The Kineticist class in the forthcoming Rage of Elements has an 8th level feat "Elemental Overlap" which has the Prerequisite: "exactly one kinetic element." A kineticist gets the option to choose 1 or 2 elements at chargen and has an option to "expand the portal" (double down on what you have) or "fork the gate"(pick a new element) at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17.
A Kineticist who starts with a single gate and expands the portal at level 5 is eligible to take Elemental Overlap. What happens if they choose to acquire a second element with their level 9, 13, or 17 class option choice? Do they lose access to "Elemental Overlap" or is the fact that they qualified for it when they took it good enough?
Parallel examples:
Halcyon Speaker Archetype has as one of its prerequisites "member of the Magaambya of conversant rank" What happens if you take the feat and then get expelled from the Magaambya? Do you lose your Halcyon spells?
Godless Healing has as one of its prerequisites "can't have a patron deity". If you take the feat, and then later acquire a patron deity somehow, are you somehow less good at healing?
Almost all uses of "prerequisite" in the game are "you have a high enough attribute" or "you have a specific subclass" which are things you can't retrain, or are things like "you have the feat this is based on" or "you have enough skill training" which are things that can only change with retraining, which has specific rules about prerequisites.
I think a valid read on "Elemental Overlap" is that the feat is made available as a reward for "passing up on two chances to get a 2nd element" and it doesn't care what you do thereafter, but I'm curious what other people think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Champions (especially archetyped ones) are another example, they have a bunch of class options that are tied to alignment, cause, or tenets that aren't called out as something you lose for violating your code, along with a number of other archetypes and feats that are tied to alignment or behavioral mechanics.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that "you lose the prerequisite, you can't use the feat" should apply here in exactly the same way as if you ceased to qualify via retraining. If something has a prerequisite saying it's for single element kineticists, then it's only for single element kineticists. I don't see any reason to think that trying to loophole in with build order is valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Hammerjack.
The only one I could be nice for is Halcyon Speaker as I consider the prerequisite to be a limit on how to learn it and not how to use it.
But for all the other ones, my player would lose the benefit of the feat.
PossibleCabbage, let me ask you a question: what happens if a kineticist goes single element until 9th, forks at 9th and then at 11th gains reflow elements? Would you allow that character to retrain a 5th level feat into Elemental Overlap because it was a valid option then even though it isn't valid now? If not, what's the difference?
PossibleCabbage, let me ask you a question: what happens if a kineticist goes single element until 9th, forks at 9th and then at 11th gains reflow elements? Would you allow that character to retrain a 5th level feat into Elemental Overlap because it was a valid option then even though it isn't valid now? If not, what's the difference?
Reflow element specifically only applies to impulse feats, which Elemental Overlap is not (it doesn't have the impulse tag) and also specifically only allows to reflow impulses that have one elemental tag (so does not apply to the composite impulse that Elemental Overlap gives you.)
Elemental Overlap does two things:
- It grants you a composite impulse even if you aren't eligible to learn it as long as it's 2 lowers level than the level you pick it at (so all of them for now).
- It allows you to use the impulse even if you can't channel both elements involved.
So it's possible the way this should work is that if you break the prerequisite you don't lose the impulse that the feat gave you, but you do lose the ability to use it without being able to channel both elements. So you could, say, go mono-Fire, pick a the Fire/Water impulse at level 8, then fork to Water at level 9. If you forked to something other than Water, you would still have Steam Knight but no way to use it since you can't channel water. This would be sort of "a feat granted you "a spell" and "the ability to cast it" where even if you lost the ability to cast it, you would still know the spell.
My bad on the mistakes: I don't have the book yet and was working off memory from previews.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's possible the way this should work is that if you break the prerequisite you don't lose the impulse that the feat gave you, but you do lose the ability to use it without being able to channel both elements. So you could, say, go mono-Fire, pick a the Fire/Water impulse at level 8, then fork to Water at level 9. If you forked to something other than Water, you would still have Steam Knight but no way to use it since you can't channel water. This would be sort of "a feat granted you "a spell" and "the ability to cast it" where even if you lost the ability to cast it, you would still know the spell.
It still isn't addressing the idea that this seems more like a loophole in the rules that is being exploited rather than a clear indication of how class feats are supposed to work.
As was mentioned earlier, Retraining specifically prevents using feats that you retrain away their prerequisites. And feat selection in the first place requires you to meet the prerequisites and other requirements before being allowed to select and use the feat.
So don't expect very many GMs to allow you to continue using a feat once a later choice invalidates its prerequisites.
Yeah, I would really appreciate something that clarifies this. Unlike retraining shenanigans, this seems possible to do accidentally when your mono-element character picks a composite at level 8 (as many of those are good) and then later runs out of stuff they want from their element with several chances to get a second element. Possibly facing the possibility of having a "dead feat" all of a sudden, perhaps when retraining is not available.
It might be easier to frame the "mono-element" feats as instead requiring 2 junctions from a single element (Reflow Elements), 3 junctions from a single element (Elemental Transformation) and all 5 junctions from a single elemental (Elemental Apotheosis). Since those are things that require you to be mono-element to take them "on time" and represent "you understand one element very well" while being things you can't lose easily. After all, "mastery" is generally the sort of thing this game prefers to reward rather than "purity".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be easier to frame the "mono-element" feats as instead requiring 2 junctions from a single element (Reflow Elements), 3 junctions from a single element (Elemental Transformation) and all 5 junctions from a single elemental (Elemental Apotheosis).
And once I have more than just a vague idea of what those terms mean, I might even agree with you.
It might be easier to frame the "mono-element" feats as instead requiring 2 junctions from a single element (Reflow Elements), 3 junctions from a single element (Elemental Transformation) and all 5 junctions from a single elemental (Elemental Apotheosis).And once I have more than just a vague idea of what those terms mean, I might even agree with you.
Junctions are basically "the way you get better with your element" any time you can choose "another element" or "stick with what you've got" you get one for the latter choice (so mono-gate starts with 1, dual gate has 0, and if you expand the portal at 5,9,13,17 you get another one each time you do that).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would really appreciate something that clarifies this. Unlike retraining shenanigans, this seems possible to do accidentally when your mono-element character picks a composite at level 8 (as many of those are good) and then later runs out of stuff they want from their element with several chances to get a second element. Possibly facing the possibility of having a "dead feat" all of a sudden, perhaps when retraining is not available.
Willfully choosing two incompatible options is like, literally the opposite of "accidentally" though.
I agree the rules could use better clarification, but I wholly reject trying to categorize an active decision on the part of the player to do something that might invalidate another character options as "accidental."
It's like saying a Cleric of Sarenrae shouldn't lose their powers because they "accidentally" made the conscious and willing decision to become a pathological liar and use their downtime on create undead rituals.
It might be easier to frame the "mono-element" feats as instead requiring 2 junctions from a single element (Reflow Elements), 3 junctions from a single element (Elemental Transformation) and all 5 junctions from a single elemental (Elemental Apotheosis). Since those are things that require you to be mono-element to take them "on time" and represent "you understand one element very well" while being things you can't lose easily. After all, "mastery" is generally the sort of thing this game prefers to reward rather than "purity".
Rewriting it to require two junctions with the special clause enabling extra pickups with more junctions would be a way to change it to do what you want without causing weird jank regarding order of operations... but that's straying away from the topic of the thread (which applies to more than just the kineticist) and into homebrew territory.
Last sentence is worth addressing though because while that's often the case, this feat is explicitly about purity, which is another reason why this proposed loophole seems dubious.
The thing about "accidentally" is that if previous choices you have made in building your character lock you out of future choices for your character, that's kind of a bummer and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.
It's like if a 4th level Thamaturge feat had the prerequisite "you do not possess the Weapon Implement." Even if that's supposed to lock you out of choosing the weapon implement for your 2nd or 3rd implements, that's not great design, since choosing something for your character is supposed to result in more freedom for how you build and play it going forward rather than less.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "accidentally" is that if previous choices you have made in building your character lock you out of future choices for your character, that's kind of a bummer and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.
*looks at Sorcerer class feats*
*looks at Champion class feats*
You sure about that? I mean, that's why feats have prerequisites and requirements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "accidentally" is that if previous choices you have made in building your character lock you out of future choices for your character, that's kind of a bummer and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.
Not really? I mean again that's exactly how anathema works. It's something that happens with retraining too (except retraining is more explicit about it). It's also built into subclass progression.
It's neither good nor bad design, it's just mutually exclusive options, which is relatively normal.
and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.
I mean so does char op minigames that let you take feats you normally wouldn't be allowed to have by building characters in very specific ways but that's doesn't seem to be a concern for you here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if that's supposed to lock you out of choosing the weapon implement for your 2nd or 3rd implements, that's not great design, since choosing something for your character is supposed to result in more freedom for how you build and play it going forward rather than less.
That doesn't really track as most classes have choices that lock you out of other options: Picking a wizard specialization locks you out of the others focus spells, a rogue that picks Eldritch Trickster can't pick feats that require mastermind, a gunslingers way bars some feats, investigators Methodologies blocks some feats, a summoners choice of eidolons prevents picking some feats, ect...
As such, I don't see how this premise holds water.
The thing about "accidentally" is that if previous choices you have made in building your character lock you out of future choices for your character, that's kind of a bummer and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.*looks at Sorcerer class feats*
*looks at Champion class feats*
You sure about that? I mean, that's why feats have prerequisites and requirements.
Choosing a subclass is like a top level character choice. Choosing elements for a kineticist is like choosing implements for a Thaumaturge. These aren't really the same thing.
Or if a champion feat had as a prerequisite "blade ally, no other divine ally" which locks you out of taking second ally.
Choices you make *at first level* can lock you out of things, but choices you make at like 5th or 8th locking you out of things is weird.
Most of these lockouts of future options are coming from subclass choices. But not all of them.
Jinxed Halfling locks you out of taking Halfling Luck.
Shadowcaster Archetype locks you out of using spells with the Light trait. And will retroactively remove gaining spells from feats that give spells with the Light trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if a champion feat had as a prerequisite "blade ally, no other divine ally" which locks you out of taking second ally.
Choices you make *at first level* can lock you out of things, but choices you make at like 5th or 8th locking you out of things is weird.
I don't think it is strange.
Champion is a good example to use. Second Ally is a feat that a Champion character can choose to take or not.
Let's say that a hypothetical Champion feat does exist that requires having only one Champion Ally - call it Overwhelming Ally. Who knows or cares what it does. But it can be taken for any of the Champion ally types, but only if the Champion has only a single Divine Ally.
Then this would create a mutual exclusion option. A character could take Second Ally and forego the option to take Overwhelming Ally. And if they want to take Overwhelming Ally, then they can't take Second Ally.
It might be more typical for those interlocked feats to be at the same level so that it is more noticeable that they are mutually exclusive. But I don't think that is required. Mostly because characters are not required to take feats at the earliest level where they become available. Even if Overwhelming Ally and Second Ally are at the same level, a character could take Overwhelming Ally at level 8 and then want to take Second Ally at level 10.
So if instead Overwhelming Ally was a level 6 feat and a character grabs that, and then takes Second Ally at level 8 - it is still going to violate the requirements of Overwhelming Ally and cause it to not work.
Why would that be expected to be different for Kinetecist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about "accidentally" is that if previous choices you have made in building your character lock you out of future choices for your character, that's kind of a bummer and runs contrary to the design principles of Pathfinder 2nd edition.*looks at Sorcerer class feats*
*looks at Champion class feats*
You sure about that? I mean, that's why feats have prerequisites and requirements.
Choosing a subclass is like a top level character choice. Choosing elements for a kineticist is like choosing implements for a Thaumaturge. These aren't really the same thing.
Or if a champion feat had as a prerequisite "blade ally, no other divine ally" which locks you out of taking second ally.
Choices you make *at first level* can lock you out of things, but choices you make at like 5th or 8th locking you out of things is weird.
I don't agree: Archetype feats regularly lock you out of other archetype feats for instance. Druid Archetype used to effectively block and use of heavy armor and feats that use/grant prof and abilities with them. Ghost Dedication prevents use of abilities that require a physical body. Ghoul Dedication can prevent feats/abiliies that rely on being alive.
It feels like "a class feat interfering with choices you make in the future for the class" is unprecedented though.
Like there's no problem with Jinxed Halfling since that's a level 1 choice. Archetypes are fine to lock you out of things since those are decidedly opt-in.
But the Kineticist naturally runs into this conflict simply through a process of "choosing the (subjectively) coolest option at every level." At the very least, this being a lock-out forever is a thing that should be called out in the feat.
Language like "if you later choose to fork the path, you immediately retrain this feat to a composite impulse enabled by your combination of elements" would be a good change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least, this being a lock-out forever is a thing that should be called out in the feat.
Well, the most obvious place in the feat to call it out would be in the requirements line. Since from your original post, Elemental Overlap is already doing that... I'm not entirely sure how much more obvious you want it to be.
Language like "if you later choose to fork the path, you may immediately retrain this feat to a composite impulse enabled by your combination of elements" would be a good change.
That feels like the type of 'oopsie' fix that I normally recommend for a GM of a newer player that didn't read the rules carefully enough. I don't think that it needs to be a guaranteed pass for everyone to use. Retraining exploits are already common enough in the theorycrafting build walkthroughs that I have read.
From what I have read in this thread about Elemental Overlap, it is already doing a pretty good job of signposting itself to be exclusively for Kineticists that are focusing on a single element.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are fine to lock you out of things since those are decidedly opt-in.
I think this is where you lose most of us as it's 1000% opt is for the Kinetecist too: a feat that is specifically for single element users is self-evident [you only have 1 element] and opt in. IMO, if you aren't expecting to stay single element, then you don't take it or expect to retrain it when you go 2 elements. I can't come up with a scenario where it sneaks up on someone as a surprise: I mean "Prerequisites exactly one kinetic element" isn't exactly subtle in what it requires. It's like changing to neutral alignment [for organic story reasons] and then complaining that good alignment options are no longer an option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. And I am going to put that logic at the end of the list.
You can't use Escape while in a Polymorph Battle form like Animal Form.
You get the benefit of the Horse animal companion while not mounted on it.
You are not able to even attempt strength-based Strike attacks against an incorporeal creature.
You will have a different number of focus points depending on which order you take certain focus spell feats.
Neither Harm or Heal will affect a living, but Negative Healing character like a Dhampir, or Revenant.
You can take a feat that you meet the requirements for, then take a different feat that violates the requirements of the first feat and still be able to use both feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
MmmHmm. So having a different opinion than you is now slander. No matter how similar the opinion actually is. Good to know.
Choice of wording aside, Retraining isn't intended for fixing rules mechanics problems. It shouldn't be needed to fix armor proficiency problems. It shouldn't make a difference in how many focus points a character has. And it shouldn't affect whether or not you can take or continue using a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep coming back to it really feels like a Halcyon Speaker who gets booted from the Magaambya for plot/narrative reasons should not lose their Halcyon spells. Since the prerequisite represents for "what you need to learn it" not "what you need to use it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of those seem very dubious readings of the rules even from a purely raw impression and all of those are bad for the game.Sure. And I am going to put that logic at the end of the list.
You can't use Escape while in a Polymorph Battle form like Animal Form.
You get the benefit of the Horse animal companion while not mounted on it.
You are not able to even attempt strength-based Strike attacks against an incorporeal creature.
You will have a different number of focus points depending on which order you take certain focus spell feats.
Neither Harm or Heal will affect a living, but Negative Healing character like a Dhampir, or Revenant.
You can take a feat that you meet the requirements for, then take a different feat that violates the requirements of the first feat and still be able to use both feats.
That is pretty much my point. They are all rulings that follow strict RAW. Well, other than the first two which have gotten errata to fix. But before that, those were strict RAW too. And no, none of them are good for the game.
Strength-based attacks and Incorporeal
Different numbers of focus points
Heal, Harm, and Negative Healing
You can use feats that you don't meet the prerequisites for as long as you violated their prerequisites after taking the feat
Its a prerequisite not a post requisite so your not violating after taking the feat because it only references before you took the feat.
See here for response. I think I have said all that I can.
I believe it's possible for either:
"It's a pre-requisite, not a post-requisite, so as long as you could have taken the feat when you took it, you still have the feat and can use it no matter what."
or
"when you no longer have the prerequisite, you cannot use the feat"
to be what is intended. So when they do errata for RoE I would really like to understand what they intended.
Since as a GM I would allow the Rahadoum character who learns healing at home, and then leaves and finds (a) God to keep their special healing training, and I would allow the Student of Perfection who got kicked out of the Houses of Perfection for pulling a prank on the Dean to keep their Ki Spells. Since those things are "training" as in "what made it possible for you to learn this" not "what is giving you this power." And maybe what allowed you to learn Elemental Overlap (and also Elemental Transformation and Elemental Apotheosis) was "your mastery of the element" not "you didn't know how to use any other elements."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep coming back to it really feels like a Halcyon Speaker who gets booted from the Magaambya for plot/narrative reasons should not lose their Halcyon spells. Since the prerequisite represents for "what you need to learn it" not "what you need to use it."
Well yeah, I assume that's why you picked that example instead of some of the others.
It makes less sense though if you look at feats that, for instance, give divine benefits because of a relationship to a deity though.
But making sense isn't a requirement for rules elements anyways.
Since as a GM I would allow the Rahadoum character who learns healing at home, and then leaves and finds (a) God to keep their special healing training
Worth noting that godless healing isn't special training for when you heal, it's your ability to be healed, even by divine characters or characters with no special training of their own. Clearly a supernatural effect to some degree. The followup feat does improve your own healing, but still relies on an interaction (or lacktherof) with divine magic. It's clearly not just training.
Plain language examples help a lot.
Not especially. The plain language argument is, after all, manufactured in such a way as to make your premise the only possibly valid one by constructing a scenario where any other answer is nonsensical. In other words, it's working backwards from a conclusion and using analogy to avoid the actual point of topic. It's helpful as a tool of obfuscation, but not analysis.
If you don't like a logical argument then consider a utilitarian one. This feat is there to patch the weakness of a single gate kineticist.
Exactly, and a character who takes a second gate at level 9 is no longer a single gate kineticist.
Both from a logical and utilitarian perspective, it is clearly out of bounds to allow a dual (or triple or quadruple) gate kineticist to have a feat that, in your words, "is there to patch the weakness of a single gate kineticist."
Whether you fork early or late is a preferential choice made for build or narrative reasons, but it does not entitle you to sidestep existing restrictions.
We don't need to 'nerf' this because single gates are already behind the power curve of the base dual gate class.
Not really. Expand gives you more things than Fork does, in terms of vertical progression it's the superior unless you don't value your remaining junctions and don't value your remaining impulses.
And even if we accept the premise that single gate kineticists are behind the curve, giving one of their best unique features away to dual gate kineticists is obviously only going to exacerbate the problem.
It does seem possible that they recognized "if you ever plan to have a second element, the time to do that is first level".
A single gate that forks at level 5 is behind the dual gate that expands since the former has only their impulse junction and the latter can have one of 10 different junctions including that impulse junction. Some of the impulse junctions may be undesirable- metal's impulse junction is kind of weak, and if you plan to use Lava Leap a lot, the earth impulse junction is weak (as it's a smaller circumstance bonus).
The single gate that forks at 9 is even further behind the dual gate that doesn't fork, since the former has the impulse junction and one other junction from their original element and no junctions for the latter, but the latter can stack two junctions from different elements so like "two auras that stack" or "two sets of resistances" (this is stronger than it seems, since at 17th level you can have immunity to fire, cold and electricity/poison).
So it's possible that they recognized that the mono-element character needed a boost specifically at the middle levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A single gate that forks at level 5 is behind the dual gate that expands since the former has only their impulse junction and the latter can have one of 10 different junctions including that impulse junction. Some of the impulse junctions may be undesirable- metal's impulse junction is kind of weak, and if you plan to use Lava Leap a lot, the earth impulse junction is weak (as it's a smaller circumstance bonus).
Again that's contriving a scenario where a player is a victim of circumstances they created and then implying it's somehow happenstance.
Supposing I want to make a water/metal build but don't want the metal impulse junction... I make choices to not take that junction at level 1. If I did, however, want the metal impulse junction, then I make choices to give me that ability.
What I don't do is jam a stick in my own bicycle spokes by taking the junction I don't want and then cursing the perfidiousness of fate for putting me in this position when I crash.
So it's possible that they recognized that the mono-element character needed a boost specifically at the middle levels.
It's not just possible, it's literally the purpose of the feat, given that it provides a unique benefit to mono-element characters. That's just what it does.
What's less clear is that they intended it to be a boost for two, three, or four element kineticists who structured their build in a certain way, and if Paizo did intend that they should probably issue some errata clarifying that so it works properly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The strongest support for any argument here comes from the retaining rules which VERY clearly state the following which expresses the intent of how prerequisites are meant to function which also contradicts/destroys the argument/exploit that some folks try to bandy about saying that you can retrain Skill Training but retain the Feats:
If you cease to meet the prerequisites for an ability due to retraining, you can’t use that ability.
So, there you have it, unless you want to try to split hairs and say that this specific lock-out function for abilities you have that you no longer meet the pre-reqs for ONLY applies if you happen to undergo the process of Retraining, then here is it plain and simple. You can't use abilities if you fail to meet prerequisites of said ability, full stop, the reason it probably isn't spelled out so clearly (unlike how it was stated in PF1) is that circumstances where you no longer meet pre-reqs are FAR more uncommon now that Ability Damage and Drain doesn't exist which was able to functionally disable ALL SORTS of Feats in PF1 which was by design, they never replicated that kind of text in the general pre-req rules probably because they assumed that kind of thing wouldn't really be possible or in other words, a lack of futureproofing.
Pre-reqs are not a one-and-done thing, they are constantly checked at each and every moment you could or would use an Ability or option that the pre-reqs apply to, if you don't meet them the Ability does not function. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a RAW-hound and try to read things and interpret them as they are written but here I see absolutely zero room for interpretation to say that Abilities can ever continue to function if you fail to maintain the pre-reqs.
|
|
The strongest support for any argument here comes from the retaining rules which VERY clearly state the following which expresses the intent of how prerequisites are meant to function which also contradicts/destroys the argument/exploit that some folks try to bandy about saying that you can retrain Skill Training but retain the Feats:If you cease to meet the prerequisites for an ability due to retraining, you can’t use that ability.So, there you have it, unless you want to try to split hairs and say that this specific lock-out function for abilities you have that you no longer meet the pre-reqs for ONLY applies if you happen to undergo the process of Retraining, then here is it plain and simple. You can't use abilities if you fail to meet prerequisites of said ability, full stop, the reason it probably isn't spelled out so clearly (unlike how it was stated in PF1) is that circumstances where you no longer meet pre-reqs are FAR more uncommon now that Ability Damage and Drain doesn't exist which was able to functionally disable ALL SORTS of Feats in PF1 which was by design, they never replicated that kind of text in the general pre-req rules probably because they assumed that kind of thing wouldn't really be possible or in other words, a lack of futureproofing.
Pre-reqs are not a one-and-done thing, they are constantly checked at each and every moment you could or would use an Ability or option that the pre-reqs apply to, if you don't meet them the Ability does not function. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a RAW-hound and try to read things and interpret them as they are written but here I see absolutely zero room for interpretation to say that Abilities can ever continue to function if you fail to maintain the pre-reqs.
No need to use words such as "exploit". I believe the people who think it works are in perfect good faith.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exploit doesn't have to carry negative associations really, heck, the best Spellcasting Class in PF1 was entirely centered around features named Exploits.
An exploit is taking advantage of a loophole or a corner case in a rules-legal manner, I don't believe this is one such instance as I can't find any rules that in any way support the position that you can/should ignore pre-reqs after taking an Ability/Option, in fact, everything I've seen thus far flies in the face of that and provides context clues that this kind of thing is not to be allowed. The trompe l'oeil strat in PF1 was an exploit, a legit one to be certain and scummy but it was valid despite most every sane GM to be familiar with it or who encountered it to houserule that it's too silly and broken for their game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not let this conversation devolve into arguing about euphemisms or lack thereof.
If you want to call the concept of pre-planned and scheduled Retraining of Armor Proficiency into Sentinel Dedication a 'lifehack' instead of an 'exploit'... sure. But I'm not sure what difference it actually makes. It still isn't an ideal that the game system should aspire to. Planned Retraining should be an oxymoron. That it is needed for Armor proficiency seems like a bug, not a feature.
I am of the opinion that the clause in the retraining rules apply specifically to the retraining rules (i.e. to prevent you from retraining away a prerequisite you took for another feat) and do not apply generally. It says "if you cease to meet the prerequisites due to retraining" not "if you cease to meat the prerequisites" in a general sense.
I am absolutely of the opinion that if you take Elemental Overlap at 8th level and fork the at at 9th, you cannot retrain your 8th level feat to be "Elemental Overlap" because of the rertraining rules.
I just don't think that "making choice A at level 8, and choice B at level 9" should ever make choice A stop functioning without specific clear language that it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am absolutely of the opinion that if you take Elemental Overlap at 8th level and fork the at at 9th, you cannot retrain your 8th level feat to be "Elemental Overlap" because of the rertraining rules.
Amusingly, if you are running under your ruling that you only need to meet the prerequisites when you take the feat, then as a level 12 character retraining your level 8 feat to something that you violate at level 9 is completely acceptable. When Retraining you only need to make choices that you could make at the level that you are making the change at. So making a level 8 change would only look at your other level 1 - level 8 choices. Not your level 9 choice.
If you retrained something at level 6 that invalidates a choice made at level 8, then the level 8 feat would no longer work because of the Retraining rules.
And it is debatable if making a Retraining change at level 9 that invalidates the prerequisites of a level 8 choice would cause the level 8 choice to stop working or not.
And things like this are why those of us opposed to the idea are considering it to be problematic.