|
Short answer: no.
Long answer: You can retrain it into any feat offered by that class ability, so you could retrain it into Weapon Finesse, Weapon Finesse, or Weapon Finesse.
You could retrain the 3rd level, Dex to damage, portion. There you would select a different weapon to apply the effect to.
For PFS it would cost 5 PP and (50 X level) GP.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: You can retrain it into any feat offered by that class ability, so you could retrain it into Weapon Finesse, Weapon Finesse, or Weapon Finesse.
You could retrain the 3rd level, Dex to damage, portion. There you would select a different weapon to apply the effect to.
For PFS it would cost 5 PP and (50 X level) GP.
Rogue's Finesse is a specifically ability, one which requires you to choose a specific weapon. I believe that is what he is talking about, not the finesse training of the unchained rogue.
If so, I don't think you can use that in PFS anyway. It is third party material. Is that even allowed?
He may have been thing of the unchained rogue's finesse training, and used the wrong name.
I don't know if unchained characters are even allowed in PFS, but if they are I think this could work.
If he was really talking about the 3rd party feature then it is not PFS legal so the answer is no.
As for the prestige point and gold cost, I have no idea.
He may have been thing of the unchained rogue's finesse training, and used the wrong name.
I don't know if unchained characters are even allowed in PFS, but if they are I think this could work.
If he was really talking about the 3rd party feature then it is not PFS legal so the answer is no.
As for the prestige point and gold cost, I have no idea.
IF he was talking about finesse training, it would be retrained as a class feature (choosing a different weapon). The same way you can retrain the fighters weapon training (which is also a class feature that requires choice of a weapon, except this time a group of them):
Fighter: Retrain one fighter weapon group you chose for your weapon training class feature.
All Unchained classes are allowed in PFS and in some instances the Unchained version replaced the original (See the Summoner).
Maybe try the PFS section? People there would likely know more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the replies.
Yes, I meant for the unchained Rogue.So it would cost 5 pp + 50x lvl 5 = 250 gp?
Or does the retraining option compared to the fighter training cost differently?
No idea what you mean. Retraining a class feature costs 5 days (or 5 PP in PFS) and 50 X level GP. It does not matter if it is a rogue, fighter, cleric, or anything else, the cost is fixed,
|
Thanks for the replies.
Yes, I meant for the unchained Rogue.So it would cost 5 pp + 50x lvl 5 = 250 gp?
Or does the retraining option compared to the fighter training cost differently?No idea what you mean. Retraining a class feature costs 5 days (or 5 PP in PFS) and 50 X level GP. It does not matter if it is a rogue, fighter, cleric, or anything else, the cost is fixed,
The Thing is I'm not sure if it's a class feature I'm allowed to retrain or not, since it's not a rogue talent but a standard unchained rogue class feature. I've never used Retraining before.
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
Retraining was written prior to Unchained being released, and so it doesn't actually work with any of the new options, I'm afraid. Finesse Training is not on the list.
See here for the actual retraining rules, specifically the Class Features part. PFS rules just add a prestige cost to the standard rules.
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking in to this issue. While it is currently true that you can't retrain class features that aren't listed on pages 189-190 of Ultimate Campaign, this is only because these classes weren't published yet at the time of the book's printing. It's not to say that we think classes published after that point should not be able to retrain their features. Seems like a prime candidate for a Organized Play FAQ entry.
|
While it is currently true that you can't retrain class features that aren't listed on pages 189-190 of Ultimate Campaign, this is only because these classes weren't published yet at the time of the book's printing.
That is certainly one viewpoint. I respectfully disagree with calling it "true".
The other viewpoint is that those pages simply list examples of Retraining Class Features, and that those examples are not exhaustive.
It's been debated in this Forum and others for years now, and it's considered an issue of table variation.
|
|
I'm looking in to this issue. While it is currently true that you can't retrain class features that aren't listed on pages 189-190 of Ultimate Campaign, this is only because these classes weren't published yet at the time of the book's printing. It's not to say that we think classes published after that point should not be able to retrain their features. Seems like a prime candidate for a Organized Play FAQ entry.
This is great news. I hope you folks are able to put something together in the not too distant future as I just asked a similar question about bloodrager bloodline powers.
|
|
In this instance? Absolutely. 100%.
We've been asking for a ruling on this for literally years now. With not so much as an inkling from Campaign Leadership, it has absolutely become an instance of table variation.
You can't just casually call something "true" after years of debate and GMs handling retraining on their own. What happens to all of the retraining that's been done?
So absolutely it is a "viewpoint". I will not accept a casual remark of perceived "truth" as an official ruling. It's a slap in the face to all the discussion that's been had.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that becomes the actual ruling, whether reiterated in a thread or a Blog or wherever, after acknowledging all of the points of view, and a system has been set up to either grandfather or retcon the Retraining that's been done, then I would happily comply, and expect others to as well.
But that's like casually making a truth statement about grappling or mounted combat. It's been an issue of table variation for so long that it needs to be actually ruled on, officially, and not relegated to an off the cuff remark.
|
|
That may be what YOU want to happen, and its not an unreasonable request, however, neither you nor the rest of the community is empowered to decide under what conditions we will "happily comply, and expect others to as well." It would seem one of two conditions have occurred. (1) Linda misspoke and did not intend to confirm/establish a ruling or (2) it is the way Paizo expects the rule to work despite them not providing commentary in any specific past thread on the subject. We cannot assume the former since Linda is a direct representative of Paizo/PFS and who's words actually mean something. It would be inappropriate to assume she did not mean what she said until she provides reason otherwise. Considering its been more than two weeks since she posit the remarks without retraction, we have to assume the latter and assume the official rule is the retraining list is exclusive. Perhaps it is a recent ruling and will be included in the next FAQ update or maybe its the way they always intended and either did not keep up with the commentary in the forums or chose not to speak to it. Who knows, speculation is what it is. Perhaps YOU should just be happy that there is now an official ruling that can be referred to. What that means for those who have used the retraining rules for invalid material, in the absence of additional commentary, we would have to assume the standard rules apply. Which is the player must reverse/correct whatever actions were taken with their character's build to bring said character back into compliance.
|
|
That maybe the case, but offhand comments in the forums are not a valid rule source. If the intent is to officially state a position for the campaign, then it doesn't need to go into FAQ or Errata, they have a document for that, the Campaign Clarifications. Off hand quotes from Devs and Paizo employees that got buried in text, were hard to find, or contradictory are the reason that document was created. So while you may take that position, to me it isn't official until it is located in a FAQ, the CC, or an official errata.
|
|
This does bring two ways of handling rulings to a collision.
On the one hand, we have years of Forum posts by current and former members of Leadership that are binding in PFS. We want them to be valid, because if we simply threw them all away we'd lose valuable knowledge and discussion. We'd have to go back over some of the basics that we take for granted today.
Think back to when Stephen Radney-McFarland ruled that Developer posts weren't binding in the Rules Forum. It was incredibly damaging to the game as a whole, and it contributed to the current extreme RAW culture that pervades every rules discussion.
We don't want a repeat of that disaster, but then we have things like Linda's comment in this thread. Such off-the-cuff comments, without thinking of their repercussions, are not only damaging but then require "cleanup". They generate more questions and raised eyebrows than existed before.
And on the other side of the spectrum, we have official documents like the Campaign Clarifications and FAQ. These are things the Community worked hard towards, so that the casual GM wouldn't need to do the age old Forum search. But for all of their benefits, these documents don't/can't cover everything.
At this point I don't know where the happy medium lies.
|
|
What questions does Linda's post create?
It seems very clear, only the retraining specifically listed is legal.
And since we have a clarification it's a thing.
While GMs are not required to read every post on the forums, they need to keep abreast of clarifications.
At no time may a GM ignore rules clarifications. Any clarification made in a forum thread will be added to the FAQ, campaign clarifications, or Roleplaying Guild Guide as soon as possible.
|
|
In case folks hadn't seen this, Linda also wrote on 10/16 ...
"We will also be working on several other FAQ entries, including expanding retraining from Ultimate Campaign to cover classes published in later books."
So, I shall think happy and optimistic thoughts as my "Paladin" of Calistria, Candi Payne, would dearly love to retrain her 1st level bloodline power into a bloodline familiar Gold-ringed Cat Snake viper familiar with the emissary archetype.
|
|
Yes, those are class features you can Retrain.
That does not mean (in the viewpoint shared by many people for years now) that those are the *only* features you can Retrain.
It need not be redebated here. There are plenty of other threads discussing this exact dichotomy.
I will indeed continue to rule it as I see fit. I do not see Linda's post up thread as a clarification.
I see it as her personal viewpoint, equally as valid as the opposing viewpoint.
|
|
I refer you to my previous post as to what it would take to change the way Retraining is currently handled.
|
|
I agree that many GMs have signed off on retraining not specifically covered by Ultimate Campaign. While many have also worked under the assumption that only the listed changes were legal.
I refer you to my previous post as to what it would take to change the way Retraining is currently handled.
That's not what the guide to Organized Play says.
At no time may a GM ignore rules clarifications. Any clarification made in a forum thread will be added to the FAQ, campaign clarifications, or Roleplaying Guild Guide as soon as possible.
It does not say you may ignore the clarification until it's fully hashed out in a blog or additional resources or campaign clarification or until all points of view are considered.
---
Just so I'm clear Nefreet, why do you think Linda's post does not apply?
|
|
My post wasn't about this issue, but about the can of worms that having general board posts be considered valid rules clarifications. The Campaign Clarifications was designed specifically to have a place to put the rules clarifications. Otherwise in order to play you need to lurk the forums as much as Nefreet, BNW or other long time members to even have a chance to know esoteric rulings. This is plain unfair.
My point isn't that Linda doesn't know what she is saying, or that she lacks the authority to say it. It's that this isn't the appropriate place. Especially given the rules-mongering some lodges deal with on a regular basis. Put stuff where everyone can know it.
|
|
Just so I'm clear Nefreet, why do you think Linda's post does not apply?
Because it is not a truth.
I liken it to how James Jacobs has said in the past, "That's how I'd rule it at my table".
I agree with you that GMs aren't supposed to ignore clarifications. I disagree that her statement *was* a clarification.
|
|
In Nefreet's world apparently Oracles can retrain their Mystery or Curse and Witches can retrain their choice of Patron. It's unfortunate that there will be players out there who rely on this sort of advice until they end up on a table where the GM actually checks and end up having to make major revisions to their characters, often impacting on choices they have made over many levels.
which is itself a giant rules gray area, because you can't just shift them back. What happens when they go to play at another table where the you can retrain thing is allowed? Then there's no cause for the re re revision and they re re re revise it back.
I know that maintenance doesn't sell and new stuff does. But things like this get put on the back burner and stay there for years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise in order to play you need to lurk the forums as much as Nefreet, BNW or other long time members to even have a chance to know esoteric rulings. This is plain unfair.
Its perfectly fair. Do you know how many sanity points i had to pay for that fetch obscure rule trick? :)
What really annoys me is that there IS a big book of answers sitting around somewhere, and they send it out to hero lab but that's it.
|
|
Just so I'm clear Nefreet, why do you think Linda's post does not apply?Because it is not a truth.
I liken it to how James Jacobs has said in the past, "That's how I'd rule it at my table".
I agree with you that GMs aren't supposed to ignore clarifications. I disagree that her statement *was* a clarification.
everything that leadership says IS a clarification if it clarifies something. She clarified something by saying that "currently true that you can't retrain class features that aren't listed on pages 189-190 of Ultimate Campaign" how can you get more clear than saying that currently you can't retrain than saying you can't retrain? So any view that now says it's currently legal to retrain after being aware of this post is violating written PFS rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise in order to play you need to lurk the forums as much as Nefreet, BNW or other long time members to even have a chance to know esoteric rulings. This is plain unfair.Its perfectly fair. Do you know how many sanity points i had to pay for that fetch obscure rule trick? :)
What really annoys me is that there IS a big book of answers sitting around somewhere, and they send it out to hero lab but that's it.
OH I KNOW! This is something that drives me up the wall. Like today my table had a rules issue, someone shared how herolab does it and how it was different that what the rules seemed to allow, so the comment was made AGAIN how saying it was a bug for herolab would be the fastest way to get an "official" answer.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Campaign leadership posts are official, and they have been for at least the 5 years I’ve been playing PFS. Changing that would cause way too many issues. If Linda didn’t mean to issue a clarification with that post, I’m sure she’ll drop in at some point and say so. For now, her post is the rule.
Since she has indicated that the team is reviewing the retraining rules, more useful is a discussion about why the list should or shouldn’t be limited. Personally, I don’t think it should be limited. I think you should be able to retrain any class option where a choice is involved. Here are my reasons:
1) It makes the retraining rules futureproof. Right now, we are in a situation where around 17 classes (and untold archetypes) cannot retrain class abilities., because they were created after the retraining rules (or in the case of archetypes weren’t mentioned). If there were a general rule that all class options that allow a choice can be retrained, then if a new class is created, it would automatically qualify for retraining.
2) It’s not gamebreaking. When the retraining rules were written, there were understandably some reservations about them being too powerful or creating issues. That does not appear to be the case now that they have been in practice for a few years. The prestige cost of doing things has proven to be a significant limiting factor when it comes to abuse.
3) It’s simpler. The biggest issues around retraining have been around what options can be retrained, synergy for new classes, and how to retrain archetypes. Having a single rule stating what types of class opti Maybe can be retrained simplifies one of those issues.
4) Some class options that are central to a character can already be retrained. Sorcerer bloodlines, for example. If those can be retrained, then why not a witch’s patron or a shaman’s spirit? Maybe certain types of options need to be grouped in with the more expensive retraining of a bloodline, but if someone wants to change that aspect of their character, why not let them? Retraining already covers a lot of meta territory, as does rebuilding at level 1 or when something like the lore warden changes. If a character is going to have more fun with a different patron, and they’re willing to pay the cost of changing, why not let them? Some options will break some players view of what should be possible, but so what? That’s already happening.
5) These changes are for PFS only. Normally, PFS wouldn’t change a rule in this big of a way, but they are having to do so regardless, because of the mew classes. So they may as well look at everything and create the best set of rules possible.
Anyway, those are my thoughts at the moment. Hopefully they are useful.
(While we’re at it, can we get rules on retraining traits? It can be a real issue when changing classes to not be able to retrain a trait that is no longer useful to the character. Make it cost the same as a feat if needed, but at least give us the option. Please).
|
|
Since she has indicated that the team is reviewing the retraining rules, more useful is a discussion about why the list should or shouldn’t be limited. Personally, I don’t think it should be limited. I think you should be able to retrain any class option where a choice is involved.
I'd also be very much in favor of a simpler, more generic retraining system that allows for the retraining of "class features" across the board, where the each Class Feature retrained takes 5 days/prestige.
(While we’re at it, can we get rules on retraining traits? It can be a real issue when changing classes to not be able to retrain a trait that is no longer useful to the character. Make it cost the same as a feat if needed, but at least give us the option. Please).
Yes, this would also be very nice.
|
|
Retraining Traits would indeed be a huge boon. My Favorite part about the Lore Warden rebuild was being able to Retrain a Trait that was nerfed due to an FAQ.
Someone earlier mentioned Retraining your Oracle curse or Witch patron. Given that you can Retrain out of the entire Class, I see no reason you couldn't Retrain one aspect of it.
|
|
You can retrain out of the class and back into the class and change your patron or curse. So it’s already possible. Just way more complicated and expensive than it should be. A simpler rule will avoid all of the mind bending interpretations and hoops that are being jumped through currently to make things happen.
EDIT: Part of the fun of RPGs is puzzle solving. But this is not an instance where having to solve a puzzle to do what you want is a good thing. It’s very confusing for veteran players and even more difficult to explain to newer players.