaler: can you provide some links to where Mr. Compton has spoken about this? I'm not saying he hasn't, not at all; I just want to see it in its original context and phrasing. Thank you in advance! ^_^

5/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Look, we're explicitly not allowed to add items to lists that can be expanded "at the GM's discretion." How is this any different?

There is no reference in the class features retraining to adding extra options at the GM's discretion so it isn't even an issue. The list is what it is. You can retrain class levels although without any synergies but you can no more retrain an occult class feature than you can retrain your Mystery choice on an Oracle.

Indeed, if we look at the class features section of UC it actually gives this as an example:

Quote:
For example, Ultimate Magic presents rules for inquisitions, which inquisitors can select in place of a domain, and the inquisitor entry below allows you to retrain your chosen domain, so you are allowed to instead retrain an inquisition, swapping it for a domain or another inquisition.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So we're circling round and round on two questions;

1) What class features can you retrain for classes not mentioned?

Looking at all the classes that are mentioned, the only class features of those classes that can't be retrained are oracle mystery and curse. In the case of curse I think the reason is obvious;

APG wrote:
Oracle's Curse (Ex): Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.

Every other class feature choice from all the classes treated can be changed. You can even change your sorcerer bloodline. (It's true. You were adopted.)

The Oracle is the only exception. And it's a class presented as being very out-of-control over its own powers.

This leads me to believe that the intent going forward will be that class features of newer classes can be retrained similarly, although possibly some of the crazier occult classes may end up with restrictions similar to the Oracle.

However, because the current list is not the same as listing ALL possible choices, you cannot derive a general rule from it saying all class features are retrainable. And therefore you can't say with certainty that the features of a new class will be retrainable.

2) Can you retrain newer classes?

UC wrote:
In general, it takes 7 days to retrain one level in a class into one level in another class.

Barring a new rule that you can't retrain newer classes, the standing rule is that you can.

UC wrote:
Some classes are more suited for this kind of retraining, as they have a similar focus or purpose—this is called retraining synergy. If your old class has retraining synergy with your new class, retraining that class level takes only 5 days instead of 7 days. Determine class retraining synergies according to the table below.

Until some update happens (such as via blog) that table is a complete list of classes with synergy.

You can speculate which new classes should have synergy, but until they're in that table, they don't. It's not a matter of "unknown information", the rule to give them synergy just doesn't exist yet.

---

Now, I personally think the highest priority should go to regulating the retraining of class features, since we already have an (expensive) solution for retraining class levels.

What are we to do until then? I believe John Compton and Mike Brock have repeatedly signalled that keeping to RAW that exists doesn't mean you should turn off all common sense when you get to a situation where the rules are missing.

For a lot of class features I think you could confidently make a ruling by comparing them to existing classes. How should investigators retrain talents? Looking at alchemists and rogues we see both discoveries and tricks can be retrained, so it's reasonable to assume investigator talents will be too. Psychic Discipline? While sorcerer bloodlines can be retrained, oracle mysteries can't. I'd hold off on allowing that retraining for the time being.

As for class synergies: some classes have obvious synergy but others have "maybe" synergy. I'd hold off on allowing synergy on most if not all of them for the time being. This area is murkier than class features, AND there's already a working solution by using full-price retraining.

5/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Looking at all the classes that are mentioned, the only class features of those classes that can't be retrained are oracle mystery and curse. In the case of curse I think the reason is obvious;

This is not quite true, the Witch cannot retrain their chosen Patron.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

andreww wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Looking at all the classes that are mentioned, the only class features of those classes that can't be retrained are oracle mystery and curse. In the case of curse I think the reason is obvious;

This is not quite true, the Witch cannot retrain their chosen Patron.

Good point. Another one for the "mysterious forces beyond the PC's control".

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
A precedent has been set that retraining can't occur until it is properly called out per your blog post.
That's not what I see the blog doing.

+1

Kalindlara wrote:
The underlying logic still troubles me. "The rules don't say I can't do that, so I can" isn't the best mindset to encourage.

Table variance is always going to be a thing, no matter what. Mainly because our brains can't all hold every forum post we've ever seen or had.

They would like to empower the GM to run the games as close to the rules as they can manage. Some times the rules are not clear. Sometimes they don't cover situations. Here is an example by Mr Compton on how to handle important information missing in an ability. Notice he didn't say "you can't use that ability because it doesn't tell me X, Y, or Z". That ability has been clarified since then, but maybe the GM doesn't know about the clarification.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
John Compton and Mike Brock have repeatedly signalled that keeping to RAW that exists doesn't mean you should turn off all common sense when you get to a situation where the rules are missing.

They have also said repetitively it isn't so much Rules as Written as Run as Written. Follow tactics, don't combine rooms "if you think the other room should hear"*, Don't say "no Brawlers at my table", and other "Rule 0" and/or Houserule changes.

*:
I combined two rooms because of "line of sight" and "combat noise" when GM-ing a table with John Compton's first Pathfinder game. It was a close fight, but no one died. Many years later when Mr Compton was part of the PFS team he advise that I shouldn't have done so.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


Table variance is always going to be a thing, no matter what. Mainly because our brains can't all hold every forum post we've ever seen or had.

This isn't really table variance though, because this is something that wanders from table to table.

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

I only read the first page here because I'm on my phone, but I've wanted to retrain the skill unlock on my unchained rogue for ages. Not even because it's bad: but because of the delay sense motive causes pfs GM's who find themselves having to look up Bluff modifiers mid-game.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

Tempest_Knight wrote:
If we MUST allow, as Nefreet contends, Occult class feature retraining that has been signed off by a prior GM, then we must allow the Undead Lord and the lvl 1 with an effective +10 weapon if they have been signed off on.

Signing off on a character that is blatantly and clearly against the campaign rules =/= signing off on a character that is currently not explicitly against the rules but isn't explicitly by-the-rules either.

I'd just advise people to hold off on retraining occult characters until Schrödinger lets their retraining out of the box.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rei wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:
If we MUST allow, as Nefreet contends, Occult class feature retraining that has been signed off by a prior GM, then we must allow the Undead Lord and the lvl 1 with an effective +10 weapon if they have been signed off on.
Signing off on a character that is blatantly and clearly against the campaign rules =/= signing off on a character that is currently not explicitly against the rules but isn't explicitly by-the-rules either.

I think the comment was much more directed at the comments made that when a character sets at a table, the current GM according to some, has NO right to reverse the decisions of what previous gm's have signed off.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rei wrote:
I'd just advise people to hold off on retraining occult characters until Schrödinger lets their retraining out of the box.

That is usually the best policy to take, rather than deal with the different GM views on contentious subjects.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Since we have gotten that out of the way, how about a more constructive thread a asking for Campaign Leadership to make a similar allowance for the Occult classes as they have for the ACG classes.

I honestly thought that was the original purpose of this thread. Hence the word, "petition," in the title.

Hmm

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Petition to open up Retraining for the Occult Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.