|
1) I've never played Pathfinder without traits.
2) In my home campaigns before Pathfinder and traits, I always tried to come up with something that was "background" mechanics. In the campaign I ran prior to starting Pathfinder and Kingmaker AP, I gave everyone 1 level of skills from an NPC class and a 1st level only "background" feat. It had to be a feat that you could only take at 1st level, and had to be one that was "because of background". There were quite a few in DnD 3.0/3.5.
3) Traits, in my opinion, represent the two (or 1 or 3 depending on campaign you want to run--just 2 in PFS) most prominent of your background features. The ones that hold the most potential for your character. Typically these will be things that synergize with your character build, but could also just be background stuff.
In your example, Luke's most prominent background features were "Strong with the Force" and "Talented Pilot". Those are the only two that are worthy of mechanical benefits on that list.
So, as unrealistic as it might be for either prodigies who have potential to be awesome at everything, or schlubs who have zero potential for anything, in PFS, every Pathfinder agent has two prominent background features that are worth mechanical benefit.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To keep following through with the Luke Skywalker analogy, let's say his two traits as of A New Hope were "Talented Pilot" and "Strong with the Force".
By the time Return of the Jedi rolls around, though, Luke hasn't been doing much flying lately. Sure, he still is a talented pilot, but that's no longer his defining characteristic. Maybe at that point he retrains "Talented Pilot" into the "Twin" trait, to represent his strong connection to Leia.
His background hasn't changed. But the mechanical way his background is represented *has* changed, to better reflect the development of his character and what parts of his background are influential at that point in time.
I think the "Twin" trait is a particularly good example, because at 1st level (back in A New Hope), Luke didn't even know he *had* a sister! The "Twin" trait would not have made sense for the character at that time. But by the time the campaign moves on to Return of the Jedi, it's a pretty central character point!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other big point Jiggy is making is that there are often options that are not available when the character is created that are perfect for the character when they come out.
To continue using Luke as an example, suppose at the start of the game he has the "Talented Pilot" and "Orphan" traits, to represent his background. He'd love to have something Force-related, but there aren't any traits for that yet.
A few months after the player starts, the "Jedi of Golarion" book comes out, with a new trait called "Strong with the Force". This is a perfect fit for Luke! Unfortunately, he can't retrain it. He then decides to take Additional Traits, because "Strong with the Force" just makes so much sense for his character. However, it turns out he can't even do that because both "Orphan" and "Strong with the Force" are both Family Traits and you can't take two traits in the same category. So he's stuck with the "Orphan" trait, even though there are other things that make much more sense for his character.
That's the problem people are frustrated by.
|
|
But "Twin" never had any mechanical advantages for Luke as of "Return of the Jedi". And any discovery of "Twin" powers came that late in the story-line, they would be more likely to be a feat, class ability, or some sort of story granted boon.
And just because he doesn't pilot much, doesn't mean that his potential to be a fantastic pilot suddenly disappears because he doesn't do it much.
And the whole "brother/sister" thing wasn't truly revealed until quite late in that movie. It is unfair to say that it was a fairly central point of the storyline until 3/4's of the way through the movie.
Perhaps the books that were written really expounded on the power of that relationship. But those books were never part of the Star Wars cannon according to Lucas.
The point being, you don't lose your initial potential just because you don't use it much anymore. The later changes to what is centrally important to a character are more likely represented by a feat, a class ability, or a story granted boon.
|
|
The other big point Jiggy is making is that there are often options that are not available when the character is created that are perfect for the character when they come out.
To continue using Luke as an example, suppose at the start of the game he has the "Talented Pilot" and "Orphan" traits, to represent his background. He'd love to have something Force-related, but there aren't any traits for that yet.
A few months after the player starts, the "Jedi of Golarion" book comes out, with a new trait called "Strong with the Force". This is a perfect fit for Luke! Unfortunately, he can't retrain it. He then decides to take Additional Traits, because "Strong with the Force" just makes so much sense for his character. However, it turns out he can't even do that because both "Orphan" and "Strong with the Force" are both Family Traits and you can't take two traits in the same category. So he's stuck with the "Orphan" trait, even though there are other things that make much more sense for his character.
That's the problem people are frustrated by.
This has been a problem since the first extra book (Advanced Player's Guide) came out.
And if retraining was never allowed in PFS, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
The point being, the developers of Ultimate Campaign decided that Traits were not going to be a part of the retraining rules, and as such, PFS is not currently looking to create a house rule to include them.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In your example, Luke's most prominent background features were "Strong with the Force" and "Talented Pilot". Those are the only two that are worthy of mechanical benefits on that list.
Too bad there wasn't a "Talented Pilot" trait when he was made so he settled for "Decent Sharpshooter", only to see "Talented Pilot" (that he wanted all along) get printed a year later in the same category as "Decent Sharpshooter" so he can never have it, despite it being - as you said - more worthy of mechanical benefit than what he has.
Retraining lets him fix this. His backstory never changed. He just refocused the mechanics around the "right" parts of his already-established background.
|
|
In your example, Luke's most prominent background features were "Strong with the Force" and "Talented Pilot". Those are the only two that are worthy of mechanical benefits on that list.Too bad there wasn't a "Talented Pilot" trait when he was made so he settled for "Decent Sharpshooter", only to see "Talented Pilot" (that he wanted all along) get printed a year later in the same category as "Decent Sharpshooter" so he can never have it, despite it being - as you said - more worthy of mechanical benefit than what he has.
Retraining lets him fix this. His backstory never changed. He just refocused the mechanics around the "right" parts of his already-established background.
There-in lies the problem.
In a shared (organized) campaign world, like this, you should be developing your backgrounds based on available resources. If the "strong with the force" trait isn't available right away, then your guy doesn't have a background of having a stronger than normal potential for using the force.
Luke would be a normal Jedi, instead of one of the strongest ones to come along in quite awhile.
One thing players need to accept, is that there are simply some character concepts that aren't possible with the rules sets you have available to you. And if you do create a character concept that isn't 100% covered by mechanical rules advantages, you have to accept that when that mechanical rules advantage comes available, that your guy isn't that guy. That there is some other guy(s) who will have more potential than your guy, in that particular area.
|
I cannot help but think level 1 rebuilds are what will be used as the justification to leave the rules where they are. It will be considered an unnecessary addition, ignoring all the valid points Jiggy has made.
For what it is worth, I agree with Jiggy.
I also disdain that some people think they are the only ones who are right and roll their eyes at people for doing stuff that is effective. If you really have to ask yourself, "Why am I here when the power gamer is so effective?" Maybe you should put energy into finding/developing/promoting a game where everything is balanced instead of continuing to play a game with an Ivory Tower design philosophy and had little, if any problem with it.
I will be very keen on finding out if this has errata down the road.
I find it funny that I am ok with a player asking a DM to change something. Usually, it us a simple change if approved. Erase one thing and write something in it's place. This is for private campaigns of course. These rebuild rules have me turned off though, now I have to go look up a bunch of rules to figure it out.
|
|
I also disdain that some people think they are the only ones who are right and roll their eyes at people for doing stuff that is effective. If you really have to ask yourself, "Why am I here when the power gamer is so effective?" Maybe you should put energy into finding/developing/promoting a game where everything is balanced instead of continuing to play a game with an Ivory Tower design philosophy and had little, if any problem with it.
Lets leave this argument for another thread. But glad to know that you disdain me.
|
If people are passionate about wanting trait retraining, why not make it exactly the same as feat retraining, including the cost? Very simple to state in the PFS rules, expensive enough to put off people viewing it as a way to 'munchkin', but still allowing those who have their heart set on it to change a PC when the perfect trait comes along in a new book.
Personally I'm not too bothered either way on this topic.
|
The retraining hate, I can't figure it out.
what is so bad about letting someone fix something they don't like, it's expensive, and not something to be done willy nilly.
Honestly, why are people against retraining, what problems does it cause? I'm baffled, and confused.
I think it's too expensive (in pfs), because I know a couple guys who read through the books and took feats of class abilities that sounded "cool" but are actually completely worthless (cha 7 barb, picked up spirit totem cause it's cool sounding, but doesn't actually work)with his build.
Why do you want people who are playing their first character to have worthless class features and be annoyed by it? or have feats that don't matter?
Some of us have system mastery and don't need such things, we're likely only to use it for power, like retraining tribal scars into toughness at later levels, or grabbing a new feat when it's awesome. I think 3 PP would be enough to prevent most people from doing that, because the value simply isn't there.
|
|
I'm against retraining because I wasn't always a person who had system mastery.
As I grew up playing this game, I had to learn how to create effective characters.
The best way to teach folks how to make effective characters, is to let them make the poor choices and live with them. I've been there, done that.
But mostly, I think it is a complication that an organized play campaign doesn't need.
Mike has allowed it, so I will support it as best I can. I won't make it overly tough for someone to do the retraining.
But I will argue against any house rules that people want to add to it, which will just muddy an already murky waters even moreso.
|
I have several traits on characters that I picked I wish could be retrained. My Wizard has Dangerously Curious a trait I wish I could swap out for the Wayfinder Focus from the new Pathfinder Society Primer. At the time I didn't own the Primer and didn't know about the trait.
Traits are about the origin of your character, allowing trait retraining would be like allowing you to retrain where you were born. While you could mask that you were born in the streets and hang out with socialites of Taldor, those lessons you learned on the streets are always with you. I think that might be why they were excluded from the book.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
allowing trait retraining would be like allowing you to retrain where you were born.
No, it wouldn't. It would be like a person still having been born in the same place, but their current personhood is now more strongly influenced by some other life event and less strongly influenced by their birthplace.
It boggles my mind how many people are defaulting to this idea that the only way for a trait to change is for the background event to which it's tied to also change. In real life, people's pasts don't change, but the influence of one aspect of someone's past might diminish and another aspect of their past begins to influence them more promininently. That's what it means to grow as a person. When that's not true of someone — that is, when they go through life continuing to be primarily defined by the same things they've always been primarily defined by — it means they have a developmental disorder.
|
|
I'm against retraining because I wasn't always a person who had system mastery.
As I grew up playing this game, I had to learn how to create effective characters.
The best way to teach folks how to make effective characters, is to let them make the poor choices and live with them. I've been there, done that.
But mostly, I think it is a complication that an organized play campaign doesn't need.
Mike has allowed it, so I will support it as best I can. I won't make it overly tough for someone to do the retraining.
But I will argue against any house rules that people want to add to it, which will just muddy an already murky waters even moreso.
That's fair to a point. Those people ARE being penalized for their lack of system mastery though.
There are a couple of things that change when you make those mistakes in a home game vs when you make them in an OP campaign.
In a home game, the GM adjusts encounters.
In an Op game they can't.
Also, there are a limited number of scenario's you can play in PFS, so "eating" those on a character that you're upset with soome choices of kinda stinks.
|
|
This is the type of concept people are 'hating'. Im pretty sure most people are ok with people fixing bad choices for feats and such. The problem is people are going to further power game options. Its also probably why there is the prestige tax on top of the gold cost....Some of us have system mastery and don't need such things, we're likely only to use it for power, like retraining tribal scars into toughness at later levels, or grabbing a new feat when it's awesome. ...
and as I said in the rest of the quoted sentence, the cost makes it not worth it. I thin they did a good job of stifling that type of action, because the value simply isn't there.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
@Akerlof, I see where you are coming from. I really do. However, I don't think that opening up trait retraining will have significantly more of an impact than any of the other stuff retraining allows.
Your Dawnflower Dervish example above is a good one. However, you mention retraining a class level, a class feature, and an archetype. All of those are specifically allowed by the existing retraining rules! What I didn't see mentioned in your example was retraining a trait, which theoretically should be even less impactful, since traits are supposed to be worth about half a feat in terms of power level.
Adding trait retraining is creating a new rule because we don't like the rules as written, it's not a clarification of something ambiguous, specification of GM permission as allowed by the rules, or concession to the logistics of an organized campaign that allows tens of thousands of people to play together. That lone is enough for me to not support creating this rule.
I think you're right here. I would love to have a PFS ruling to allow trait retraining, but that really would be a "house rule" rather than an errata or clarification. I think for that reason it's very unlikely that the campaign leadership will allow it. I think a better thing to do would be to lobby for a "real rule" either in an errata document, an upcoming supplement such as a Player Companion, or even in a PFS-sanctioned blog post.
|
|
Honestly, why are people against retraining, what problems does it cause? I'm baffled, and confused.Here's what I think people who don't like retraining are worried about:
Say I'm making a dervish dancing magus. But Dervish Dance doesn't come online until 3rd level, so I take my first level as a Dawnflower Dervish. Dex to damage off the bat and I'm powerful right at first level. The trade off is that I'm a level behind on my magus progression.
Now I hit third level, so I retrain that level of bard to magus and pick up Dervish Dance normally. No more worries about reduced magus power, but I've also had the advantage of Dervish Dance from level 1. The tradeoff I made for early power in favor of later power has been traded off for cash and prestige instead.
I want to do as much damage as possible but my arcane pool is small, so I take the Close Range arcana and spam ray of frost to get two attacks a round with a 1d3 damage kicker instead of arcane mark. By 6th level, I'm not depending on the cantrip driven extra attack, so I trade Close Range out for Arcane Accuracy.
Now, kensai are powerful early on, but diminished spell casting and the lack of spell recall hurt. It gets really noticeable at 11th level when a normal magus gets improved spell recall. So I retrain out of my archetype to a normal magus somewhere between 7th level (when I can get medium armor) and 11th (when I can get improved spell recall.) Kensai trades off late build spellcasting power for early build melee power, again I've gotten out of that tradeoff through retraining.
Character building is about making tradeoffs, and munchkins often make extreme tradeoffs in order to dominate in certain areas. These tradeoffs keep a lid on the munchkins. Retraining lets them take long term suboptimal choices in order to dominate in the short term, then change those to the better long term choices when their short sighted choices are tailing off. They can dominate at every stage of the game, and that's...
that's a good response, I guess I can see people being slightly worried about that, but the cost is far from negligible in PP. I think that there are some options that will cause retraining to benefit more than intended, that's true, but I don't think it has anywhere near the catastrophic impact that some believe it will.
Similar to the friendly bison, it's broken, we all know it's broken, people don't use it.
I, personally, don't think it's worth my expenditure of PP for those small short term power increases, I'm sure there are folks who differ. I am talking in munchkin terms here (though I dislike "munchkin" as it implies cheating, not simply powergaming)
Frankly you don't need that extra power at level 2, and the money/PP later has more value.
though, if people are really afraid of those choices, I get that. Thank you for the post, helped a lot in figuring out the animosity.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Retraining at the end of level one is already a house rule though, so it's not lacking for precedent.
Honestly, why are people against retraining, what problems does it cause? I'm baffled, and confused.Here's what I think people who don't like retraining are worried about:
Say I'm making a dervish dancing magus. But Dervish Dance doesn't come online until 3rd level, so I take my first level as a Dawnflower Dervish. ... Now I hit third level, so I retrain that level of bard to magus and pick up Dervish Dance normally.
... I take the Close Range arcana ... By 6th level, ... I trade Close Range out for Arcane Accuracy.
... So I retrain out of my [Kensai] archetype to a normal magus somewhere between 7th level ... and 11th.
Tracking this example. At third level, that's changing a class. 7 prestige, 219 gp. That's a bit of a hit when the best prestige you'll have is 18.
At 6th level, changing a class feature. 5 prestige, 300 gp. Not really a problem, but your total is up to 12 prestige now.
7th level, changing an archetype. Here's the biggy, because you're paying for every feature that got changed. First you're training out of Kensai. That's Fighter Training, Perfect Strike, Weapon Focus, Canny Defense, Diminished Spellcasting, and Weapon&Armor proficiency. 6 abilities, that's 30pp. Train back in the mainline spell recall, knowledge pool, and weapon&armor proficiency for another 15pp. A total of 45pp for the archetype switch.
Combine that all together, and you're at 57 prestige spent for this 7th level character. That's a heck of a lot for your "best at each level" magus.
|
|
allowing trait retraining would be like allowing you to retrain where you were born.No, it wouldn't. It would be like a person still having been born in the same place, but their current personhood is now more strongly influenced by some other life event and less strongly influenced by their birthplace.
And yet... Where they were 'born' still influences their personhood. Being born in a Louisiana Bayou gives you a very different perspective on swamps than being born in a Washington apple grove. The Louisiana person could move to NYC, attend college, become a big shot CEO... Bet they still remember how to catch salamanders. We take things like that with us, and no matter how we change ourselves, if something is profound it stays a part of us. That is all I'm saying Jiggy.
|
|
Hmmm...
Perhaps if we are patient, we'll see this problem resolved in a boon this year.
(I'm in speculator mode today, so...)
Abyssal Transformation: Your experience in the Worldwound's Abyssal Mire has subjected you to the memories, dreams and aspirations of a thousand trapped souls. One of these souls forged an especially strong bond with your mind, forever leaving an imprint while at the same time absorbing one of your long-standing memories. Select one of your two starting background traits - you can now replace that trait with another one. You still cannot have two background traits of the same type.
|
I support the proposal to allow Trait retraining, or some variation on this idea... and would like to answer some common critiques. The wordings below for each segment are 'words to that effect' rather than direct quotes of any one poster here.
"It opens the door to cheese": That door has already been blown open with a battering ram, and I've noticed adventure writers are starting to throw that stuff right back at players as a result. I've seen a few adventures include enemies built exclusively with PC class levels that are designed solely to hit us right back with the stuff some players have been doing to GMs. A sobering reminder that when it comes to an 'arms race' in Pathfinder, the GM can easily decide to win that contest.
I'm not sure what specific harm Trait retraining would do; we already have players running around with overpowered classes. The impact of this decision in regard to 'cheese' seems relatively minor, when weighed against the benefits to character flavor options?
"Traits represent background": That's true. They do, but Trait Retraining allows Traits to fill another role; they can represent character growth. The Additional Traits feat seems to suggest this interpretation isn't wholly out of line. I used it recently on a high-Charisma character to acquire Irrepressible, which I intended to reflect the character's growing obsession with their agenda/plan; sort of a "I grow weary of my mind being toyed with by another's string pulls. I am no puppet, I will see MY goals brought to fruition and not yours!" idea.
Under this interpretation, one could say the Traits instead reflect the most prominent aspects of the character. Maybe they're no longer as devout in their faith to a certain deity... or found another way to express that faith. Perhaps instead of being diplomatic, they're more forceful. Losing a Trait related to Diplomacy to instead reflect this focus on force would thus help convey the character's evolved flavor better.
"It eases how far you have to pre-plan builds:" I agree, and this is one of the biggest reasons I support Retraining. Sure, I plan my builds out pretty far in advance... but not everyone finds that fun or even has the time for it. Retraining eases a burden on the player, making Pathfinder less stressful. "Ok, so I screwed up on that last level-up. Thankfully I've got enough Prestige lying around that I can fix my character instead of writing them off as a loss. Funny what being one feat off in a build can do to invalidate my whole plan...", is something I can see players saying.
I can even see "This trait is even more representative of their past than the previously available options. I want this instead."
|
|
I support the proposal to allow Trait retraining, or some variation on this idea... and would like to answer some common critiques. The wordings below for each segment are 'words to that effect' rather than direct quotes of any one poster here.
"It opens the door to cheese": That door has already been blown open with a battering ram, and I've noticed adventure writers are starting to throw that stuff right back at players as a result. I've seen a few adventures include enemies built exclusively with PC class levels that are designed solely to hit us right back with the stuff some players have been doing to GMs. A sobering reminder that when it comes to an 'arms race' in Pathfinder, the GM can easily decide to win that contest.
I'm not sure what specific harm Trait retraining would do; we already have players running around with overpowered classes. The impact of this decision in regard to 'cheese' seems relatively minor, when weighed against the benefits to character flavor options?
The problem is all the innocent bodies the battle leaves in its wake. Not every PFS player wants to participate in the cheese off. Some just want to have a good time at a modest level of challenge. When you make things harder for the min-max crowd, the more casual crowd loses as a result. If a "half-feat" is just too much to have to deal with throwing off an optimization, then I think you need to calm down a tad. This is also my response to your third point. A character doesn't have to be perfectly optimal to be fun. My cleric reminds me of this all the dang time.
"Traits represent background": That's true. They do, but Trait Retraining allows Traits to fill another role; they can represent character growth. The Additional Traits feat seems to suggest this interpretation isn't wholly out of line. I used it recently on a high-Charisma character to acquire Irrepressible, which I intended to reflect the character's growing obsession with their agenda/plan; sort of a "I grow weary of my mind being toyed with by another's string pulls. I am no puppet, I will see MY goals brought to fruition and not yours!" idea.
The whole point of Additional Traits is to deal with the character's growth in my opinion. Getting rid of an element of where you came from to add in one of what you've done just doesn't make sense. Something has to be set in stone about a character or we just devolve into characters being like Play-doh. They can hold a shape for awhile, but with only a little time and energy we can remold them into anything for the sake of what we want to do right now.
And by the way, this sentiment comes less from being a VC and more just from my being a player.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Getting rid of an element of where you came from to add in one of what you've done just doesn't make sense.
No one is suggesting "getting rid of an element of where you came from", but rather "reducing the mechanical impact of an element of where you came from back down to the same level that all the other elements of where you came from already are".
We're suggesting that after some character development, maybe Zuko can no longer fuel his firebending with rage, but people keep acting like we're talking about retconning away the fact that his father burned his face off for speaking out of turn.
|
|
The problem is all the innocent bodies the battle leaves in its wake. Not every PFS player wants to participate in the cheese off. Some just want to have a good time at a modest level of challenge. When you make things harder for the min-max crowd, the more casual crowd loses as a result.
Every time I see somebody remind the community of this, I smile a little. One of my major concerns with the direction scenarios have been heading.
|
|
Jiggy,
The crux of our argument is this:
If you choose a background element, and you choose that element to have a mechanical benefit, then getting rid of the mechanical benefit is changing that background element.
In essence, our argument is that if you change that element so that it no longer has a mechanical benefit, then you are getting rid of that element, because it is no longer the same as it was before.
What we are saying is: in Pathfinder Society, you get two background elements that are stronger than any other fluff you want to design your character with. These stronger elements have mechanical benefits.
There is no variance by which you can design your fluff to potentially have stronger elements or mechanical benefits above and beyond those two without taking the Extra Traits feat.
Plan your character's background accordingly.
Growth or evolution of character does not change the initial potential or mechanical benefits. If you want to mechanically define that growth or evolution, then there are options (including Extra Traits) that you can use. Retraining a trait is not currently (and I doubt ever will be) one of those options.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a clarification of an ambiguous rule, definition of what "with your GM's permission" means within the campaign, or a ruling to facilitate the logistics of organized play.
Neither are Day Job checks, 1st-level rebuilds, shirt/folio rerolls, or the ability to spend Prestige on things.
What is important enough about trait retraining that warrants a departure from one of the most basic tenets of the campaign?
The same as the justification for 1st-level rebuilds: room for people to say "oops" after they've done some learning, and be able to do something about it. Yes, some people would use it for other purposes, just like 1st-level rebuilds. But also just like 1st-level rebuilds, I think it'll do far more good than harm for the campaign.
Why should Paizo's official campaign second guess Paizo's written rules?
Do you ask this question whenever some of Paizo's written rules aren't allowed in Paizo's official campaign? Rules are published for the broader gaming audience, not just for PFS.
|
|
Why should Paizo's official campaign second guess Paizo's written rules?Do you ask this question whenever some of Paizo's written rules aren't allowed in Paizo's official campaign? Rules are published for the broader gaming audience, not just for PFS.
And PFS only makes changes to the broader set of rules so that they fit within the unique environment of organized play.
They don't make new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players fluff vs. mechanic requirements.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And PFS only makes changes to the broader set of rules so that they fit within the unique environment of organized play.
So, what rule originally existed that got modified to fit within the unique environment of organized play in the form of shirt re-rolls or the ability to spend Prestige?
They don't make new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players fluff vs. mechanic requirements.
Sounds to me like exactly what Day Jobs are: new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players' fluff vs. mechanic requirements.
|
|
What is important enough about trait retraining that warrants a departure from one of the most basic tenets of the campaign?The same as the justification for 1st-level rebuilds: room for people to say "oops" after they've done some learning, and be able to do something about it. Yes, some people would use it for other purposes, just like 1st-level rebuilds. But also just like 1st-level rebuilds, I think it'll do far more good than harm for the campaign.
And there is no change to the first level rebuild rules. If you want to retrain your traits because of lessons learned, you may still do so, at level 1.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe I can "re-focus" back down to what I think the core issue is, getting away from some of the less-than-relevant tangents:
Traits are more in need of retraining rules than almost anything else in the game.
If you don't like a class, you can probably figure that out within your first three sessions and use those rebuild rules.
If you decide you should have bought item X, you still can.
If you decide you should have taken feat X, you still can.
If a new book prints the perfect spell/feat/etc for your concept, you can nab it.
But traits are different. Unlike a class, you might not realize you'd rather have something different until a few levels in. And thanks to the one-per-category rule, there's a very real chance that when you find That Perfect Trait (whether mechanical or concept-based), you'll be incapable of EVER getting it with that character - a limitation not faced with feats or spells or items or whatever.*
The ability to retrain feats and other details is a convenience. The ability to retrain traits would be, in many cases, the only option available at all.
That's why I think it's important.
|
|
I'm sorry, but I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill this time, Jiggy.
There are plenty other options that by your descriptions above you have to live with.
Feats: My paladin wants Fey Foundling now. He can't get it or retrain into it.
Spells: "That Perfect Spell" may get printed but have the [lawful] descriptor and my cleric is chaotic.
Items: There are also items characters *shouldn't* have bought, and the only solutions are either to suck it up and continue with sub-optimal equipment or sell it for 1/2 price and fall behind in gold. There are no "retraining rules" for items.
As you see, it's not just traits.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm sorry, but I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill this time, Jiggy.
The "mountain" effect is just a function of it being on the internet. ;)
As you see, it's not just traits.
Yeah, but a couple of things:
• You weren't forced to buy that expensive-but-bad item at 1st level; you had at least a little time to think over it, thus more chance to consider the decision.• Having a certain item or feat, even a bad one, never prevents you from taking a better one later. Traits can do that.
• In your lawful spell example, the "can't ever take that spell, even if I shift my alignment the allowed one step" situation is a much smaller target to accidentally hit than "can't take that trait because I already have that category".
|
|
And PFS only makes changes to the broader set of rules so that they fit within the unique environment of organized play.So, what rule originally existed that got modified to fit within the unique environment of organized play in the form of shirt re-rolls or the ability to spend Prestige?
I highlighted the pertinent part of my text that makes your statement snarky and invalid.
I didn't mention anything about specific new rules created in the line above. If you are going to line-item snipe at what I write, at least line-item snipe at the correct line of text please.
I hate line-item sniping. It takes out of context an entire thought and only engages with singular thoughts, which then totally derails from the conversation.
They don't make new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players fluff vs. mechanic requirements.Sounds to me like exactly what Day Jobs are: new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players' fluff vs. mechanic requirements.
This is a point where you have absolutely zero experience or information about to make that claim. I can't take this argument seriously if you are going to start making claims on why Day Jobs were created.
Are there a few rules for PFS that don't exist within the regular game? Sure there are. But they are significant rules that are integral to the campaign. Not specifically about fluff vs. mechanic requirements of a few players.
Lets not start trying to equate your specific want of trait retraining to the inclusion of the Fame system and Day Job rolls, eh?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
It really seems like we have two different camps of character design here. The first camp creates a character background and then finds two out of the many potential traits that could fit into that story. The second camp finds traits that fit a character concept, and then design a background based on those traits.
First off, I'm fine with either camp and I've certainly chosen both routes to build characters in the past. And maybe there's more camps than that, but this debate has focused on these two.
The first camp doesn't mind retraining, because there were lots of choices anyway. If they picked "Orphan," but later "Orphaned in Absalom" comes out and that happens to fit better, retraining seems like a no-brainer. They've said this whole time that their character was orphaned in Puddles anyways, so now the mechanics fit their story more. Likewise, if a trait comes out that just highlights a different portion of their backstory, retraining won't fundamentally changed who that character is.
The second camp loathes retraining, because their character was designed based on those traits. Getting rid of a trait means cutting out a portion of their history. Retraining "Eyes and Ears of Abadar" to "Reactionary" means their character never spent any time in a city watch, and now was just some really jumpy kid.
Again, both methods of character design are fine. If you haven't tried the other method, you should. But this thread started out as Jiggy asking about what seems to many people to be an oversight rather than a conscious choice to not allow retraining of traits, and now this is a thread on BADWRONGFUN. Can't we all just get along until we're given an answer? (Because I'd love to hear an answer!)
|
|
I personally don't understand the need of players to design elements of their characters that are beyond the scope of the rules set and/or campaign they are playing in.
And in a home game, if something comes out that fits your character better because orphan was the only option before, but now orphan of Almas fits exactly, then your GM can let you just make that adjustment.
In PFS, we can't do that. And you just have to deal with the fact that your character just has orphan. You can still roleplay that he was orphaned in Almas, but you just don't get the slight twist on the mechanical bonus that orphaned in Almas might give.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And PFS only makes changes to the broader set of rules so that they fit within the unique environment of organized play.So, what rule originally existed that got modified to fit within the unique environment of organized play in the form of shirt re-rolls or the ability to spend Prestige?I highlighted the pertinent part of my text that makes your statement snarky and invalid.
I didn't mention anything about specific new rules created in the line above. If you are going to line-item snipe at what I write, at least line-item snipe at the correct line of text please.
I hate line-item sniping. It takes out of context an entire thought and only engages with singular thoughts, which then totally derails from the conversation.
They don't make new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players fluff vs. mechanic requirements.Sounds to me like exactly what Day Jobs are: new rules to satisfy a subjective want of a few players' fluff vs. mechanic requirements.This is a point where you have absolutely zero experience or information about to make that claim. I can't take this argument seriously if you are going to start making claims on why Day Jobs were created.
Are there a few rules for PFS that don't exist within the regular game? Sure there are. But they are significant rules that are integral to the campaign. Not specifically about fluff vs. mechanic requirements of a few players.
Lets not start trying to equate your specific want of trait retraining to the inclusion of the Fame system and Day Job rolls, eh?
Uh, there must have been a communications breakdown somewhere, because that reply seems really "out of the blue" from my perspective. Sorry about that. Maybe let's just drop that particular sub-topic; I get and accept the validity of the broader "let's not add another rule" camp (even though in this instance I disagree), so probably no need to keep on with this particular rabbit trail, seeing as apparently it's getting jumbled now.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I personally don't understand the need of players to design elements of their characters that are beyond the scope of the rules set and/or campaign they are playing in.
Wait, really? That actually comes as a bit of a surprise; I'd have thought all of your PCs would have backgrounds that were too big to fit into your traits and feats and classes and so forth. That is definitely news to me.
And in a home game, if something comes out that fits your character better because orphan was the only option before, but now orphan of Almas fits exactly, then your GM can let you just make that adjustment.
In PFS, we can't do that. And you just have to deal with the fact that your character just has orphan. You can still roleplay that he was orphaned in Almas, but you just don't get the slight twist on the mechanical bonus that orphaned in Almas might give.
And ultimately, all this thread is about is taking that quote and replying "Let's change that fact".
|
|
I personally don't understand the need of players to design elements of their characters that are beyond the scope of the rules set and/or campaign they are playing in.Wait, really? That actually comes as a bit of a surprise; I'd have thought all of your PCs would have backgrounds that were too big to fit into your traits and feats and classes and so forth. That is definitely news to me.
And ultimately, all this thread is about is taking that quote and replying "Let's change that fact".And in a home game, if something comes out that fits your character better because orphan was the only option before, but now orphan of Almas fits exactly, then your GM can let you just make that adjustment.
In PFS, we can't do that. And you just have to deal with the fact that your character just has orphan. You can still roleplay that he was orphaned in Almas, but you just don't get the slight twist on the mechanical bonus that orphaned in Almas might give.
All my character's backgrounds fit perfectly within the campaign, and yet are more than a set of rules.
But just because Bbauzh might have worked better with some new trait that has come out since I made the character (whether that's in the Orc book or Ultimate Campaign) I don't care. He is what I made him, and I'm satisfied with it. I modified my initial plan for him based on the rules sets I had available to me.
And even if something else might fit him better, it isn't a big deal. Because those choices I made for him at 1st level, are who he's become, and anything else I'd add to him, would not be Bbauzh.