|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More rules are never better. Why needlessly complicate something that works just fine the way it is? The benefit of your proposed change is far outweighed by the hassle.
As for GMs influencing players towards not retraining, that is outside their scope. If there are GMs that are "discouraging" legal character options they need to be reported to the event coordinator, or a Venture officer.
|
I'm here giving feedback that it doesn't "work just fine the way it is." The way it's been introduced, some GM's think it's unethical to use it to just swap out gear.
Sure, there may be people that think this is a problem, or "unethical". However, I am willing to bet this is a very small minority of players/gms. the problem is not as widespread as you may think, and you probably understand that making changes due a minority's opinion would not be a good idea.
Some other legal things I have heard REAL GMs think are "unethical"
1. Witches' slumber hex
2. Spring-loaded wrist-sheathes
3. Summoners (any type)
4. Zen archer/fighter-archer builds
Should we change the rules and ban those too?
In my opinion, eliminating the likelihood anyone will question whether a retrain can be used to just swap gear at full price is probably worth it. Allowing players to feel an untainted sense of continuity with their characters..."priceless."
Part of what makes RPG's enjoyable is the story people create with their characters. Without an IC way to sell gear back at full price below 2nd level, even I can concede a sense of discontinuity creeps in.
I'm sorry. I fully believe the onus is on the player here, not the rules. If character continuity is that important to you, then you come up with a reason why your character got to return his gear. Maybe he got it from the grand lodge stockroom to try out, and got it back within the 30-day test period, you returned it and now it's ready to be picked up by the next lvl 1 adventurer coming though.
If there is a GM giving you problems about the retrain rules, then you point them to the black-and-white section of the 4.3 guide where it explicitly says you can sell back gear at full price. If they are giving you problems about it, then THEY are in the wrong, not you. Just do your changes and move on.
|
|
All changes in equipment have to be documented on the chronicle sheet.
I don't fill out my equipment sections until my first L2 chronicle. Because I might completely rebuild that character. Like, go from explorer/fighter to city-based mage. In which case I'm not going to write down every single iron spike and candle that I'm getting rid of when I'm just starting a new character with full gold. And there's no reason for anyone to complain about that, because the purpose of writing down purchases is to track them--but all you need to know to track characters at 1st level is "1st level rebuild," full stop. GMs don't have to like it. And if one is giving you grief, you say this:
"Well, Bob, I'm sorry you're so upset about this. Not because it's legitimate, but because it's distracting us from our game. But the simple truth is, Bob, it's been explicitly clarified that gear being sold back during a 1st level rebuild is returned for full price. In short, it's not up to you to change that rule, and I'm not interested in being lectured for following the rules. Would you like to move on with the game now?"
Heck, even a messageboard post is sufficient to silence the criticism.
This is the flaw in your reasoning. Nothing will silence the criticism. The people who you are worried about are complaining about an explicitly stated rule. Giving them some kind of in-character justification--especially one that (again IMO) doesn't suit the characterization in question--won't shut them up. Or if it does shut them up, it will just set up some other group to start complaining. Here's another statement that might be useful:
"Bob, I hear what you are saying. You don't like this rule. I'm hip--personally I think the reskinning rules are asinine. But the simple truth is we play in an international campaign with rules that have to apply to everyone, and anyone who can't deal with that is free to go start a home game. So just run the scenario already, will you?"
|
|
Maybe he got it from the grand lodge stockroom to try out, and got it back within the 30-day test period, you returned it and now it's ready to be picked up by the next lvl 1 adventurer coming though.
Here's another thought: It seems pretty silly to me that we have to justify this one tiny little section of the ruling with an IC explanation, but the idea of a character switching from 1st level male elven sorcerer to 1st level female half-orc monk is okay with people.
I'm here giving feedback that it doesn't "work just fine the way it is." The way it's been introduced, some GM's think it's unethical to use it to just swap out gear.
Two additional thoughts: One, GMs calling something unethical isn't a problem with the rule, it's a problem with the GMs. Two, are you aware of the binding messageboard clarification saying that gear can be sold back at full price during a rebuild? If all you need is a messageboard clarification saying "this is okay," there you go.
|
There is some room for abuse in the rebuild process, but it's fairly trivial. I had one character wear hide armor for her first module because she didn't have the cash to purchase a chain shirt. She sold it back and replaced it with a chain shirt for the second module. I believe she sold that back and replaced it with a mithril shirt when she started play at 2nd level.
A point of armor class isn't a big deal and a significant number of players find level 1 to be frustrating and want to get to the relative safety of level 2. You can see this in the number of people who replay the first steps or we be goblins or level 1 modules to get past first level. The Living Arcanis campaign used to offer a rebuild option similar to what is being done in PFS (I think they allowed a rebuild through level 2), but they also gave starting PCs their first three levels of hit points at creation to make low level characters less squishy.
|
|
More rules are never better. Why needlessly complicate something that works just fine the way it is? The benefit of your proposed change is far outweighed by the hassle.The "retrain" rule was just released with the 4.2 guide, like six months ago. I'm here giving feedback that it doesn't "work just fine the way it is." The way it's been introduced, some GM's think it's unethical to use it to just swap out gear.
In my opinion, eliminating the likelihood anyone will question whether a retrain can be used to just swap gear at full price is probably worth it. Allowing players to feel an untainted sense of continuity with their characters..."priceless."
First of all, this post is a living example of my statement "Adding more rules is never better." Granted, I love the new retrain option, especially for new players. But look how much more complicated things are now. How often we get posts asking questions about a rule (retraining) that didn't exist before.
As to your second point, retraining just to change your gear, and doing so only to save money, is against the spirit of the retrain rules. You are not on the moral high ground here, so don't even try that angle. But, as I said before and as others have said, the amount of gold you save by gaming the system like that is miniscule over the long term of the game. And, ethical or not, it is part of the rules in place. Making another rule to clarify the new rule in certain situations is adding needless complexity. Requiring an IC justification for something that happens completely out of character is adding needless complexity.
To put it simply, putting more words in the PFS Guide to Organized Play or the FAQ is bad. More words means more things that are different from Core, more things players and GMs have to remember, and more things that have to be explained to people that don't understand. More "hassle".
No clarification is needed, because nothing in the retrain rules specify that you can't. In fact, several times the campaign leadership has stated exactly that you are allowed to sell your gear for full price as part of the retrain. Adding an IC justification to the guide will not silence those who disagree.
Part of what makes RPG's enjoyable is the story people create with their characters. Without an IC way to sell gear back at full price below 2nd level, even I can concede a sense of discontinuity creeps in.
No one is stopping you from coming up with an IC justification for your own retrain. I have a Magus that I'm retraining as a Lore Warden Fighter. OOC, the magus is more complicated than I'm willing to fiddle with. I didn't have fun playing her, but I think that I will as a Lore Warden. IC, I'm justifying it as she lost her spellbook and took it as a sign from Sarenrae to focus on knowledge of a more mundane sort.
Whatever IC reason you come up with for your characters is fine. Imposing an IC reason on others is not.
If there are GMs that are "discouraging" legal character options they need to be reported to the event coordinator, or a Venture officer.I think reporting GM's for voicing an opinion is probably taking it too far.
I'm sorry. You were the one that insinuated they were doing more than that. You made it seem like they were keeping new players from exercising the retrain option by "expressing their opinions" so antagonistically. A table judge doesn't get to decide what options are legal in PFS. That's been done for him by the campaign staff. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't take it out on the players.
|
I don't fill out my equipment sections until my first L2 chronicle. Because I might completely rebuild that character. Like, go from explorer/fighter to city-based mage. In which case I'm not going to write down every single iron spike and candle that I'm getting rid of when I'm just starting a new character with full gold. And there's no reason for anyone to complain about that, because the purpose of writing down purchases is to track them--but all you need to know to track characters at 1st level is "1st level rebuild," full stop. GMs don't have to like it.
Just make sure that your method takes into account the fact that you can't sell back consumables that you've used (e.g. alchemist's fire) or part-used (e.g. what's left of your quiver of magical arrows).
For the record, you also can't get refunds on any items bought with prestige points.
|
|
Just make sure that your method takes into account the fact that you can't sell back consumables that you've used (e.g. alchemist's fire) or part-used (e.g. what's left of your quiver of magical arrows).
For the record, you also can't get refunds on any items bought with prestige points.
Absolutely. I start marking charges off my heal stick and don't replace those. I haven't yet had a character use up consumables during first level, I don't think, other than wand charges, but that's because anything with consumable use on the horizon I tend to start with a level of GM credit.
Thank you for passing moral judgment on something that is perfectly legal per the rules. You have 100% proven why an IC justification is needed. To eliminate this type of censure.
No, it isn't. Because you can just say "I don't care, it's still legal." People can have any opinion they want about a rule. They can say whatever they want about a rule. You don't have to care about their opinion!
If the rulebook says any PC lower than 2nd level can sell back any gear (excluding used wands, thing purchased with Pretige, or partially used ammunition)...
It already does! I've already linked it for you! The rule is in simple language and it explicitly legalizes the reselling of equipment for full price! It is already done! You want an in-character change which doesn't suit the organization so that you don't have to listen to people complain! But you don't have to listen to people complain! When people start to complain about how they don't like it, print out the clarification I've just linked (again) and STAPLE IT TO THEIR FOREHEADS. Voilá!
|
|
What are people like Mystic Lemur going to say?
If you would read the entirety of my post, you would see that, in my opinion, my opinion doesn't matter. I don't try to influence my players one way or another about the retrain options, I just remind them that they have the option.
In fact, when it comes to the GMs discouraging players from retraining (even just to sell gear), I'm on your side. I just don't feel like the benefit an IC justification for an OOC option is worth the effort. I disagree that an IC justification will have your desired effect.
I don't see how any of that deserves your vehemence. If this is how you react to me, I'd hate to see how you react to someone who actually opposes you on something.
|
|
What are people like Mystic Lemur going to say?
The same thing that people who think Sneak Attack should be limited to once per round say.
People complain about how 'cheap' or 'unfair' some rule is all the time. This would be no different. The DM you are complaining about is not going to stop complaining even if you show him the clarification Patrick has linked, or if it gets printed in the guide itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eliminating any doubt from the minds of first time players that they can recoup the cost of their equipment, imo, is a big deal.
a;klsdjf;alksjdf ;laksdjfl ;kasjdf ;lkjas df
FJUST afs;lk gja;lkdjsfWHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2om2i?First-Level-Retraining-Question#6
ASLDKFJ
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if people don't like the rule. What matters is that those who do not need to retrain their characters should not be made to feel like they are bad people for using that option so that they can stand on a level playing field.
I agree that people should not be made to feel bad for using a legal option. I'm on your side about that, remember? You're the one who thought I was going too far by suggesting those GMs making players feel bad be censured for overstepping their position.
Eliminating any doubt from the minds of first time players that they can recoup the cost of their equipment, imo, is a big deal. If even one person takes advantage of this where they would not have previously, imo, it's worth it.
That's not what the retrain rules were meant for. Being able to "sell back" your equipment is a side effect of the retrain, not the point of the retrain itself. If you feel that selling back equipment for full value is necessary for other players to "keep up" with players who retrain their characters, then that's the issue you need to raise.
And Mystic, there is no "vehemence" on my part you basically rolled a 0 on your forum Sense Motive check. But thanks for your judgmental attitude as it proved my point.
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. If so, I apologize. As for my "judgmental attitude"... Glad I could help?
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Eliminating any doubt from the minds of first time players that they can recoup the cost of their equipment, imo, is a big deal.a;klsdjf;alksjdf ;laksdjfl ;kasjdf ;lkjas df
FJUST afs;lk gja;lkdjsfWHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2om2i?First-Level-Retraining-Question#6
ASLDKFJ
Patrick, I was already aware of the message board post you are linking before I came to this thread. That discussion is in the context of the ooc "retrain." The whole point is to allow full buy back of gear outside the context of an OOC mechanic. I realize you don't care or can't understand why an IC context is needed. No need to keep telling me.
Thanks.
Well, just explain it however you want in-character. Nobody's going to stop you.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with Mystic Lemur and Patrick: there's a rule in place that lets players do something, in this case trade out equipment with some other novice Pathfinder, an NPC. Some GM -- let's call him Fussbritches -- is giving his players a hard time for exercising that rule.
If the next iteration of the guide included "Fussbritches' Rule: It's okay to use this rule to trade out equipment with NPC Pathfinders," that wouldn't matter. Fussbritches would still give his players a hard time. He's not puzzled by the lack of an in-character justification. He just doesn't like the rule.
And the guide is ladled with all sorts of rules, none of which have an in-character justification. What's the justification for PC "permanent" spells expiring at the end of an adventure? For reincarnation not being available? For a character changing its race and gender after its first two adventures?
|
|
The justification as i see it is that there are only so many PFS scenarios you can play and also your time is limited. To give you the best experience as a player and GM, you can change your stuff once on level 1. I think that is a good rule, because it gives you the oportunity to experience or try something or for new players to get a feeling.
Also i thought PFS exists in part to solve this "I don´t like it so i ban it, but i (insert homebrew whatever)" stuff.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every post like this, reinforces why the IC change is needed.
Nope. As you have already been told, the rules aren't written "in character" - they are the rules. And, as you have also been repeatedly told, the rules already explicitly allow it. So if a GM should try to discourage you from exercising a perfectly legal option, tell him what to do with his opinion, and just go ahead and exchange your gear anyway.
You're the only person looking for an in-character explanation of this activity. If it bothers you that much then decline to exercise the option, and enjoy the satisfaction of having stuck with your character concept even though that comes at a measurable cost. But asking for a change to the rules just so you can feel good about exercising a legal option is going a bit far; there are plenty of other questions about the rules for Mike to be considering.
|
|
It is explicitly stated by Mike here. It is also explicitly in the guide that forum clarifications are legal and binding. Since the forum clarification how now been pointed out to you, you should have what you need to proceed.
If your argument is that version 4.4 of the guide should include Mike's clarification in it, then great. Why not.
|
|
Nobody accuses players who exercise their right to buy an item as being unethical as they do with gear exchange.
I've heard quite a few people argue that we shouldn't be able to just buy whatever we want, actually.
The idea that Mike Brock and PFS endorse this attitude is patently absurd. The idea that someone who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to ignore allegations of ethical behavior should therefore end up with a third less wealth, is equally absurd.
I agree. Everyone should feel free to ignore idiotic allegations like this. That being said, the idea of changing the setting to stop these allegations, instead of demonstrating that aforementioned intestinal fortitude? Also absurd.
I've made my points. There's no need to continue to debate them or defend them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I think the more important point here is the GM's behavior. I personally feel that it's inappropriate for a GM to make value judgments regarding a players' valid use of the rules, so long as those rules aren't interfering with the table or hurting anybody else. As a GM, I have encouraged certain players to consider classes and builds other than what they were building. I have encouraged players to purchase or not purchase certain items. None of these, however, are value judgments, and my goal is not to make the player feel bad. If you are, as a GM, trying to make someone feel bad, then I believe you have really lost your way. The GM's highest goal is to provie a fun experience, and bickering about issues like this at the gaming table is *not* fun.
|
This is fundamentally an economic issue. I'll illustrate one last time for those who still aren't clear.Player A and Player B start the First Step series together. Player A does a lot of research and reading and figures out exactly what she wants to play. She builds her character and plays it from 1-3 without needing to "retrain" her character.
Player B doesn't read or research, but just copies one build template from another, using a "retrain" after each mission. Finally, before level 2, Player B just copies Player A's character build.
Going into level 2, Player B has 1250 gp (approximately) with which to guy gear. Player A, who hasn't "retrained" her character only has 400gp (from the last scenario) and whatever gear she could afford along the way. If she sold it all for the first time, she might have 800gp.
So two players who end up at the same place have a 400+gp difference in total gp because one knew what she was doing and the other did not.
Ok, so player B has 400 more gold than player A going into 2nd level. The following week, they both sign up to play a level 1-7 adventure. There are too many level 1 and 2 players, so player A ends up playing with the level 3, 4, and 5 players at the higher level table. Player B gets 500 gold for playing subtier 1-2, and player A gets 1200 gold for playing subtier 3-4. Now player A is ahead by a few hundred.
Different players end up with different wealth a variety of ways. Even within the same subtier, some adventures are worth 100 gold more here or there at low levels, with even higher variation at higher tiers. And different classes have different needs for their money. Fighters need to spend a lot on weapons and armor, while monks don't have such needs.
My point is that the few hundred gp difference really isn't that big a deal... especially since there's a way to avoid it easily in this case, just by using the rebuild rules to trade out your equipment before hitting level 2.
Really, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. There's already a rule that lets you trade out your equipment for full price at level 1 by rebuilding. Clarifying it in character isn't necessary.
As for the people complaining that using this rule is "cheap" or whatever, some people will accuse anyone who uses the rules of the game to their advantage of being a munchkin. If you build certain character types, or use certain archetypes, feats, spells, equipment, or whatever, they think you're being cheesy. We don't need something in the rules that says it's ok for players to use anything that's legal according to the rules. The rules already say that.
|
|
So all this is about a possible 400gp difference at level 2? 0.37% of a character's projected WBL at level 12?
Look, there a lot of rules GMs don't like. Some will give you the hairy eyeball if you use a gunslinger, or multiclass, or a witch's slumber hex, or an animal companion, etc, etc, etc. The rules can't account for every single possible GM's pet peeve.
If you need an IC justification, consider their equipment on loan from the Society:
Any time before level 2, they can return it and check out something else, paying the cost of the item(s) as a deposit.
Upon reaching level 2, they turn in their gear, get back their deposit, and have to start buying their own stuff.
Consumed consumables ("You can't return these, you're missing 6 arrows!" and items bought with Prestige ("We don't even give out wands, you must have got that somewhere else") may not be returned.
|
|
So all this is about a possible 400gp difference at level 2? 0.37% of a character's projected WBL at level 12?
Look, there a lot of rules GMs don't like. Some will give you the hairy eyeball if you use a gunslinger, or multiclass, or a witch's slumber hex, or an animal companion, etc, etc, etc. The rules can't account for every single possible GM's pet peeve.
If you need an IC justification, consider their equipment on loan from the Society:
Any time before level 2, they can return it and check out something else, paying the cost of the item(s) as a deposit.
Upon reaching level 2, they turn in their gear, get back their deposit, and have to start buying their own stuff.
Consumed consumables ("You can't return these, you're missing 6 arrows!" and items bought with Prestige ("We don't even give out wands, you must have got that somewhere else") may not be returned.
Agreed. Let's not turn this into Accounting Society over what amounts to an inconsequential difference.
|
|
Not sure if reported before, but on page 33 it says:
When acting as both the Game Master and coordinator
for an event, you are expected to report the results
of your sessions on paizo.com/pathfindersociety
in a timely fashion. Failing to do so has negative
consequences for Pathfinder Society as a whole (see the
sidebar on page 30).
There is no sidebar on page 30.
