"Unless stated otherwise, retraining costs gp equal to 10 × your level × the number of days required to retrain."
"Retraining hit points takes 3 days and requires you to spend time at a martial academy, monk monastery, or with some kind of master of combat who is at least one level higher than you. At the end of the training period, increase your hit points by 1."
A 2nd level character with 20hp could spend 60gp to increase his hp total by +1 (+5%); a 10th level character with 100hp would spend 300gp to increase his increase his hp total by +1 (+1%). Paying increasingly large amounts for increasingly small benefits makes little sense, (I'd say none, except as a way to ensure all characters don't just routinely buy their way to maximum hit points -- and if they put in the time and money, why is that an issue?)
Is there (or should there be) errata that either:
- charges a flat rate for +1hp increase, by removing character level from the equation?
- grants +1hp per character level at the end of the training, again keeping the cost per hit point flat?
No. In all retraining cases there are diminishing returns, but your income rate goes up as well.
If you are going to base it on percentages, you should include the increased rate of income (WBL) also.
level Cost WBL %
1 30 1000 3%
2 60 3000 2%
3 90 6000 2%
4 120 10500 1%
5 150 16000 1%
6 180 23500 1%
7 210 33000 1%
8 240 46000 1%
9 270 62000 0%
10 300 82000 0%
No. In all retraining cases there are diminishing returns...
I don't think this is true. Retraining feats, domains or class levels is an even exchange. Gaining hit points is one area that is always a net gain, but the value of that gain steadily diminishes.
..., but your income rate goes up as well. If you are going to base it on percentages, you should include the increased rate of income (WBL) also.
However, this is a reasonable point.
I'm still not sure I agree with it -- even if my cost always worked out to 0.5% of my WBL no matter what level I was when I retrained hit points, the 1 hp gained is a much smaller benefit at upper levels than at lower levels.
If I were buying longevity at the rate of Xgp per day of added life, I would expect the cost of a day to be fixed, not based on my income level. The value of "one more day" might be seen by some as dimishing over time since each new day represents a smaller percentage of my total lifespan than each previous day, though most people would probably just consider each new day to have equal potential value. It seems unfair to continuously increase cost when value remains the same, and even more so to make the cost inversely proportional to the value.
Keep in mind that this is the only retraining where you actually GAIN anything. All other retraining also costs more/level, but you just trade stuff, you don't gain anything.
This is a typical mechanic of all games. I don't understand the issue.
The one thing I don't like about retraining is that it's the only cost that is prohibitively higher for a class with a high baseline hit die to begin with.
Say a wizard and a barbarian both roll average on their HP (4 and 7, respectively). The wizard can spend six days maxing his HP while the barbarian has to spend fifteen days to do the same.
It would be nice if the HP gained by retraining took into account your hit die. For example, each training period lets you add one third of your maximum hit die, rounded down.
You can retrain hit points only if your maximum hit point total is less than the maximum possible hit point total for your character.
That way a wizard and rogue would gain 2 HP per session, the fighter would gain 3 HP per session, and the barbarian would get 4 HP per session.
If I were buying longevity at the rate of Xgp per day of added life, I would expect the cost of a day to be fixed, not based on my income level. The value of "one more day" might be seen by some as dimishing over time since each new day represents a smaller percentage of my total lifespan than each previous day, though most people would probably just consider each new day to have equal potential value. It seems unfair to continuously increase cost when value remains the same, and even more so to make the cost inversely proportional to the value.
To retrain you need a trainer of a higher level. Their time is worth more than a lower level dude. Pay him his fees and be happy he isn't charging more. If he is charging more than you feel it is worth, don't do it.
Sidenote: If you were literally buying extra days of life in the real world, expect to pay on a sliding scale of exactly everything you could manage to pay. Because that is how much people will charge you. They know they got you for everything you are worth, and will extract it from you. That is how people work. Whether you expect them to or not, people will take advantage of you.
Honestly, I think it would be easier to just swap in fixed hit points as the standard (and rolling for them as an optional rule, I suppose), and make "retraining" hit points unavailable and irrelevant. It seems like the better idea if you care about keeping everyone at a playable hit point total.
I'm a fan of hit die maximum -3 for standard games or hit die maximum -2 for games with few PCs or a lot of new players, personally.
I'm a fan of hit die maximum -3 for standard games or hit die maximum -2 for games with few PCs or a lot of new players, personally.
We've been using a houserule we call "sunny side of average" where you simply add the average HP roll each level, rounded up. D6s get 4 HP, D8s get 5, D10s 6, D12ss get 7 and so on.
I'm a fan of hit die maximum -3 for standard games or hit die maximum -2 for games with few PCs or a lot of new players, personally.We've been using a houserule we call "sunny side of average" where you simply add the average HP roll each level, rounded up. D6s get 4 HP, D8s get 5, D10s 6, D12ss get 7 and so on.
While better than rolling randomly (ugh; can we kill this sacred cow already?), I think that doing it that way is a bit unkind to people with a d10 hit die and really unkind to someone with a d12 (especially the barbarian, who has little AC and usually needs those hit points, at least IME). The "rounded-up" half point is a smaller percentage chunk of a d10 or d12 as compared to a d6, as well.
While better than rolling randomly (ugh; can we kill this sacred cow already?), I think that doing it that way is a bit unkind to people with a d10 hit die and really unkind to someone with a d12 (especially the barbarian, who has little AC and usually needs those hit points, at least IME). The "rounded-up" half point is a smaller percentage chunk of a d10 or d12 as compared to a d6, as well.
I'll use a D6 class and a D12 class to compare, since that's where the anomaly you noted is most visible. It also exists for D8 and D10 classes, but it's less prevalent.
Assuming average HP rolls a 10th level wizard would have 35 HP from his hit die, and the barbarian would have 65. The HP ratio between the two classes is about 1.85-1.
With my system the wizard has 40 and the barbarian has 70, which as you notes means the ratio goes down to about 1.75-1. If we want to keep the ratio intact and the wizard has 40 HP, the barbarian should ideally have 74 HP. If I were to instead give the barbarian 8 HP per level the HP ratio between the two classes goes up to an even 2-1, which is a larger deviation from the original balance.
I could stipulate that the barbarian gets 7.5 HP per level, but I wanted it to be quick to grasp and easy to use, so messing with decimal HP values or adding odd and even numbers every two levels seemed unnecessarily complicated. Since I was the one who came up with the system and suggested introducing it it into a game where I was not the GM, I wanted to stick as close to the original ratio between classes as possible.
Conversely, using your system (Max die -3) the 10th level wizard would have 30 HP and the barbarian would have 90 HP. The barbarian gained 25 HP and the wizard actually lost 5 HP. The ratio between the two classes went from 1.85-1 to 3-1.
If we instead use max die -2 the 10th level wizard would have 40 HP (gaining 5) and the barbarian would have 100 HP (gaining 35). The ratio would be 2.5-1.
All that said, yes. Fixed hit points is one of the relatively few things I think 4th edition got right and I really wish Paizo had borrowed it. The retraining rules for HP are a patch, and a poor patch at that.
Indeed, max-3 gives a d12 class more than the decimal issue takes away; I'm okay with that though, since hit points are supposed to be one of the advantages of being a barbarian (one of the few classes with a d12 at all). In other words, the wide gap of base hit points between a wizard and barbarian in our system is completely intentional. :)
For d8 classes it's a wash (you wind up with base 5 either way), and most classes are sporting d8's, so most of the time it's even with your system (which is identical to the PFS system, which is what I generally compare it to).
Indeed, max-3 gives a d12 class more than the decimal issue takes away; I'm okay with that though, since hit points are supposed to be one of the advantages of being a barbarian (one of the few classes with a d12 at all). In other words, the wide gap of base hit points between a wizard and barbarian in our system is completely intentional. :)
For d8 classes it's a wash (you wind up with base 5 either way), and most classes are sporting d8's, so most of the time it's even with your system (which is identical to the PFS system, which is what I generally compare it to).
I'm fine with barbarians getting some extra HP as well, but in this case I was introducing it to another GM (who can be a bit of a hardass) so I wanted to m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ make it as fair and "close to RAW" as possible while still cutting out the cancer that is randomized HP. If some classes get HP increases it could complicate things like challenge ratings and adventure path encounters.
However as long as the system works for you I'm all for it :)
Toughness is a worthwhile feat, and spending a small bit of change to essentially gain that benefit, instead of having to pick up the feat, sounds like a good trade to me.
As for HP values...in my game, everyone has a minimum amount of HP they can gain, based on their hit die.
A d6 is 2
A d8 is 3
A d10 is 4
A d12 is 5
That ensures that larger hit dice accrue more HP than smaller ones, but also keeps open the possibility of rolling more than their average.
This could also be done as 1d4+2, 1d6+2, 1d8+2, 1d10+2, or 1d6, 1d6+2, 1d6+4, 1d6+6.
Toughness is a worthwhile feat, and spending a small bit of change to essentially gain that benefit, instead of having to pick up the feat, sounds like a good trade to me.
Unlike Toughness the benefit is not fixed though - as far as HP goes training is just as likely to be a tax as a feature. A 10th level fighter with poor luck can wind up with a measly 10 HP, or a wizard can roll well and wind up with 60 HP.
Let's say the aforementioned 10th level fighter wants to train to get average HP for his class (55 HP). He'd need to retrain 45 HP, which would take 135 days and cost him 13 000 GP. And that's not him getting a benefit, that's him trying to catch up with the curve.
Toughness is a worthwhile feat, and spending a small bit of change to essentially gain that benefit, instead of having to pick up the feat, sounds like a good trade to me.Unlike Toughness the benefit is not fixed though - as far as HP goes training is just as likely to be a tax as a feature. A 10th level fighter with poor luck can wind up with a measly 10 HP, or a wizard can roll well and wind up with 60 HP.
Let's say the aforementioned 10th level fighter wants to train to get average HP for his class (55 HP). He'd need to retrain 45 HP, which would take 135 days and cost him 13 000 GP. And that's not him getting a benefit, that's him trying to catch up with the curve.
That's not an issue with retraining, it's an issue with character class hit dice.
That's not an issue with retraining, it's an issue with character class hit dice.
An issue retraining was intended to solve...
Retraining Hit-Points.
Keep in mind that this is the only retraining where you actually GAIN anything. All other retraining also costs more/level, but you just trade stuff, you don't gain anything.
This is a typical mechanic of all games. I don't understand the issue.
Not true. :-)
Retraining New Language.
/cevah
Didn't realize that. But there isn't a whole lot of mechanical advantage to more languages. The spirit of my point still stands.
level WBL Cost % Cost*Level %*Level
10 82000 300 0% 3000 3.7%
A magic item with CON +2 costs 4000gp and gives you +10HP. With retraining HP you get +10HP and you keep an magic item slot free. I dont see a problem.
That's a good analysis.
You analysis is wrong. For the first level WBL is not 1000gp. It is something between 10 and 300gp depending on your class. You start with 1000gp for the 1st level but this is the WBL for the 2nd level.
lvl |WBL |costs per HP |% of WBL |costs |hp*level % of WBL
1 35 to 175 30 17-85 30 85 - 17
2 1000 60 6,0 120 12,0
3 3000 90 3,0 270 9,0
4 6000 120 2,0 480 8,0
5 10500 150 1,4 750 7,1
6 16000 180 1,1 1080 6,8
7 23500 210 0,9 1470 6,3
8 33000 240 0,7 1920 5,8
9 46000 270 0,6 2430 5,3
10 62000 300 0,5 3000 4,8
20 880000 600 0,1 12000 1,4
With the correct WBL everything looks good. With a higher level retraining of HP gets cheaper and cheaper compared to your WBL.