Petition to open up Retraining for the Occult Classes


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Concordance Venture-Agent, Utah—Logan aka ShieldLawrence

23 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

Neither Ultimate Campaign nor Occult Adventures have released a FAQ/errata concerning how the Occult Classes can retrain class abilities. In a home game, a GM can use the lists available to determine what abilities make sense to retrain, but in PFS it seems our hands are tied.

Is there something I've missed? Our cool occult characters need these options!


Vigilante should be considered as well. Especially for those who feel it is a better fit then their current class.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Depends on who your GM is.

I am one of those GMs who believes that the list in Ultimate Campaign is not exhaustive, and that Retraining can cover virtually any Class or Class Feature.

So if you wanted to Retrain your Psychic into a Wizard, or Kinetic Blade into [other Talent], I'd happily sign off on it.

Check with your GM to see what they think.

5/5

Nefreet wrote:
I am one of those GMs who believes that the list in Ultimate Campaign is not exhaustive, and that Retraining can cover virtually any Class or Class Feature.

Except that this runs completely counter to what Ultimate Campaign actually says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This is mostly an issue for PFS. For home games, individual GMs can work out the retraining options for newer classes by analogy with existing options. PFS GMs aren't allowed to exercise that degree of initiative.

The Exchange

I also don't find retraining to be an exhaustive list. At the minimum you could retrain without synergy if needed. Class features are also pretty obvious.

Liberty's Edge

I think it's pretty clear what the rules in ultimate campaign are. There's a table of retraining synergy for the core rulebook and APG base classes. Anything beyond that, such as prestige classes, is a GM decision. In PFS we're not allowed to make GM decisions because we are not truly GMs, but judges running a campaign put together by the campaign management. So until we hear something from Tonya, or John, or Paizo releases an extended list we can only use the table in ultimate campaign.

Of course you can always retrain a class without synergy, it just costs a bit more.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would like it as a non-exhaustive list, but there's this sticky line in the campaign system write-up:

UC wrote:
The following are the many types of training available.

That statement is troubling.

The Concordance Venture-Agent, Utah—Logan aka ShieldLawrence

Serisan wrote:

I would like it as a non-exhaustive list, but there's this sticky line in the campaign system write-up:

UC wrote:
The following are the many types of training available.
That statement is troubling.

It's that exact line stopping me from retraining one of my occultist's focus powers.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would sign a petition to expand retraining for all classes (including occult, intrigue and ACG classes) in PFS. There is no reason for this to be limited.

Hmm


Does PFS actually not allow retraining into the Occult Classes? Or is the OP's problem that that he would have to pay the high costs for the fact that they are not synergistic with the non-occult analogs? Or does he not want to spend Prestige period?

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Does PFS actually not allow retraining into the Occult Classes? Or is the OP's problem that that he would have to pay the high costs for the fact that they are not synergistic with the non-occult analogs? Or does he not want to spend Prestige period?

There's a couple issues at play:

  • There are no class synergies, which increases class retraining costs.
  • Class features do not have a direct write-up since Ultimate Campaign came out before Occult Adventures, and there's a line of text that makes it seem as though the list could be exclusive.

Item 2 is the real issue. The quote in question:

Quote:
The following are the many types of training available.

I would read that to say that a retraining option doesn't exist in the existing rules, it cannot be done. If it said "The following are examples of the many types of training available" I would have a different interpretation.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka The Great Rinaldo!

Serisan wrote:

Item 2 is the real issue. The quote in question:

Quote:
The following are the many types of training available.
I would read that to say that a retraining option doesn't exist in the existing rules, it cannot be done. If it said "The following are examples of the many types of training available" I would have a different interpretation.

That really feels like an editing mistake, due to the awkward phrasing. I would not be surprised to find out that "examples of" was in there and was cut unintentionally while attempting to rephrase, or was meant to be inserted.

That said, purely RAW, there isn't currently retraining for classes printed after UC.

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

Serisan wrote:

I would like it as a non-exhaustive list, but there's this sticky line in the campaign system write-up:

UC wrote:
The following are the many types of training available.
That statement is troubling.

Sounds non-exhausted to me. It doesn't say "only", "finite", or any other word that means "all encompassing".

Grand Lodge 4/5

James Risner wrote:
Serisan wrote:

I would like it as a non-exhaustive list, but there's this sticky line in the campaign system write-up:

UC wrote:
The following are the many types of training available.
That statement is troubling.
Sounds non-exhausted to me. It doesn't say "only", "finite", or any other word that means "all encompassing".

So if I gave you a list of choices and told you "These are the options you have", you'd expect to be able to choose from something not on the list?

5/5

Serisan wrote:

Item 2 is the real issue. The quote in question:

Quote:
The following are the many types of training available.
I would read that to say that a retraining option doesn't exist in the existing rules, it cannot be done. If it said "The following are examples of the many types of training available" I would have a different interpretation.

Actually that is not what Ultimate Campaign says. The text on page 189 is:

Quote:
Class features you can retrain are as follows...

Which certainly sounds like it is setting out a definitive list. Now if Paizo wants to expand that list to include classes published after UC then I would be happy but as things stand UC provides an exhaustive list of features which can be retrained.

If you could retrain any class feature then there would be no need whatsoever for a list of ones which could be retrained.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
andreww wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Item 2 is the real issue. The quote in question:

Quote:
The following are the many types of training available.
I would read that to say that a retraining option doesn't exist in the existing rules, it cannot be done. If it said "The following are examples of the many types of training available" I would have a different interpretation.

Actually that is not what Ultimate Campaign says. The text on page 189 is:

Quote:
Class features you can retrain are as follows...

Which certainly sounds like it is setting out a definitive list. Now if Paizo wants to expand that list to include classes published after UC then I would be happy but as things stand UC provides an exhaustive list of features which can be retrained.

If you could retrain any class feature then there would be no need whatsoever for a list of ones which could be retrained.

I was looking specifically at the text on 188, not the one on 189, immediately before the heading for Ability Score Increase.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:


Second, clearly there are more things on the menu in Pathfinder as there are other books and we got not language saying this should be restrictive. In fact in many paragraphs such as class retraining the GM is told to err on the side of allowing.

Third, people order off menu all the time. In general I do every single time I order food. Got sour cream? No SC. Got asparagus? Broccoli instead please. So I get you used a hyperbolic example, but you can get pretty far off menu. I remember one dinner at an ultra fancy place where I found nothing exciting on the menu and the chef came out to ask me what I like. Ended up getting something not remotely on the menu customs designed for me.

Which would work GREAT in a home campaign.

Unfortunately, in PFS there needs to be a standard, otherwise one table's GM will say there's no synergy (for example) and another might say there's complete synergy...

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

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
otherwise one table's GM will say there's no synergy (for example) and another might say there's complete synergy...

Without PFS leadership to weigh in, it is the GM's interpretation that matters in PFS. PFS requires you not "add monsters, raise DC, refuse to allow player options" but you are still fully empowered to interpret the rules as you interpret them. If you believe you have the right interpretation and there is no campaign clarification to disagree with you, then you are following RAW of PFS.

Just so I'm clear. I wouldn't advocate a player do this, because they may find themselves potentially at tables that don't agree with his retraining. But if they are ok with that possibility, I don't see an issue with it via RAW. Others obviously do, so YMMV.

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

James Risner wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
otherwise one table's GM will say there's no synergy (for example) and another might say there's complete synergy...

Without PFS leadership to weigh in, it is the GM's interpretation that matters in PFS. PFS requires you not "add monsters, raise DC, refuse to allow player options" but you are still fully empowered to interpret the rules as you interpret them. If you believe you have the right interpretation and there is no campaign clarification to disagree with you, then you are following RAW of PFS.

Just so I'm clear. I wouldn't advocate a player do this, because they may find themselves potentially at tables that don't agree with his retraining. But if they are ok with that possibility, I don't see an issue with it via RAW. Others obviously do, so YMMV.

That seems an awful rules interpretation from a venture agent.

I would NOT advocate you taking advantage of a grey area that is so open table variation. You are putting a GM in the situation of making a decision that will ultimately make you upset. I can already hear you saying, "But I played this character at the venture agents table and he allowed it." That alone would carry enough weigh with some GM's to make them feel as if it was a PFS decision and therefore feel obligated to allow it.

Not me, however, that crap won't fly at my table, play something else, here I have a copy of all the pregens for you.

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

Mulgar wrote:

That seems an awful rules interpretation from a venture agent.

Not me, however, that crap won't fly at my table, play something else, here I have a copy of all the pregens for you.

If you follow many of my posts, you'd know that I'm totally that guy that supports the concept of the table GM is right unless a FAQ, Errata, or PFS leadership says he's wrong (when it comes to rules interpretations).

I get and fully support your interpretation. In fact I totally don't recommend retraining a character in a way that could lead to table variances. As a player you have absolutely no recourse if your GM doesn't agree.

Back to the whole point, I read the "many types" refers to the headings (ability scores, feats, class levels) not the contents of the types. The class retraining tells us to err on the generous side when retraining prestige classes which are not even on the list. If we use your rules interpretation then we wouldn't be able to do prestige class retraining despite a FAQ saying how that works.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:


Not me, however, that crap won't fly at my table, play something else, here I have a copy of all the pregens for you.

You'd need spelunking levels of character audit to even notice it, and even then would only spot them because they were being honest and trying to play by the rules, pay the price for retraining, and wrote it down rather than the undetectable new character sheet, new abilities here i come" method.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mulgar wrote:


Not me, however, that crap won't fly at my table, play something else, here I have a copy of all the pregens for you.

You'd need spelunking levels of character audit to even notice it, and even then would only spot them because they were being honest and trying to play by the rules, pay the price for retraining, and wrote it down rather than the undetectable new character sheet, new abilities here i come" method.

I understand that, but if I catch it, it doesn't fly.

And as far as record keeping goes, I track EVERYTHING. I know many people don't, but they should. And in my local area, there are few enough people that it's much easier to catch a retrain.

Sovereign Court

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

I think the question is less "what is the GM's authority in cases of ambiguous rules", and more "what rules are actually ambiguous". I'm as big a fan of the GM's authority as anyone - my GM alias is proof of that - but it seems like this logic could be used to justify all manner of inappropriate GM rulings.

"I have the authority to decide on ambiguous rules. I consider this rule ambiguous, so I'm going to make a ruling on it."

I feel like this is how we get the bad kind of table variation. :/

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is something that would be better to clarify at once for everyone, rather than delegating it to GMs. Why? Because stuff carries over from game to game.

If you retrain at my table and I think it's reasonable that you have synergy, so it costs you only 5 PP. A couple of games down the road you spend all your remaining PP on a Raise Dead. The next game the GM audits you and decides he doesn't agree with my rules call. Can he force you to undo the retraining (meaning you have to walk back what class you were for several game sessions) or paying for the Raise Dead? I don't think that's really a good way to run a campaign.

So what if you can't reverse the previous GM's call? Then it's a matter of waiting for the permissive GM. If you can put off your retraining for a session you might save 2PP.

Questioning how retraining occult classes works is legitimate. It's obvious why the rules are unclear; it's always hard to write rules anticipating a book that'll come down the pipe several years later. But I think an update of the retraining rules may be in order by now.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also table variance kills the game in a lot of ways, or I should say the strict adherence to "Only I'm right and that GM was wrong, so you must change your character". If you don't have a FAQ, PFS Leadership post, or Errata to confirm you are right. Leave it as is.

I remember on particular rules interaction where I made the father and his young daughter "Respect My Authoritah!" (Cartman reference) and they promptly stopped coming to PFS games. As far as I know I'm still right on the rules, but there is ambiguity. So I should have let them slide. Clearly all the other GM's did. On top of that the change wasn't that big of a deal anyway.

Sovereign Court

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

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "but all my other GMs let me do it" becoming accepted practice.

(Especially with some of the stuff I've personally had players try to justify that way, such as LG monks with Ydersius religion traits or kineticists with the prana ghost template.)

The Exchange 5/5

James Risner wrote:

Also table variance kills the game in a lot of ways, or I should say the strict adherence to "Only I'm right and that GM was wrong, so you must change your character". If you don't have a FAQ, PFS Leadership post, or Errata to confirm you are right. Leave it as is.

I remember on particular rules interaction where I made the father and his young daughter "Respect My Authoritah!" (Cartman reference) and they promptly stopped coming to PFS games. As far as I know I'm still right on the rules, but there is ambiguity. So I should have let them slide. Clearly all the other GM's did. On top of that the change wasn't that big of a deal anyway.

Bravo! Takes a good judge to recognize that they might be have been wrong and to learn from their past...

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

Kalindlara, let me clarify my point because I agree with you there.

A LG can't take a CE religion trait. They wouldn't be able to play any game until they fixed that at my table and I'd advise any other GM's table.

What I was referring to was when I pointed out that abilities that improve sling doesn't improve halfling sling staves. I still think that is RAW correct. But I went too far asking them to change their character to "fix it".

Another example is Overrun. Pretty much every table played Overrun differently. I can't say any GM was wrong, because they all gave their take on how the rules work.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Manchester aka Merisal The Risen

14 people marked this as a favorite.

For what its worth I don't believe the intention in allowing retraining was to end up with a system where some classes can retrain and others can't. I can see some have an issue with this so lets come up with something simple to add to the PFS FAQ /clarifications or even The Guide

The retraining rules are available to all characters and classes in the campaign. Class features that give a choice between options (such as rogue talents) or a choice between class features (such as the wizards Arcane Bond and Arcane Familiar) may be retrained using the class feature retraining option.

The hybrid classes presented in the Advanced Class Guide have synergy with their parent classes and any class both their hybrids share a synergy with

Unless clarified in a further rules source or update new classes do not have synergy with any other class.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Cook wrote:

For what its worth I don't believe the intention in allowing retraining was to end up with a system where some classes can retrain and others can't. I can see some have an issue with this so lets come up with something simple to add to the PFS FAQ /clarifications or even The Guide

The retraining rules are available to all characters and classes in the campaign. Class features that give a choice between options (such as rogue talents) or a choice between class features (such as the wizards Arcane Bond and Arcane Familiar) may be retrained using the class feature retraining option.

The hybrid classes presented in the Advanced Class Guide have synergy with their parent classes and any class both their hybrids share a synergy with

Unless clarified in a further rules source or update new classes do not have synergy with any other class.

Woah now, what's the voice of reason doing here?

1 to 50 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.