[PFS] How much will it cost to retrain from core rogue to unchained rogue.


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 Venture-Captain, Russia—Moscow

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

A player missed the golden hour for the free retrain. He has a lvl 5 rogue (core) he now wishes to retrain into rogue (unchained).

How much gp and more importantly pp will it cost him?

The way I see it it is a full 5 lvl retrain, taking 25 days, costing 1250 gp and 25 pp.

That seems a bit steep, so I am asking your advice, oh wisemen of the webs.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Has he played the character after april 29th?

If yes, then the retraining costs are correct.
If no, then he can still retrain for free.

Grand Lodge 2/5 Venture-Captain, Russia—Moscow

Thank you.

Yes, he has played after april 29th.

Grand Lodge 1/5

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

The kicker is this: You cannot have enough PP, without boons or being on the slow track for EXP. Assuming max PP per senario and 3 senarios per level, you get 6 PP. At level 5, that means roughly 30 PP, barring spending any on wands and whatnot.

But to retrain from Rogue to [Holder Class] to Unchained Rogue, it would be 10 PP per level.

From the PRD, about Retraining:

Quote:
You can retrain only one thing at a time; you must complete or abandon a particular training goal before starting another one.

This is why the free retrain was very important.

This math is also what Ninjas have to do to become Unchained Rogues.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:
Yes, he has played after april 29th.

Was he simply not aware of the Blog?

If it's something like he showed up to a game, played as normal, then found out about the Blog, I'd let him retrain. Not everyone refreshes Paizo's website hourly.

Have him talk to your VC?

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I second Nefreet, this close to the blog, I would talk to your VC.

Aydin's post is probably technically correct, but probably unnecessarily punitive.

Grand Lodge 1/5

As someone with a high level ninja, I agree that the retraining rules in this case are very punitive.

I also agree that the VC should be the final judge, especially as there is rarely explicit documentation as to when people retrain what.

And yes, with that logic, the player could just retrain for free anyway, but honor system, rules, game, etc.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:
Yes, he has played after april 29th.

Was he simply not aware of the Blog?

If it's something like he showed up to a game, played as normal, then found out about the Blog, I'd let him retrain. Not everyone refreshes Paizo's website hourly.

Have him talk to your VC?

Max is a VC. For Moscow no less. So really it is his call. I agree with Nefreet here. Not every player will keep up with all the blogs and errata that goes up here. (I know I try my best to keep my local player base in the loop as best as I can.)

If we want to be all technical and rules lawyery, that ship did sail for that player. However, I'm of the mindset if that player didn't know about the change, then I wouldn't be opposed to cutting them some slack just this once with a caveat of encouragement that its their responsibility to keep an eye on for any changes and errata provided by Paizo.

Otherwise we're looking at gimping a 5th level character in some gold and mostly prestige for awhile.

EDIT: I just noticed something. You mentioned a rogue from the Core campaign. Note that Unchained material is not legal for Core play. You can do a retrain, but that makes the character unplayable for the Core campaign.

Sovereign Court 1/5

40 bucks.

Or ten if he just wants the pdf.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained the whole time. I saw nothing. Particularly with the language barrier.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

Quote:
You can retrain only one thing at a time; you must complete or abandon a particular training goal before starting another one.

I don't know if that particular clause would hold for a) the Unchained classes and b) for PFS play.

First, when the retraining rules were issued, there were not any "illegal multiclassing" combinations that I'm aware of. I don't know that it was ever the intent of the retraining rules to force you to retrain into a complete third class to move from one version of Rogue to another. That seems very odd.

Second, I don't see in the text where it says how to define a "training goal"? If you define the training goal as "convert 5 levels of X into 5 levels of Y", then you can do it. (The words "training goal" only occur in the paragraph you cited--nowhere else in the book.)

Third, since there's indefinite time between scenarios, you don't ever risk having to play an illegal build. You also don't have to worry about running out of time before you're finished your "training goal".

Grand Lodge 2/5 Venture-Captain, Russia—Moscow

Fox McAllister wrote:


Otherwise we're looking at gimping a 5th level character in some gold and mostly prestige for awhile.

EDIT: I just noticed something. You mentioned a rogue from the Core campaign. Note that Unchained material is not legal for Core play. You can do a retrain, but that makes the character unplayable for the Core campaign.

That is my concern, yes. He did not know about the blog post until I told him about it. He had already played one game with his orgiginal character by that time.

I used rogue (core) to indicate he had no archetypes to complicate the matter even further. Sorry for the mix up my choice of words may have caused.

Grand Lodge 2/5 Venture-Captain, Russia—Moscow

Quadstriker wrote:

40 bucks.

Or ten if he just wants the pdf.

Yes, he bought the book. Specifically to retrain this character.

1/5

Fox McAllister wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Maxim Nikolaev wrote:
Yes, he has played after april 29th.

Was he simply not aware of the Blog?

If it's something like he showed up to a game, played as normal, then found out about the Blog, I'd let him retrain. Not everyone refreshes Paizo's website hourly.

Have him talk to your VC?

Max is a VC. For Moscow no less. So really it is his call. I agree with Nefreet here. Not every player will keep up with all the blogs and errata that goes up here. (I know I try my best to keep my local player base in the loop as best as I can.)

If we want to be all technical and rules lawyery, that ship did sail for that player. However, I'm of the mindset if that player didn't know about the change, then I wouldn't be opposed to cutting them some slack just this once with a caveat of encouragement that its their responsibility to keep an eye on for any changes and errata provided by Paizo.

Otherwise we're looking at gimping a 5th level character in some gold and mostly prestige for awhile.

EDIT: I just noticed something. You mentioned a rogue from the Core campaign. Note that Unchained material is not legal for Core play. You can do a retrain, but that makes the character unplayable for the Core campaign.

I don't think that's a core campaign rogue but the core version of the rogue. Since he references the unchained rogue in the same manner.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

Quote:
You can retrain only one thing at a time; you must complete or abandon a particular training goal before starting another one.

I don't know if that particular clause would hold for a) the Unchained classes and b) for PFS play.

First, when the retraining rules were issued, there were not any "illegal multiclassing" combinations that I'm aware of. I don't know that it was ever the intent of the retraining rules to force you to retrain into a complete third class to move from one version of Rogue to another. That seems very odd.

There were. Ninja/Rogue, Cavalier/Samurai, and (obviously) Paladin/Antipaladin.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

Quote:
You can retrain only one thing at a time; you must complete or abandon a particular training goal before starting another one.

I don't know if that particular clause would hold for a) the Unchained classes and b) for PFS play.

First, when the retraining rules were issued, there were not any "illegal multiclassing" combinations that I'm aware of. I don't know that it was ever the intent of the retraining rules to force you to retrain into a complete third class to move from one version of Rogue to another. That seems very odd.

There were. Ninja/Rogue, Cavalier/Samurai, and (obviously) Paladin/Antipaladin.

Requiring someone to pay double is just being way too pedantic about the rules. If someone wants to train from Rogue to Unchained Rogue, as long as they train all the levels before they play again, I'm not making them also train to a holder class.

I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Not making a RAW argument here, just an observation:

Since there is not retraining synergy, we could handle this like changing an archetype, so the question would be how many class features this actually changes? Is old sneak attack to new sneak attack a change ?

Since this was never considered when the origninal retraining rules were drafted, and you can't retrain one level at a time, since you can't have levels in both classes... there should be some sort of consideration.

Personally just saying 1-2 PP tp retrain from one to the other seems about right, but this really is an issue for the rules team.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Requiring someone to pay double is just being way too pedantic about the rules. If someone wants to train from Rogue to Unchained Rogue, as long as they train all the levels before they play again, I'm not making them also train to a holder class.

I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.

I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.

You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

Extenuating circumstances are a thing. The electrons needed to hit the border, thaw out, and then get translated. That takes time.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

Extenuating circumstances are a thing. The electrons needed to hit the border, thaw out, and then get translated. That takes time.

There is an argument to be made for leniency, especially in regions where not everybody speaks english. That said, I think asking for leniency is better than forgiveness in this case.

And since having a firm rule to handle situations, where players want to retrain from one version of the class to another will be needed anyway, asking for some sane way to retrain from one flavor of rogue/barbarian/monk to another without using another class as a stepping stone seems like the right way to go.

RAW, the player can't retrain, but considering that it was in the blog, which isn't required reading for players and GMs... Ideally the GM of the game he played, that caused this mess, should have told him... but apparently he didn't and might have been unaware of the blog...

It is a tricky situation, and asking for a one time exception, is not usually how these kind of things work, especially since a number of other players would come out of the woodwork and demand equal treatment.

The only thing, that would be fair for everybody, would be to ask the campaign leadership, for something like a general amnesty, and give everybody who has played their character after the cutoff point 1 more chance to retrain (especially since the retraining rules are a bit weird right now.To reiterate, giving the rogue to rogue unchained "super retraining synergy" and allowing them to retrain in one go for something like 1-2 days per class level would be my preferred solution.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Not making a RAW argument here, just an observation:

Since there is not retraining synergy, we could handle this like changing an archetype, so the question would be how many class features this actually changes? Is old sneak attack to new sneak attack a change ?

Since this was never considered when the origninal retraining rules were drafted, and you can't retrain one level at a time, since you can't have levels in both classes... there should be some sort of consideration.

Personally just saying 1-2 PP tp retrain from one to the other seems about right, but this really is an issue for the rules team.

I thought about this too, but decided I just didn't have the time or familiarity with either class to get the math right.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

I'm not saying to ignore a rule. I'm saying that I'm taking intent into account.

This game is a game of rules, true. And largely the advice I give publicly on the boards is conservative towards RAW. However, at some point, you have to look at intent. If you are slave to strict RAW all the time, then this is no longer a roleplaying game. Its a computer simulation. I prefer to play a roleplaying game.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

I'm not saying to ignore a rule. I'm saying that I'm taking intent into account.

And I'm tired of your constant insinuations to be honest.

This game is a game of rules, true. And largely the advice I give publicly on the boards is conservative towards RAW. However, at some point, you have to look at intent. If you are slave to strict RAW all the time, then this is no longer a roleplaying game. Its a computer simulation. I prefer to play a roleplaying game.

Oddly enough, I, for once, agree with Andrew.

But I would also like to remind everyone that Mike has mentioned that he wants to encourage the use of common sense, and I think this is a situation where common sense should override slavish, and, honestly, jerky, adherence to a rule that wasn't designed to handle this kind of situation.

Honestly, worse case scenario should be treating Unchained as an archetype for retraining purposes, or retraining class features, which should reduce the cost down, if necessary, as well.

1st level: Weapon finesse (bonus feat, Unchained, added)
2nd level: no differences
3rd level: Danger sense (trap sense+), Finesse training (Unchained, added)
4th level: Debilitating Injury (Unchained, added)
5th level: Rogue's edge (Unchained, added)

5 class features changed or added, but only one thing modified from CRB Rogue, trap sense to danger sense. So, 5 features, 5 days each, 25 days, 25 PP (still ugly), 1250 gp.

Dark Archive

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

I'm no expert on retraining rules but wouldn't it be better to go Rogue X->Holder X-1, Rogue 1->Holder X-1, Unchained Rogue 1->Unchained Rogue X

More complicated but instead of twice your levels in retraining it would be twice your levels minus one, and would not require you to multiclass rogue+unchained rogue at the same time.

Grand Lodge 4/5

See, then the problem becomes which set of rules are used. Is it an archetype for retraining, or is it a full class? Is there synergy or no? It's easy enough to say "Well, this obviously isn't intended, just use common sense" but I've lived long enough (and seen enough of these very forums) to know that different people have very different opinions on what common sense says. For a whole host of examples just read pretty much any of the long threads in the Rules forum.

What I'm saying is that when a rule isn't sufficient to cover a situation, you should petition for a rules change, not say "Oh, well, that's not what they intended, do this instead." For PFS, that's Mike Brock's job.

In a home game, I'd totally allow a much easier retrain. But in PFS, I really don't want to end up being the "last GM" in someone's "But my last GM let met do it."

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

kinevon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Eric Ives wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.
I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.

Real courts and judges also create an enforceable precedent, and haven't been told repeatedly to stick to what the rules say to avoid table variation.

I think the rule should be changed, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have a VC saying it's okay to ignore a rule when it's inconvenient.

I'm not saying to ignore a rule. I'm saying that I'm taking intent into account.

And I'm tired of your constant insinuations to be honest.

This game is a game of rules, true. And largely the advice I give publicly on the boards is conservative towards RAW. However, at some point, you have to look at intent. If you are slave to strict RAW all the time, then this is no longer a roleplaying game. Its a computer simulation. I prefer to play a roleplaying game.

Oddly enough, I, for once, agree with Andrew.

But I would also like to remind everyone that Mike has mentioned that he wants to encourage the use of common sense, and I think this is a situation where common sense should override slavish, and, honestly, jerky, adherence to a rule that wasn't designed to handle this kind of situation.

Honestly, worse case scenario should be treating Unchained as an archetype for retraining purposes, or retraining class features, which should reduce the cost down, if necessary, as well.

1st level: Weapon finesse (bonus feat, Unchained, added)
2nd level: no differences
3rd level: Danger sense (trap sense+), Finesse training (Unchained, added)
4th level: Debilitating Injury...

Sneak attack is different, since the new sneak attack even works when in areas of concealment.

EDIT: And you might have to change rogue talents...

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Is that a change to sneak attack in general, or a new variation of sneak attack, Sebastian? That is to say, if we have two rogues sneak-attacking the same target-with-concealment, do they both do additional dice of damage, or does does that only hold true for the Unchained rogue?

(If it's the second, then I really wish Paizo had coined a new term for the new ability.)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

FAQ wrote:

Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.

Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.

It is pretty clear, that the CRB rogue does not benefit from this.

Changing the name of sneak attack would have caused complications, but adding the ability to sneak as a separate class feature might have ben an option.

4/5

Max Nikolaev wrote:
Fox McAllister wrote:


Otherwise we're looking at gimping a 5th level character in some gold and mostly prestige for awhile.

EDIT: I just noticed something. You mentioned a rogue from the Core campaign. Note that Unchained material is not legal for Core play. You can do a retrain, but that makes the character unplayable for the Core campaign.

That is my concern, yes. He did not know about the blog post until I told him about it. He had already played one game with his orgiginal character by that time.

I used rogue (core) to indicate he had no archetypes to complicate the matter even further. Sorry for the mix up my choice of words may have caused.

No worries, I wasn't sure if that's what you meant either. At any rate, it looks like almost everyone in this thread (so far) is in an agreement of how to handle this situation. Let the player retrain.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

I think definitely let the player retrain for free, he made a good faith effort to correct it as soon as he found out, but it might be good to get this nailed down in the future.

We now have 3 retraining costs:

25 PP (5 class levels)
30 PP (6 class features)
45 PP (4 holder levels, then retrain 1 level rogue to 1 level unchained rogue and train back the holder levels)

Grand Lodge 2/5 Venture-Captain, Russia—Moscow

Thabk you for your advice, everybody.

And I agree there should be some general rulling on this matter.

I think class feature approach is the wrong way to go: if you look at other unchained classes those numbers diverse greatly.

Barbarian 5 -> Barbarian UCh 5 has only 2 features changed: rage and trap sense/danger sense.
4 if you count the new rage powers as new class features.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jeff Merola wrote:

See, then the problem becomes which set of rules are used. Is it an archetype for retraining, or is it a full class? Is there synergy or no? It's easy enough to say "Well, this obviously isn't intended, just use common sense" but I've lived long enough (and seen enough of these very forums) to know that different people have very different opinions on what common sense says. For a whole host of examples just read pretty much any of the long threads in the Rules forum.

What I'm saying is that when a rule isn't sufficient to cover a situation, you should petition for a rules change, not say "Oh, well, that's not what they intended, do this instead." For PFS, that's Mike Brock's job.

In a home game, I'd totally allow a much easier retrain. But in PFS, I really don't want to end up being the "last GM" in someone's "But my last GM let met do it."

In the absense of ruling from Mike, we interpret as best we can and use common sense.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew and Kinevon agreeing on something? It was a nice run folks, gonna go prep for the apoclypse.... j/k ;)

Grand Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:

See, then the problem becomes which set of rules are used. Is it an archetype for retraining, or is it a full class? Is there synergy or no? It's easy enough to say "Well, this obviously isn't intended, just use common sense" but I've lived long enough (and seen enough of these very forums) to know that different people have very different opinions on what common sense says. For a whole host of examples just read pretty much any of the long threads in the Rules forum.

What I'm saying is that when a rule isn't sufficient to cover a situation, you should petition for a rules change, not say "Oh, well, that's not what they intended, do this instead." For PFS, that's Mike Brock's job.

In a home game, I'd totally allow a much easier retrain. But in PFS, I really don't want to end up being the "last GM" in someone's "But my last GM let met do it."

In the absense of ruling from Mike, we interpret as best we can and use common sense.

Great! How much does the retraining cost?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Another thing, that I feel obliged to mention, is that a rogue from the CRB (without any archetypes, rogue tricks from other sources) is strictly worse than an unchained rogue.
The player in question had no advantage of playing that scenario with the old rogue, in fact his performance might have been significantly improved with the the new version.

4/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Requiring someone to pay double is just being way too pedantic about the rules. If someone wants to train from Rogue to Unchained Rogue, as long as they train all the levels before they play again, I'm not making them also train to a holder class.

I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.

I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.

I don't know that it is the rule. "Training goal" is never defined, so you are applying a definition that is not present in the rules. The way I read it, you and your GM negotiate each training goal so that you can split your training up to work around your GM's adventure schedule.

My single "training goal" is to retrain all 5 levels of rogue into all 5 levels of unchained rogue. I don't see anything in the retraining rules that prevents me from stating that as my training goal. As long as your training goal is not interrupted, you're fine. If you have an indefinite amount of time between adventures, you can't be interrupted.

It's a disagreement on a rules interpretation, not cheating.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Requiring someone to pay double is just being way too pedantic about the rules. If someone wants to train from Rogue to Unchained Rogue, as long as they train all the levels before they play again, I'm not making them also train to a holder class.

I do not believe that was ever the intent, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it.

I doubt it was the intent, but it is the rule. Barring the rule changing or PFS specific ruling being made (which I would really like to see), ignoring it is technically cheating.

I don't know that it is the rule. "Training goal" is never defined, so you are applying a definition that is not present in the rules. The way I read it, you and your GM negotiate each training goal so that you can split your training up to work around your GM's adventure schedule.

My single "training goal" is to retrain all 5 levels of rogue into all 5 levels of unchained rogue. I don't see anything in the retraining rules that prevents me from stating that as my training goal. As long as your training goal is not interrupted, you're fine. If you have an indefinite amount of time between adventures, you can't be interrupted.

It's a disagreement on a rules interpretation, not cheating.

Read the section on class retraining:

Quote:
When you retrain a class level, you lose all the benefits of the highest level you have in that class. You immediately select a different class, add a level in that class, and gain all the benefits of that new class level.

It explicitly goes level by level.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Eric Ives wrote:
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I'm not saying to ignore a rule. I'm saying that I'm taking intent into account.

This game is a game of rules, true. And largely the advice I give publicly on the boards is conservative towards RAW. However, at some point, you have to look at intent. If you are slave to strict RAW all the time, then this is no longer a roleplaying game. Its a computer simulation. I prefer to play a roleplaying game.

This is not to say that I disagree with either of you, I say this as food for thought. One man's "This is perfectly balanced." or "The intent of the rule is clearly A." interpretation is another man's "This is amazingly broken!" or "The intent of the rule is clearly B.".

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:

See, then the problem becomes which set of rules are used. Is it an archetype for retraining, or is it a full class? Is there synergy or no? It's easy enough to say "Well, this obviously isn't intended, just use common sense" but I've lived long enough (and seen enough of these very forums) to know that different people have very different opinions on what common sense says. For a whole host of examples just read pretty much any of the long threads in the Rules forum.

What I'm saying is that when a rule isn't sufficient to cover a situation, you should petition for a rules change, not say "Oh, well, that's not what they intended, do this instead." For PFS, that's Mike Brock's job.

In a home game, I'd totally allow a much easier retrain. But in PFS, I really don't want to end up being the "last GM" in someone's "But my last GM let met do it."

In the absense of ruling from Mike, we interpret as best we can and use common sense.
Great! How much does the retraining cost?

25 PP and the appropriate gold.

1/5

ok if have a problem im playing today (august 13) and I need to know how much it would cost to retrain out of bloodrager and into duelist prestige class I have one level of bloodrager and I cant find anything that helps me. I meet all the requirements of duelist without bloodrager but how much would it cost ive never retrained before so I have little to no clue

The Exchange 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kiren Derkly wrote:
ok if have a problem im playing today (august 13) and I need to know how much it would cost to retrain out of bloodrager and into duelist prestige class I have one level of bloodrager and I cant find anything that helps me. I meet all the requirements of duelist without bloodrager but how much would it cost ive never retrained before so I have little to no clue

sorry to inform you that you are unable to train out of a base class into a prestige class due to this FAQ.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Have you already played a game with the level of bloodrager? (If not, you can just swap it no charge. It is not locked in till you sit down at the table...)

Yeah, no training base classes into prestige classes, because people were being jerks, and kept trying to find ways around the "no bootstrapping" rules. Sorry.

Maybe if you post your build over in advice people can suggest something else you can train bloodrager into that would help with duelist. (Swashbuckler maybe?)

But please start a new thread over there, this thread is about something else entirely.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Disregard, I didn't notice the two updates.*shrug*

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

UndeadMitch wrote:
All that faq is stating is that he couldn't retrain bloodrager into duelist if he needed that level of bloodrager to qualify for duelist.

Doesn't matter.

The linked FAQ wrote:
You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.

1/5

I just need to know the cost?

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kiren Derkly wrote:
I just need to know the cost?

Maybe you haven't realized that you are in the Pathfinder Society section of the message boards?

If this is a character in a home game, then you should ask your GM—retraining is an optional rule that not everyone uses. If your GM uses retraining then they are the one to ask what it costs, both in gold and in a number of days of downtime spent.

If, on the other hand, this is a character for Pathfinder Society, then you cannot retrain levels of bloodrager into levels of duelist. We cannot tell you a cost because it is simply not allowed.

1/5

ok then this is a pfs character and I was going to play today with him but the way I understood the faq was you couldn't retrain out a class that gave you the requirements for that prestige class in this case duelist but bloodrager doesn't affect my character in any way for meeting the requirements of duelist

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Take a look at the FAQ, and in particular at the second update, Kiren.

If you came to my table with a character who had "retrained" a level of Bloodrager to a level of Duelist, I would not allow you to play it, because that character would be illegal on its face.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / [PFS] How much will it cost to retrain from core rogue to unchained rogue. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.