[Proposal]Let Sapo change a useless feat given that I'm stupid and judges forgot that

Voda Vosa · Apr 26, 2010

Well I picked Staff fighting as feat, thinking Sapo could do additional 1d8 dmg with basic attacks. Now Stonegod tells me that I need a power to use the other side of the weapon. Given that Sapo Toa is a monk, she'll never have such powers.
Well I didn't knew that. So I ask to be allowed to retrain the feat or use the extra damage granted by the feat with flurry of blows (which would be nice and themed with a monk if you ask me).

That or carry it till level 2 and retrain it there.

Ozymandias79 · Apr 26, 2010

I vote YES to allowing you to retrain the feat

Kalidrev · Apr 26, 2010

I also vote YES to allow you to retrain the feat.

renau1g · Apr 26, 2010

On one hand I'm sympathetic to your misreading/misunderstanding of the power and the judges not catching that particular error (personally I just looked at it and the spreadsheet version makes it difficult whereas I'd certainly tell on the MBA portion of your summary that 2d8 is incorrect).

OTOH, I'm also leery about using the proposal mechanism to change a feat when we already have the retraining mechanism in place (and allow multiple re-trains/level). I will mull this over.

Voda Vosa · Apr 26, 2010

Well I changed the feat to unarmored defense, since I still lack an approval I think it was legal to do the change prior to this.
Thanks guys.

stonegod · Apr 26, 2010

renau1g said:
OTOH, I'm also leery about using the proposal mechanism to change a feat when we already have the retraining mechanism in place (and allow multiple re-trains/level). I will mull this over.

True, but this is fundamentally a rules understanding not a "I just don't like this feat" issue. The latter should wait for 2nd level, but not the first in my mind.

renau1g · Apr 26, 2010

Agreed, that's why I was considering it, although I s'pose the point is moot right now as VV wasn't approved so made the change. I just don't want the situation to come up where we as judges have to speculate on someone's frame of reference during their reading of the rules so we can ensure that it was indeed a true misunderstanding rather than say a willful misreading of the feat (VV - please know I don't think this of you for a second)