Retraining basic attacks

[Keenath]

I guess it depends on whether multiclassing feats and paragon path multiclassing count as retraining.


PHB p.28 says, under Retraining:
"When your class table tells you to replace a power you know with a different power of a higher level, that doesn’t count as retraining—you can still retrain an additional feat, power, or skill as normal."

Thus, I would think, any replacement other than what you're told to do by your class table, does fall under the Retraining rules, including multiclassing.

It goes on:
"Power: You can replace a power with another power of the same type, of the same level or lower, and from the same class..."

Paragon Path Multiclassing says:
"11th level, you can choose to replace one of your at-will powers with an at-will power from your second class."

That is a specific exception to the part of the rule that retraining can only retrain from the same class, but it doesn't let you bypass the type and level limits.

Basic Attack has no level, thus you can't exchange it for any power that does have a level.

 

[Bagpuss]

You Paragon Path is part of your class table. It's right there on page 29.

 

[Skyscraper]

Was this really worth a thread?

Sky

 

[N0Man]

They made no change to the multiclassing. So at 11th level with Paragon Multiclassing you could swap one of your 1st level At-Will Attack Powers for a higher level rogue utility At-Will.

But would you want to? The 1st level At-Will Attack Powers are pretty good really. Might be worth doing as a human with your bonus one, but if you want an At-Will Rogue power, pick it up with the feats since the At-Wills still count as Encounter/Daily or Utility Powers as well.

This is clearly not how it is intended to work...

The powers you obtain, based on level, are clearly marked as a specific number of at-wills, encounter powers, utility powers, and daily powers (P. 29).

Utility powers all are defined as usable at-will, per encounter, or daily, but they are still Utility powers, and still count towards your Utility powers and only your Utility powers. They are their own group of powers, and they don't count against, nor are they re trainable substitutes for your existing at-will, daily, or encounter powers.

 

[Benly]

I hope you realize that a special hell awaits those trying to argue (silly) things (in 4E) by invoking 'RAW'?

Repent, I say! Recognize the error of your ways and leave this path to certain doom while you still can!

I think more people need to realize there's a difference between saying "it seems to work RAW" and "because it works RAW, you should let me get away with it in your game". In this case, I'm pretty sure the point of saying "it works RAW" is "there is a problem with the rules as written that needs fixing".

Pointing out problematic things that work RAW is valuable because it means the rules as written can be changed to avoid them and possibly also avoid things where the intent is perhaps not so clear as in this case.

 

[Stogoe]

No, it's not valuable. It's nitpicking 'gotcha' behavior, and it assumes that games won't have a GM.

 

[urzafrank]

Benly did you read the OP? "why I would recommend swapping Ranged Basic Attack if you can afford to." Please explain how this is " In this case, I'm pretty sure the point of saying "it works RAW" is "there is a problem with the rules as written that needs fixing".


It is QUITE clear that this is very useless or worse abusive.

 

[Benly]

Well, maybe I'm more generous with the benefit of the doubt than most (or than I ought to be). Nonetheless, whatever the intent of the original post, it does seem to work RAW, which means (since the stunt is so absurd) that there is a problem with the RAW which needs to be looked at and addressed.

What it comes down to is that if something patently absurd and gamebreaking works with the RAW, and the only argument against it working with the RAW is "this is absurd and gamebreaking", it sends up a red flag that something about the RAW at least needs clarification
and at worst needs outright fixing because if it lets that kind of shenanigan through, who knows what else will slip quietly through the cracks.

 

[Chen_93]

No, it's not valuable. It's nitpicking 'gotcha' behavior, and it assumes that games won't have a GM.

However, the rules seem to be heading towards a MTG type feel where everything is well and completely specified. Ideally you'd WANT this to be the case so that the rules as written were the same as the rules as intended. It IS nitpicking but when you design a set of rules there should NOT need to be interpretation of the rules. They should be written in a such a way that there is no ambiguity in them. Just like Dillitante was re-worded so as not to be able to get other than level 1 at will powers, the same SHOULD be done with this. I doubt anyone actually let Half-Elves take other at will powers, but it was still clarified.

 

[ff6shadow]

You know, it's funny thought. This got me to reread the section and you could multiclass into paladin and trade an at-will for Divine Challenge or Lay On Hands. Or into wizard and trade for a cantrip. Or out of wizard into something else and trade a cantrip for an attack.

I'd never allow it, but it is funny to look at.