Questions

[Steel Warrior]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:22 PM, Blue Jay said:

The same level restrictions apply. The general rule for retraining is that you can only replace an option with another option that was available to you at the same time. So, for example, if you want to retrain a maneuver that you originally learned as a 1st-level swordsage, you can only replace it with a different maneuver that you could have chosen as a 1st-level swordsage.

You learn additional maneuvers at higher levels, as shown on Table: The Swordsage. You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. See Blade Magic to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can learn.

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered swordsage level after that (6th, 8th, 10th, and so on), you can choose to learn a new maneuver in place of one you already know. In effect, you lose the old maneuver in exchange for the new one. You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest-level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level.

Wouldn't this then apply to normal PHBII retraining as well?

Because say you are a fighter 6, Swordsage 2, you can pick maneuvers as if you were a 4th level practitioner.

If you are a single-class character, your initiator level equals your level in the class that provides access to martial maneuvers (crusader, swordsage, or warblade). If you lack any martial adept levels, your initiator level is equal to 1/2 your character level.

I will admit the feat retraining does require you to meet the requisite at the level of the feat, so you can't use a 1st or 3rd level feat for fighter's weapon specialization, since it required bab +4.

I think Pathfinder's retraining is more open, that it only requires you to meet the requisite of your current character level.

Edited April 14 by Steel Warrior (see edit history)

[Rudolf]

When you gain a level as a swordsage, you get to replace -A- maneuver. It’s not a top-to-bottom rebuild. The intent here matters, and here’s my interpretation of the intent:

 

-Get rid of a choice that was either bad (poor fit, not fun, whatever) or that stopped working (casting a sleep spell at everything).

 

We’re not against a character fixing a poor choice. But using rebuild rules to dump all your low-level maneuvers/feats/whatevers and replace them with things that your complicated build NOW qualifies for is against the original intent.

[Steel Warrior]

6 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

When you gain a level as a swordsage, you get to replace -A- maneuver. It’s not a top-to-bottom rebuild. The intent here matters, and here’s my interpretation of the intent:

 

-Get rid of a choice that was either bad (poor fit, not fun, whatever) or that stopped working (casting a sleep spell at everything).

 

We’re not against a character fixing a poor choice. But using rebuild rules to dump all your low-level maneuvers/feats/whatevers and replace them with things that your complicated build NOW qualifies for is against the original intent.

Ah, but when you get to 3rd level maneuvers etc, they still require people to meet per-requisites once again. So you can't simply get rid of all your lower level maneuvers. At best you can drop a couple 1st level for 2nd level. And if it's that much of a problem by the time players are level 6 then there are other issues.

DRAGON’S FLAME
Desert Wind (Strike) [Fire]
Level: Swordsage 5
Prerequisite: Two Desert Wind maneuvers

[Rudolf]

Right! So, a halfway good Swordsage player shouldn't need the retraining rules at all, in my opinion. I feel like they mostly exist for new players who are still learning the system.

[Steel Warrior]

10 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

Right! So, a halfway good Swordsage player shouldn't need the retraining rules at all, in my opinion. I feel like they mostly exist for new players who are still learning the system.

True, I have only used PF retraining, because some builds require multiple high level feats at the same level, so that resolves the issue when building a level 6-10 character vs from the ground up. I retrained a 3rd and 5th level feat for 2 feats that required 6th level character to obtain.

Pf Retraining

Can I retrain a feat to replace it with a feat I didn’t qualify for at the level I originally gained that feat?

Yes. As long as the new feat is a valid feat for your current character, you can retrain the old feat and replace it with the new feat.

For example, if you are a 3rd-level rogue who took Improved Initiative at 1st level, you can retrain that feat and replace it with Weapon Focus. Even though Weapon Focus has a prerequisite of “base attack bonus +1” (which means you couldn’t take it as a 1st-level rogue), it is a valid feat for your current level (3rd), and is therefore a valid choice for retraining. (Note: Likewise, the fighter class ability to retrain fighter bonus feats does not require you to meet all of the new feat’s prerequisites at the level you originally gained the feat.)

I had initially thought 3.5 was this way, until I reread the rules recently. To be honest, I never used retraining until I was several years into playing Pathfinder. Although I love the variety and templates that 3.5 offer. I always loved hybrid PF/3.5 games. Especially since there isn't a real PF Warlock or Dragonfire Adept. And some GM's are afraid to touch Dreamscarred Press Psionics and Path of War which are derived from 3.5 Psionics and ToB. due to being considered "3rd party"

Edited April 14 by Steel Warrior (see edit history)

[Divinedragonslayer]

I have a really dumb question that probably is a no. If an elf takes racial weapon familiarity feat at level one can I grab a weapon focus feat for an [ooc=elven weapon]Thin blade, court blade the other one. I'm looking at a court blade myself. Going for court blade to be honest.[/ooc] I'm going to be going for a fighter/elven paragon level 3 continuing down fighter to champion of Corellon eventually. And as a follow up does Corellon's Wrath count as a smite attack?

[Rudolf]

1) Your ooc tags aren’t working for me.

2) You can take weapon focus for ONE elven weapon, not all of them at once. You also need a BAB of +1, so rogue/wizard won’t work.

3) Why would it need to? What’s the future concern?

[Divinedragonslayer]

Okay. Thanks for the information. For the Wrath of Corellon question it's because I didn't know if it qualified for extra smite attack to be honest.

[Rudolf]

So, for that, make a request in the Questions thread, and the mods will discuss. It’s not a ridiculous thing to ask for.

[Grudge]

As someone who plays Swodsage pretty often albeit not multiclassing as @Steel Warrior example had (lvl 4 Warror, lvl 2 Swordsage) I would say that changing of maneuvers in the way he bolded :

"You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest-level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level."

is absolutely essential for the way I play Swordsage at higher levels and I believe it contradicts slightly the way Rudolf sees it. Maneuvers are not exchanged the way spells are where the lvl 1 spell is always exchanged for lvl 1 spell. It is possible to exchange lvl 1 maneuver for any lvl maneuver he can use as long as prerequisites are fulfilled. At higher levels I would barely have any lvl 1 maneuvers left unless they were really good. I would exchange "Clinging Shadow Strike" (lvl 1) for "Strength Draining Strike" (lvl 3) ASAP and that one would kiss its booty goodbye as soon as "Obscuring Shadow Veil" would jump into the picture, because I would definitely have 2 Shadow Hand maneuvers that were prerequisite for it Dance of The Spider (lvl 3) that came into the fold without prerequisites or his "no prereq cousin "Shadow Garrotte".

I won't go into feats because that is a completely different beast but unlike spells as written "You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest-level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level."

 

 

[Rudolf]

What you are describing, Grudge, is the way the Swordsage class works without modifications. We actually agree on that.
 

The earlier question was: How does phb2 retraining work with martial classes? And my answer is: you probably don’t need it at all, because the classes already allow some retraining as you gain levels.

[Steel Warrior]

30 minutes ago, Grudge said:

As someone who plays Swodsage pretty often albeit not multiclassing as @Steel Warrior example had (lvl 4 Warror, lvl 2 Swordsage) I would say that changing of maneuvers in the way he bolded

How I feel when someone @ my name

[Grudge]

The price you pay for being so helpful 🤣, it happens to me 1 a day at most. Twice if we count quotes....dang I missed a good opportunity for @

Edited April 15 by Grudge (see edit history)

[Blue Jay]

On 4/14/2024 at 5:01 PM, Steel Warrior said:

You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest-level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level.

Wouldn't this then apply to normal PHBII retraining as well?

No, they're completely separate rule sets, and they have different restrictions. The PHBII retraining rules don't specifically address maneuver retraining (obviously, because the writers lacked time machines), but the spell retraining rules seem perfectly suitable. Spell retraining says you can only trade out a spell for another spell of the same level, so that restriction is going to apply to maneuvers, as well.

Remember that the PHBII retraining rules are meant as a mercy for players who are unhappy with their earlier build choices. They're not meant to springboard you into a better character build. So, the retraining rules should never allow a character build that couldn't have existed without retraining.

On 4/14/2024 at 6:08 PM, Steel Warrior said:

Ah, but when you get to 3rd level maneuvers etc, they still require people to meet per-requisites once again. So you can't simply get rid of all your lower level maneuvers. At best you can drop a couple 1st level for 2nd level. And if it's that much of a problem by the time players are level 6 then there are other issues.

DRAGON’S FLAME
Desert Wind (Strike) [Fire]
Level: Swordsage 5
Prerequisite: Two Desert Wind maneuvers

There are some loopholes here, though:

1. There are no level restrictions on the prereqs, so it's technically possible to use a higher-level maneuver to qualify for a lower-level one. This means, as long as you swap maneuvers within the same discipline, swapping wouldn't have any effect on your prereq situation.
2. Of course, by strict RAW, the prereqs for maneuvers are apparently only checked when you first learn the maneuver: there's no stipulation that you lose the maneuver if you lose the prereqs. Personally, I feel like we should house-rule this so you do have to maintain the prereqs, but it's not RAW.

[Grudge]

I wrote, rewrote, and tried from several different angles to write this. From the point of fairness, light and jokingly, seriously, but all seemed disingenuous. I will say this. Spells are spells and Maneuvers are maneuvers. This is very far from Spell/Psionic parity. A number of maneuvers and the trees of them are basically based that you will drop lvl 1 versions of certain maneuvers for better counterparts. Every school has such trees from Diamond Mind, Blades tree, Desert Wind Dragon or Flame trees, to Stone Dragons Vices, and endurance trees.

So in my opinion, The Book Of 9 Swords is perfectly balanced as is, and messing it up will just ruin the already precarious balance of that book. If you want to see how that looks loot ar PoW in PF, and not to lie I prefer that almost Dragon Balz BS, but also here are rules clear at level 4 I can change my level 1 Shadow Hand maneuver for level 3 Shadow Hand Maneuver as long as I fulfill all other prerequisites.

Those that think they have found loopholes are more than welcome to come and break me, after all this is a gestalt already, breaking norms is the point and not kneecapping entire way of play.