FAQ updated:
Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.
k
Actually, in a lot of places an alternate wording may actually take up less space.The Design Team needs to hire munchkins so that FAQ responses can be worded to handle every possible interpretation. This response is still full of glaring holes.A faq with a terrabyte or more amount of text within it kind of defeats the purpose.
Like this place. The new wording is 1 sentence and is far better than the paragraph that came before it.
You don't get it. There's no such thing as "every possible interpretation". No matter what you put up in rules, there will be somone making a corner argument. In fact the more text you put up, the greater the amount of corner arguments. You rapidly reach a point of inverse diminishing returns, when your text actually starts generating more arguments than it solves. Look how many multi-hundred post threads have been spawned out of a couple of added sentences!Actually, in a lot of places an alternate wording may actually take up less space.The Design Team needs to hire munchkins so that FAQ responses can be worded to handle every possible interpretation. This response is still full of glaring holes.A faq with a terrabyte or more amount of text within it kind of defeats the purpose.
Which is why you use less words.
seebs, it was a debate for a long time that was finally settled by this FAQ.
- Gauss
ike this place. The new wording is 1 sentence and is far better than the paragraph that came before it.
so true.
It also means that they understood what the problem was and addressed it directly, instead of doing convoluted rules for lot of other things and not addressing the problem. The whole "lets nerf free actions to everything because weapon cords are badly designed" come to mind.
I would say heck no. The point of retraining isn't as I understand it to make it possible to sidestep prestige class and feat prerequisites.
Considering how weak most Prestige Classes are either way, I'd allow it.
Now the faq also prevent you for retraining from fighter 10/Hell Knight 1 to fighter 5/hell Knight 6 witch instead should be possible. Bad wording.
Round five, go design team ^_^
Like I said, pick level X, rebuild from there along legal, level by level lines. No muss, no fuss, and no strange exceptions where things are done at levels you could not otherwise achieve them at.
Alas, it is just my fantasy (house-rule) and is not the FAQ. :)
- Gauss
Like I said, pick level X, rebuild from there along legal, level by level lines. No muss, no fuss, and no strange exceptions where things are done at levels you could not otherwise achieve them at.
Alas, it is just my fantasy (house-rule) and is not the FAQ. :)
- Gauss
That has a lot of fuss too. It forces you to keep notes of everything you took at each level, including skill popoints, which is a lot of book-keeping.
For example, let's say I'm a ranger 2, fighter 1, rogue 2, assassin 5. I have my 5 ranks in stealth. I want tp retrain one rogue level into fighter. Did I pay 1 rank of stealth per level? Or did I pay 5 ranks in my last rogue level?
Do you have enough skill points up through level 5 to meet your prerequisites? Yes? Then don't worry about it. However, if you had 4 skills that all had to be 5 ranks and there was not enough skill points to go around, then you have a problem.
In short, your example starts with 12(ranger) +2(fighter) +16(rogue) before assassin levels. Plenty of ranks for 2 Disguise and 5 Stealth.
It ends with 12(ranger) +4(fighter) +8(rogue) also before assassin levels. Also plenty of ranks for 2 disguise and 5 stealth.
Since you have plenty of ranks before and plenty after, don't worry about it. :)
My idea does not require recording when you got your skills, feats, etc. It does require you to be able to show that at each level you are a legal character after your changes.
Ie: Pretend you are building a level 10 character level by level. Make sure that each level is legal before proceeding to the next level.
Frankly, Im not sure why this is not the default method. Until the retraining rules it was pretty much a given that a level 10 character had to be legal at each level.
Note: HPs are an issue since there are no rules on what to subtract when you subtract Hit Dice. They need to provide support for that regardless because even under the current FAQ and rules, there is nothing to say how many HPs you subtract when you retrain a class level.
- Gauss
FAQ updated:
Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.
Oh good, now it's actually nerfed. This means that you can't replace a base class level with a prestige class level even if the base class level was irrelevant in qualifying for the prestige class.
Nice job breaking it, munchkins! : D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why you use less words.You don't get it. There's no such thing as "every possible interpretation". No matter what you put up in rules, there will be somone making a corner argument. In fact the more text you put up, the greater the amount of corner arguments. You rapidly reach a point of inverse diminishing returns, when your text actually starts generating more arguments than it solves. Look how many multi-hundred post threads have been spawned out of a couple of added sentences!Actually, in a lot of places an alternate wording may actually take up less space.The Design Team needs to hire munchkins so that FAQ responses can be worded to handle every possible interpretation. This response is still full of glaring holes.A faq with a terrabyte or more amount of text within it kind of defeats the purpose.
Admittedly, it's not easy to explain "No, you can't use circular dependencies on different prestige classes to get around the 'no retraining to make prestige class levels qualify for themselves' rule.". Which is probably why PDT threw their hands up earlier in this thread and went with "you know what? Fine! No retraining base class levels into prestige class levels at all. You happy now?"
I can't really blame them. English is a hell of a language.
My idea does not require recording when you got your skills, feats, etc. It does require you to be able to show that at each level you are a legal character after your changes.
Ie: Pretend you are building a level 10 character level by level. Make sure that each level is legal before proceeding to the next level.
That is so obviously the most sensible way to do it, it shouldn't surprise you that 'corner cases' will crop up, because rules (apparently) aren't allowed to be simple and clear-cut. :(
Wait, what was so bad about the initial FAQ ruling and first clarification? The second clarification seems to be overstepping a bit.
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gn#v5748eaic9r9h
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.)
Is it safe to assume this would apply to class features as well?
For instance, when my Alchemist reaches level 8, could he retrain a previous discovery into Fast Bombs, or something else that requires being level 8?
I think the common sense way to approach rebuilding rules is:
If you could have made this character from level 1 (without using the rebuilding rules) then the character is valid and can be rebuilt in this fashion.
Anything else is nonsense.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the common sense way to approach rebuilding rules is:
If you could have made this character from level 1 (without using the rebuilding rules) then the character is valid and can be rebuilt in this fashion.
Anything else is nonsense.
Well, apparently the Pathfinder Design Team is being nonsensical. Maybe you should go set them straight. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, apparently the Pathfinder Design Team is being nonsensical. Maybe you should go set them straight. ;)I think the common sense way to approach rebuilding rules is:
If you could have made this character from level 1 (without using the rebuilding rules) then the character is valid and can be rebuilt in this fashion.
Anything else is nonsense.
I didn't really mean the design team. The original language of the restriction was clear enough that I understood the intent to be tantamount to what I stated. It has since, been FAQ'd into being very different from that original understanding. Now to the point where you can't retrain a base class level into a prestiege class level. I think this is really just due to frustration on the part of the rules team dealing with the few, but vocal, jerks that like to pop in and attempt to bend the rules in whatever way is most befitting to them.
To that end, I think frustration has gotten the better of the staff on this, and I think justifiable so.
I think retraining should be viewed as, "Oh, I picked up Vital Strike chain, but I'm a pouncing barbarian. Vital Strike is kind of worthless now, it was probably a mistake. Thankfully I can turn that into Power Attack, Furious Focus, etc because I didn't pick those up for some reason."
I agree with the first and second FAQs. I won't be using the third at my table. I won't allow someone to 'boostrap' every level into a PrC, but in some instances I would allow a player to retrain a level or two into a PrC.
Paladin of Baha-who?,
Here you go:
- GaussNEW LANGUAGE
You can spend time to learn an additional language. It takes 20 days of training to gain a bonus language, and these days need not be consecutive. Each language requires a trainer who shares a language with you and knows the language you want to learn, or a book written in a language you know that explains the basics of the language you want to learn.
The new language does not count toward your maximum number of languages (racial languages + bonus languages from Intelligence + Linguistics ranks). You can train this way only a number of times equal to 1 + your Intelligence bonus.
Oh, well, somehow I thought you meant through some other means. Of course this kind of training can get you more languages -- that's the point of it.
Paladin of Baha-who?, I didn't mean anything. I was answering your question that was a response to deuxhero. :)
Well, OK, I thought HE meant something else.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Wait, what was so bad about the initial FAQ ruling and first clarification? The second clarification seems to be overstepping a bit.
I'd wager they felt the first response shutdown the "using one PrC to qualify for another PrC" that they made the second update to confirm this isn't allowed.
Is it safe to assume this would apply to class features as well?
I'm pretty sure there is a FAQ that does not allow this for Class Features.
kFAQ updated:
Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.
Where is this FAQ? Ultimate Campaign does not have a FAQ yet, and I cannot think of any other book that mentions retraining.
Happler -- Thank you!
I have no idea what you guys mean by "boot strapping." Could you please provide a clear example of the original rulings being abused?
Official Rules Response
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before Ultimate Campaign, you had no official rules for retraining.
After Ultimate Campaign, you had options to retrain, which some players tried to abuse for prestige classes in ways the retraining rules weren't intended.
Limiting retraining rules for prestige class characters solves the abuse problem.
More severe solutions were considered (such as "you can't retrain class levels if you have levels in any prestige class"), but the decision was made to use a gentler ruling.
You shouldn't consider "I can't exploit the new rule in a way it wasn't intended, as it was originally published" to be a "nerf."
Pathfinder Design Team,
Out of curiosity, why not just go with:
"Your character must be legal for the level you retrain it. Your character must also be legal for all subsequent levels after the level you retrain it."?
Example: If you retrain a level 3 ability that ability must be legal at level 3 and all subsequent levels must also continue to be legal.
To me, it would avoid abuse and the retrained character wouldn't be any different than one that was built from the ground up. :)
- Gauss
The problem with the original rulings was that while a single prestige class couldn't be used to meet the requirements of that prestige class, one prestige class could still, post-FAQ, be used to meet the requirements of a second prestige class, and vice versa. This allowed the two prestige classes to bootstrap each other, resulting in the same sort of "exploit" the FAQ tried to prevent.
The problem with addressing that specifically is that it is not trivial to formulate a concise, easy to understand, and thorough rule that solves the above problem. You can make the rule, certainly, but if it takes a paragraph (or, worse, a paragraph-long sentence) to express it, the rule is not much use as a significant fraction of the population won't understand it.
So they went with something simpler that happened to stomp on legitimate retraining options. Fortunately, this isn't criminal law, and you can play it the way it was intended before folks like us that love to find corner cases ruined the party.
TL;DR: It is a nerf (despite Pathfinder Design Team's indignant response above), but we had it coming, and there's no reason you can't play it the way it was obviously meant to work.
I'm probably just lazy, but to be honest I don't keep track of what my character had at any given level, so it would require some reverse-engineering if I had to verify that I qualified for what I wanted to retrain at a given point in my character's history.
Pathfinder Design Team,
Out of curiosity, why not just go with:
"Your character must be legal for the level you retrain it. Your character must also be legal for all subsequent levels after the level you retrain it."?
Example: If you retrain a level 3 ability that ability must be legal at level 3 and all subsequent levels must also continue to be legal.
To me, it would avoid abuse and the retrained character wouldn't be any different than one that was built from the ground up. :)
- Gauss
1. "Legal for the level you retrain it" is too ambiguous. It would take paragraphs to resolve what that means to the an inarguable point, and paragraphs for a single rule generally cause more problems than they solve.
2. It requires too much tracking of character history. In the worst case, you may have to deconstruct your character into the various levels that built it up. Pathfinder design tends to encourage character builds that are as simple to assess as possible without such complicated deconstruction. Yes, simple BAB requirements aren't too much to resolve with a single prestige class, but clever players can come up with combinations that give GMs headaches. Preventing that is a Good Thing, and more important than the few cases where someone actually wants to legitimately retrain a base level with a prestige level.
Xaratherus, you wouldn't have to keep track of what your character had at any level. Just make sure the character is legal at that level and subsequent levels.
- Gauss
I'm probably just lazy, but to be honest I don't keep track of what my character had at any given level, so it would require some reverse-engineering if I had to verify that I qualified for what I wanted to retrain at a given point in my character's history.
That was way more concise than my post. This.
blahpers, again, why would it require keeping track of character history. Where in my idea do I state that?
My idea is really quite simple.
Build character as if starting from scratch to the level you want it at.
Compare that build to your current build. Retrain any changes.
- Gauss
Edit: Perhaps mine is just a different philosophy on retraining. I do not believe retraining should allow you to create a character you could not create by building it from the ground up.
If a GM says, make a level 10 character the response should not be: Can I retrain stuff to make this build I could not otherwise make?
It should only be for correcting mistakes in your build, not for coming up with builds that cannot be achieved any other way.
Xaratherus, you wouldn't have to keep track of what your character had at any level. Just make sure the character is legal at that level and subsequent levels.
- Gauss
Which amounts to rebuilding my character from level X (the level of the item I want to retrain) back to level Y (the level I'm currently at) - which, in my opinion, is more work than just tracking all of your character's prior levels.
But I still think both are absolutely unnecessary and not worth the time\effort. I think it's perfectly fine to consider a character legal if, after retraining, the end result is legal. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the work.
I would posit that's exactly why they allow the same thing for fighter retraining - as long as the end result build is legal, then the character is legal - because they felt the alternative (rebuild the character from level X to Y or character archive) was too cumbersome to be worth it.
[edit]
@Gauss: I'm fine with the way the designers have ruled. I believe retraining should work just like the fighter retraining always has.
Can it lead to some optimization? Yeah. But I just don't personally see it as worth it to rebuild your character from a previous level every time that you want to retrain something, and that (or historical tracking of the character over every level) is required for what you're suggesting.