Retraining class levels using new Advance Class Guide classes

[wilder79]

Just wondering when we will get some guidance for retraining old class levels using the new classes that came out yesterday. If we can swap out classes...then my question is specifically how the class synergy will be for them...ie if i have a level of fighter and want to swap it out for swashbuckler...can i?

[Sniggevert]

You can use the retrain rules laid out in the Guide to Organized Play and Ultimate Campaign for retraining a class level for gold and PP, or you can rebuild a 1st level character to a new class. Outside of that, there is no rebuild options in place.

[BigNorseWolf]

Go go Dm protoplasm!

[wilder79]

Yeah my intent with the posting is to make the powers that be aware that an errata is needed to clarify if the new classes will be eligible for retraining...and if so...the synergy chart needs to be updated or at the very least...new guidance needs to be issued

[CRobledo]

In my view, of course the hybrid classes have synergy with its two component classes. I would be hard pressed to find a reason why that would not be the case.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

The point if a playtest is not to find a way to exploit the playtest rules, but to find out how broken either too powerful or too weak they are. Also to make sure rules are understood and not all wonky.

So while retraining into a hybrid class might be able to bypass the multiclassing rules for the playtest, it would eliminate the data they are trying to find.

So rather than doing our best to find every loophole possible. Let's instead try to help with the play test in good faith.

[wilder79]

i fail to see how swapping out a level of fighter for a level of swashbuckler...and actually using the new playtest classes is exploiting the system. if the intent is to see if we would use the new classes and how they hold against what we are already using...then i personally feel we are following the intent.

[The black raven]

Andrew Christian wrote:

The point if a playtest is not to find a way to exploit the playtest rules, but to find out how broken either too powerful or too weak they are. Also to make sure rules are understood and not all wonky.

So while retraining into a hybrid class might be able to bypass the multiclassing rules for the playtest, it would eliminate the data they are trying to find.

So rather than doing our best to find every loophole possible. Let's instead try to help with the play test in good faith.

The point the OP raised is a valid one, that will need to be addressed when the ACG is released. Why do you see it as trying to exploit the playtest rules ?

[Dylos]

The black raven wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

The point if a playtest is not to find a way to exploit the playtest rules, but to find out how broken either too powerful or too weak they are. Also to make sure rules are understood and not all wonky.

So while retraining into a hybrid class might be able to bypass the multiclassing rules for the playtest, it would eliminate the data they are trying to find.

So rather than doing our best to find every loophole possible. Let's instead try to help with the play test in good faith.

The point the OP raised is a valid one, that will need to be addressed when the ACG is released. Why do you see it as trying to exploit the playtest rules ?

I believe Andrew is under the assumption that the OP wants to multiclass Fighter with Swashbuckler by means of retraining.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Dylos wrote:

The black raven wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

The point if a playtest is not to find a way to exploit the playtest rules, but to find out how broken either too powerful or too weak they are. Also to make sure rules are understood and not all wonky.

So while retraining into a hybrid class might be able to bypass the multiclassing rules for the playtest, it would eliminate the data they are trying to find.

So rather than doing our best to find every loophole possible. Let's instead try to help with the play test in good faith.

The point the OP raised is a valid one, that will need to be addressed when the ACG is released. Why do you see it as trying to exploit the playtest rules ?

I believe Andrew is under the assumption that the OP wants to multiclass Fighter with Swashbuckler by means of retraining.

Yup.

However if he was talking a full retrain, then I'd have no issue with it. As long as the cost is paid per the ultimate campaign retrain rules.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

And keep in mind that the playtest only lasts potentially a limited time. We don't know if we can continue to play the classes between close of the play test and the book going live. So paying tge cost to retrain an established character may have repercussions we are as yet unprepared for.

[noswald]

Remember if you have a level in one of the new classes, alternate classes list, you cannot take the new class, or the other way around as well.

EX: I have a 5th level Fighter and want to take a level of the Brawler class. I cannot retrain one of the fighter levels into the new class, nor can I take a level of Brawler class when I level to 6. If I wanted to make use of the Brawler class, I would have to retrain all 5 levels to Brawler and then I will not be able to take additional levels of Fighter or Monk.

[CRobledo]

noswald wrote:

Remember if you have a level in one of the new classes, alternate classes list, you cannot take the new class, or the other way around as well.

EX: I have a 5th level Fighter and want to take a level of the Brawler class. I cannot retrain one of the fighter levels into the new class, nor can I take a level of Brawler class when I level to 6. If I wanted to make use of the Brawler class, I would have to retrain all 5 levels to Brawler and then I will not be able to take additional levels of Fighter or Monk.

Right, but I think what the OP was asking is if he COULD retrain all his levels. Which I think we all agree is ok. Just super expensive

[noswald]

Carlos Robledo wrote:

Right, but I think what the OP was asking is if he COULD retrain all his levels. Which I think we all agree is ok. Just super expensive

There was another post that I read, that implied something along what I was saying, but I could have read it wrong.

Agreed, if you have the gold and PP to retrain, go for it, but like what was said earlier, this is a playtest and just because there is something you like about a class now, doesn't mean that it will still be there when the book is released.

[LazarX]

wilder79 wrote:

i fail to see how swapping out a level of fighter for a level of swashbuckler...and actually using the new playtest classes is exploiting the system. if the intent is to see if we would use the new classes and how they hold against what we are already using...then i personally feel we are following the intent.

If you had more than one level of fighter before you start this process, then you could not retrain into this class. You can not have fighter and swashbuckler levels in the same character... period.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

The point if a playtest is not to find a way to exploit the playtest rules, but to find out how broken either too powerful or too weak they are. Also to make sure rules are understood and not all wonky.

Given that I agree you with you, then PFS should allow a free retrain into and out of the classes during the playtest period.

History has shown that developers cannot anticipate every possible exploit of a mechanic (read: build) in these types of games. As the classes get higher in level, there will demonstrably more permutations than at low level. Unless players get to see the interaction of these classes at high level an with various multi-class options, they will be missing out on a TON of important and relevant data on whether these classes are "balanced."

I can say that looking at the Investigator class. The fact that one can get a free 1d6 to Linguistics, Spellcraft, and ANY K skill they have ranks in is potentially going to make every skill monkey who doesn't take a 1 level dip seems weak by comparison.

Once again, I strongly urge PFS to allow some sort of one level or multi level rebuild during the playtest. All rebuilds should be reversed at the end of the period. And as a GM, I'm motivated to allow it just so that Paizo/PFS can get good feedback.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

I got the impression from Jason Buhlman's ENWorld interview that the multiclassing thing is more a function of finding out how the class works without similar abilities tainting the results. I expect that the no multiclassing thing may get removed once the book comes out.

For now though, no multiclassing period.

[The black raven]

Well, this point has probably been clarified already, since one could try to retrain Rogue levels to Ninja ever since UCamp went out.

So it is not new, nor specific to the ACG classes.

My guess is that it follows the rules of retraining an archetype as I do not see anything in UCamp's retraining rules specific to alternate classes.

[Ferious Thune]

The OP's question was more than just whether or not a level of Fighter (or all levels of Fighter) can be swapped out for Brawler or another class. The question was whether or not there's Synergy between Fighter and Brawler, for example, or any hybrid class with one of the classes it combined. It's the difference between the retraining costing 7 prestige per level and 5 prestige per level. I don't think the OP was suggesting ending up with a level of Fighter and a level of Brawler, and that's clearly not legal from the play test document.

Right now the only guidance I've seen from PFS is that the play test document is legal, so I assume all of the other rules still apply and retraining is ok, as long as it complies with the rules in the play test document and Ultimate Campaign. I'm going to wait a bit before deciding if I want to go ahead with the one retrain I might want to make, though, just in case.

Personally, I see a benefit to allowing retraining, since one question about these new classes is whether or not a dip into them breaks things when combined with other classes.

[Spaarky]

N N 959 wrote:

PFS should allow a free retrain into and out of the classes during the playtest period.

Once again, I strongly urge PFS to allow some sort of one level or multi level rebuild during the playtest. All rebuilds should be reversed at the end of the period. And as a GM, I'm motivated to allow it just so that Paizo/PFS can get good feedback.

I completely disagree with these points. People work as Tier 1 Judges at Gencon to get the opportunity to retrain for free. PFS should not allow people to retrain their existing characters in and out just to test things. There are plenty of us using gm credit to test high level builds and others building level 1 characters that will rise up in level to test those levels.

[N N 959]

Chris Mullican wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

PFS should allow a free retrain into and out of the classes during the playtest period.

Once again, I strongly urge PFS to allow some sort of one level or multi level rebuild during the playtest. All rebuilds should be reversed at the end of the period. And as a GM, I'm motivated to allow it just so that Paizo/PFS can get good feedback.

I completely disagree with these points. People work as Tier 1 Judges at Gencon to get the opportunity to retrain for free. PFS should not allow people to retrain their existing characters in and out just to test things. There are plenty of us using gm credit to test high level builds and others building level 1 characters that will rise up in level to test those levels.

I'm talking about retraining just for the purpose of the playtest. After the playtest, your character goes back to the way it was with the exception of treasure found or spent.

I'm not suggesting everyone get a permanent free rebuild.

The goal is to find out if the classes have problems. Paizo, through PFS, is trying to crowd-source that problem. Fine...then leverage it. Paizo needs to get info on how these classes function at level 3+.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

For now though, no multiclassing period.

I really wish some classes had multi-classing restrictions.

For example,

one should never be able to multi-class INTO a Wizard.

You shouldn't be able to multi-class OUT of a paladin.

I also think that there should be loss of various powers once you multi-class out.

I know it's a pipe dream but I actually think it would add more consistency/plausibility to the game.

[CRobledo]

There are other ways to test higher level classes without blowing up PFS characters. It would be more effort that it's worth to reset back, etc...

For example, I'm planning to run a group of 4 characters through a module next week, all players playing hybrid classes. (non pfs)

[John Compton]

Ajax Arrowhawk wrote:

Chris Mullican wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

PFS should allow a free retrain into and out of the classes during the playtest period.

Once again, I strongly urge PFS to allow some sort of one level or multi level rebuild during the playtest. All rebuilds should be reversed at the end of the period. And as a GM, I'm motivated to allow it just so that Paizo/PFS can get good feedback.

I completely disagree with these points. People work as Tier 1 Judges at Gencon to get the opportunity to retrain for free. PFS should not allow people to retrain their existing characters in and out just to test things. There are plenty of us using gm credit to test high level builds and others building level 1 characters that will rise up in level to test those levels.

I'm talking about retraining just for the purpose of the playtest. After the playtest, your character goes back to the way it was with the exception of treasure found or spent.

I'm not suggesting everyone get a permanent free rebuild.

The goal is to find out if the classes have problems. Paizo, through PFS, is trying to crowd-source that problem. Fine...then leverage it. Paizo needs to get info on how these classes function at level 3+.

The difficulty arises when one gains several levels in the retrained class, purchases equipment for the retrained class, uses expendables for the retrained class, and then later expects to switch back to the old character as though nothing had happened (with the benefit of gaining several levels). It's a fairly messy process, which is one of the reasons we try to limit free/automatic retraining.

Oh my, it appears you deleted your post. Ah well...

[N N 959]

Carlos Robledo wrote:

There are other ways to test higher level classes without blowing up PFS characters. It would be more effort that it's worth to reset back, etc...

What way would that be? The effort is born by the individual. The feedback would be invaluable. And there is no "blowing up" of PFS characters. You simply make a new sheet that you use during the playtest. Nothing changes from PFS's perspective.

In fact, there is no data that even records what class you are on the chronicle or in the PFS database. the changes would 100% transparent to the records system.

What Paizo/PFS would get is a tremendous amount of valuable data on how these clases funtion at high level and how they interact with other classes. I am of the opinion that a high level Investigator is going to completely trivialize all other skill characters. Wouldn't that be worth finding out?

[Mistress Ashley the Sage]

I can see why they wouldn't want us to retrain willy-nilly into ACGpt classes. For example, it might be legal for a martial/buffing Paladin/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple to retrain a level or two into Skald (the Barbarian/Bard hybrid), and the abilities might be consistent with that PC's chosen role, but this application would be of seriously limited benefit to Paizo's playtest. So, rather than say yes or no on a case-by-case basis, no multi-classing at all seems to be the best policy to keep the playtest focused and helpful.

If retraining multiple levels at once is not allowed, it will make testing higher levels in the limited time frame more difficult.

Ultimate Campaign does not say anything about ways to handle the retraining of anything 'multiply'. That probably means that the intent is not for an "all at once" retraining, but "incremental" retraining.

So, a PFS Fighter 3 / Monk 3 would not be able to retrain ANY of his levels from either class into Brawler. The only way that retraining would work for this PC is to retrain ALL 6 character levels out of Fighter and Monk directly into Brawler in one fell swoop. I don't see that the rules allow for this, though they don't explicitly prevent it, either. That's dangerous and loaded ground to explore, so it's not advisable to try to go there without a clearer directive.

That currently means that the only retraining that is 100% according to Hoyle concerns L1 PCs, but players already have the right to completely redesign their L1 PCs! No help there.

To me, no retraining into any of these classes seems a bit too harsh, and more importantly, counter-productive to the playtest.

As a random example, expending a small fortune in GP/PP to retrain a bare-knuckle / grappling multi-classed Fighter/Monk into a single-classed Brawler would accomplish a few 'goals' that seem to be seen as good things by leadership.

1) The Brawler class would get more playtest opportunities. Without ANY retraining, PFS players would be limited to creating new PCs from scratch. We need the low levels tested, certainly, but if ALL the testing starts at L1 then much of these classes' upper ecehlons will go un- or under-tested. Further, the playtest would be largely undertaken by NEW PFS players. The longer a player has played PFS, the fewer titles they have available to play (for credit). Experienced players may be extremely hard-pressed to play even ONE playtest class into Tier 5-9, let alone 7-11 or Seeker range! PFS is always growing, but do we really want to (partially or completely) exclude its longer- and longest-standing members?

2) The Brawler class would access more and faster mid-to-high-level playtest feedback. As stated above, it might be the ONLY way to get that done.

3) A multi-classed character (which seems to be undesirable from on high) into a single-classed character (which seems preferable to the same target audience).

Maybe that can be, or be part of, the playtest retraining stipulation?

* "Retraining will be allowed ONLY if ALL of the character's class levels are replaced by a single class from the Advanced Class Guide Playtest document."
--- Perhaps that could read "...base class levels..." without becoming distasteful?

* "Retraining into an Advanced Class Guide Playtest class will only be permitted if the character has levels in one (or both) of the ACGpt class's alternate classes."
--- Hopefully, this would prevent PCs from changing their role in the process. If retraining needs to be minimized as much as possible, use "both of" instead of "one of". If the initial relaxation of retraining seems to be working without issue, the language can be changed to "one of" or "either of" to allow more use of these classes during the active period.

Finally, since Antipaladin, Ninja and Samurai do not appear in the Class Retraining Synergy table in Ultimate Campaign, it can be deduced that they are to be treated as identical to their alternate classes, i.e. Paladin, Rogue and Cavalier respectively. That would imply that each ACGpt class would have retraining synergy with both of their alternate classes. However, this seems to be a fairly moot clarification without a directive from Paizo.

[N N 959]

John Compton wrote:

Ajax Arrowhawk wrote:

The difficulty arises when one gains several levels in the retrained class, purchases equipment for the retrained class, uses expendables for the retrained class, and then later expects to switch back to the old character as though nothing had happened (with the benefit of gaining several levels). It's a fairly messy process, which is one of the reasons we try to limit free/automatic retraining.

Oh my, it appears you deleted your post. Ah well...

A simple caveat about purchases being permanent solves that problem. If players want to purchase gear specifically for a class that might be changes or have other modifications, that's their risk.

Other than probability that some people might make a few gear purchases they have to sell back at half price, I'm not seeing a compelling reason not to do this.

Time and time again, problems with classes crop up at higher levels when players zero in on converging benefits that are not apparent at low level. If Paizo wants to do it right...then do it right. Let players rebuild their characters in one of the Playtest characters from level 1.

My post is still there, just changed the Post As person.

[CRobledo]

N N 959 wrote:

A simple caveat about purchases being permanent solves that problem. If players want to purchase gear specifically for a class that might be changes or have other modifications, that's their risk.

Sadly, I think you are putting too much faith in the general player's ability to do this correctly. We already have a large amount of players that incorrectly fill their chronicle sheets, or come to my table with 15 pt buy characters, or gunslingers that can't tell me how much ammo they have left.

There MAY be some way to expand the ability for some PFS characters to playtest higher levels, but I don't think opening it up to the public in general is the solution.

Actually there is already a way, which is to GM. I happen to have a level 5 and a level 3 GM protoplasm hanging around, either which I could now make into a level 3 or 5 hybrid class. And I'm doing it tonight with the level 3.

Another way, play a sanctioned version of Dragon's demand or ANY of the sanctioned Adventure Paths in "homegame" mode. You could clone an existing PFS character, and switch anything you want from him into a hybrid class. Playtest gold.

[Belafon]

Or just play a non-PFS Pathfinder game.

It's a Playtest, not an exclusive early access pass.

[N N 959]

Carlos Robledo wrote:

Sadly, I think you are putting too much faith in the general player's ability to do this correctly. We already have a large amount of players that incorrectly fill their chronicle sheets, or come to my table with 15 pt buy characters, or gunslingers that can't tell me how much ammo they have left.

I think you've already opened the can of worms with a playtest in which you are expecting players to update their characters based on forum updates.

Here are the instructions.

Hypothetical Rebuild rules for Playtest:

Players can rebuild a copy of their PFS characters with a non-multiclass version of one of the new classes. Gear and equipment purchases are NOT part of the rebuild. But gear can be sold normally.

These rebuilt characters shall receive any chronicle sheets which the character would normally be entitled to and are applied to the original character's PFS number. All consequences of playing PFS scenearios/modules/AP's apply as normal, including death.

At the end of the playtest, players are no longer allowed to use the rebuilt copies and must use their original characters with any earned chronicle sheets applying immediately. Any levels earned with the rebuilt character are applied to the original character and any feat/skill/attribute selections which result for new levels may be re-selected for the original character. Any gear/equipment/spent resources are not reversible. But gear purchased during the rebuild may be sold normally.

Quote:

Actually there is already a way, which is to GM. I happen to have a level 5 and a level 3 GM protoplasm hanging around, either which I could now make into a level 3 or 5 hybrid class. And I'm doing it tonight with the level 3.

Sure, but you're talking about getting two orders of magnitude less data.

Quote:

Another way, play a sanctioned version of Dragon's demand or ANY of the sanctioned Adventure Paths in "homegame" mode. You could clone an existing PFS character, and switch anything you want from him into a hybrid class. Playtest gold.

For Paizo, yes. But from PFS' perspective, not so much. How things break out in a home game doesn't speak to how things are going to work in a PFS environment.

Here's how I see it, the consequences of these classes is a MUCH bigger deal for PFS than it is for Paizo in general. In Organized Play, the GM does not have the ability to make corrections to the game. So any wonky or problematic classes are going to be a much bigger problem for PFS than for Paizo. In fact, Paizo really has very little pressure on it to fine tune classes. The Synthesist is a perfect example of why PFS has a greater stake in the outcome.

PFS, not Paizo should be trying to glean as much data from this test as it can and use that data to drive changes that make it easy on PFS. Paizo is not going to feel much blowback if the Investigator blows away the Rogue/Bard because in a home game, you're probably not going to get both.

If PFS and crew want to convince themselves that a level 1-2 test is going to iron out the wrinkles for when these things get taken to level 12, that's their prerogative. But they can experience little discomfort now and avoid a lot of discomfort later.

Grant it, if players are aloud to play their lowbies up to 12 before the ACG goes to print, then hopefully PFS will still get that feedback. But the longer things remain broken in an RPG, the more people you upset when you "fix" them.

[N N 959]

Belafon wrote:

Or just play a non-PFS Pathfinder game.

It's a Playtest, not an exclusive early access pass.

From Paizo's perspective, I think that's fine. But PFS needs to know how it's going to work in the context of PFS.

[BigNorseWolf]

What about training OUT of the classes, one way, should something go horribly wrong?

[Spaarky]

N N 959 wrote:

Belafon wrote:

Or just play a non-PFS Pathfinder game.

It's a Playtest, not an exclusive early access pass.

From Paizo's perspective, I think that's fine. But PFS needs to know how it's going to work in the context of PFS.

Doing what you suggested will be much more of a logistical nightmare than you seem to want to admit. This wasn't allowed in the previous 3 playtests and plenty of data to balance the classes was gathered. Your posts also suggest that these new classes are not being evaluated for PFS. Read some of the posts in the playtest forums the implications are there. I am also extremely sure that there are discussions happening in places you may or may not be aware of and can or cannot access fon the implications of the balancing and implementation of these classes as they relate to PFS. PFS is an extension of paizo and there will be data gathered about these classes of many levels in the pfs setting.

[N N 959]

Chris Mullican wrote:

Doing what you suggested will be much more of a logistical nightmare than you seem to want to admit.

Please enlighten me as to what "logistics" are necessary?

Quote:

This wasn't allowed in the previous 3 playtests and plenty of data to balance the classes was gathered.

You mean like the Synthesist or the Gunslinger or the Heaven's Oracle?

Quote:

Your posts also suggest that these new classes are not being evaluated for PFS.

That's not at all what my post says.

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What about training OUT of the classes, one way, should something go horribly wrong?

You'll have to be more explicit.

[Spaarky]

N N 959 wrote:

Chris Mullican wrote:

Doing what you suggested will be much more of a logistical nightmare than you seem to want to admit.

Please enlighten me as to what "logistics" are necessary?

Quote:

This wasn't allowed in the previous 3 playtests and plenty of data to balance the classes was gathered.

You mean like the Synthesist or the Gunslinger or the Heaven's Oracle?

Quote:

Your posts also suggest that these new classes are not being evaluated for PFS.

That's not at all what my post says.

I guess you missed John's post about the logistics involved so I would suggest you read it. Previous playtests didn't have over 300 venture officers or nearly as many players talking about the implications of these classes and with any test things are going to get missed. If you want to make change go to the playtest forums and post there. I said your post suggests that classes are not being evaluated for PFS because that is what I interpreted from your post and other posts you have made about this playtest. You have made exactly 1 post in the playtest area I would encourage you to focus your energies to providing positive and helpful experience with balancing these classes.

[N N 959]

Chris Mullican wrote:

I guess you missed John's post about the logistics involved so I would suggest you read it.

I didn't miss it, I read it and I responded it to it. The solution is straight forward:

Purchases stick.

Quote:

Previous playtests didn't have over 300 venture officers or nearly as many players talking about the implications of these classes and with any test things are going to get missed.

what role do the VO's play in the play test? Individuals download the sheet. Rebuild a character. Show up with the character and rules at the table. Play. Get a chronicle sheet. Go home. Report on their experiences.

What is the VO doing here?

At the end of the play test, you apply your levels to your original character. Purchases stick.

Where is the VO involved?

Quote:

I said your post suggests that classes are not being evaluated for PFS because that is what I interpreted from your post and other posts you have made about this playtest.

Then let me suggest you reread my posts as you have made the suggestion to me.

Quote:

You have made exactly 1 post in the playtest area

Well, the classes did come out yesterday so maybe you can cut me some slack?

Quote:

I would encourage you to focus your energies to providing positive and helpful experience with balancing these classes.

Thanks for the encouragement.

[JohnF]

N N 959 wrote:

Paizo needs to get info on how these classes function at level 3+.

And Paizo will get that information.

Some groups will run home games with characters starting above 1st level. Some groups will run marathon sessions that will take characters through multiple levels in a day (or weekend, or week ...). And even in PFS some people will use GM credit to start a character above first level. I've got a GM credit baby with 5XP now, and I'm running another Tier 1-5 on Monday; that gives me a 3rd-level character I could play. I'm considering a Warpriest ...

[Caderyn]

Actually being allowed to use the play-test classes in PFS is already a pretty big gesture, as to be honest Paizo will get a ton of feedback from homegames, single and multi session play tests much like mythic did allowing people to attain PFS credit for play-testing new products is already a big step.

It is moderately more work for me as a GM as now I have to keep up to the moment on the play-test classes so I can correctly arbitrate how they function as there is no guarantee the player is remembering to apply all updates as they come out (which will generally be to their disadvantage considering the changes made over the past 2 days).

[Soluzar]

One thing I would like to see is a way to permanently retrain characters into the new classes. I have a barbarian/cleric that I could certainly see as a warpriest. The problem is that the retrain costs are just plain crazy for this type of rebuild. The retraining rules work nice for trading out a feat or two or a skill but at this level is too cost prohibitive.