Do you consider character created at any level higher than 1 a power creep? Since by your reasoning, I have feats at level (lets say 5) that are not useful at lvl 1 and I don't have any feats that are really useful at lvl 1 (like toughness and combat casting).
No. And it's an argument well made. Although either the GM is starting at higher level (and so is accepting that characters will be more powerful than those grown organically) or your character has died. If the latter I consider that payment enough (assuming you didn't suicide the character.
Also, this: "..although I don't have high system mastery." which is why you are trading off your Combat Casting and Furious Focus which I consider a very much yes feats even to middling high levels.
Really? I'm not sure for wizards, but sorcerers are quickly able to quickly outstrip the DCs for defensively casting. Furious focus (on a fighter) affects your attack that's most likely to hit. If your not able to confidently get that attack to land without furious focus then your iteratives have no chance.
I am interested in this as well, as when I began at Lvl 1 as a Rogue, I had no idea the direction to take the character. Now that I am more familiar with Pathfinder in general, and specifically the Feat progressions, I would like to retrain a WEapon Focus: Unarmed into a Weapon Focus: Dagger in order to get Slashing Grace. THis will take my 10 Str/ 18 Dex char from worthless outside of Snk Attacks to very viable in combat. My GM is currently mulling it over.
With such an enormous set of rules and so many nuances to character building, I see no problem with retraining Feats to better fit the character you had in mind (but was too unfamiliar with all the rules to completely visualize)
I'd be inclined to let you do it regardless of the retraining rules.
I'd be inclined to let you do it regardless of the retraining rules.
Agreed! It's unfair to say to a player "Oh well, you didn't spend months reading and absorbing the thousands of pages of nuanced rules for your character prior to creating it? TOUGH SHIT."
My humble opinion would be this:
Retraining will be allowed if:
1. If it can make sense in the narrative (ex: trading a WF for another WF when there is a Milita posted in the city would make sense...spend a week with a trainer) and doesn't contradict an event in the overall narrative
2. It does not fundamentally alter the character (like say dropping metamagic feats for weapon finesse or something to change your mage into a melee combatant)
3. It doesn't eliminate a pre-req for another feat you have, obviously.
or
4. The player enjoys the characters personality, but inept leveling is making the character a liability to the party as opposed to an asset.
|
I am interested in this as well, as when I began at Lvl 1 as a Rogue, I had no idea the direction to take the character. Now that I am more familiar with Pathfinder in general, and specifically the Feat progressions, I would like to retrain a WEapon Focus: Unarmed into a Weapon Focus: Dagger in order to get Slashing Grace. THis will take my 10 Str/ 18 Dex char from worthless outside of Snk Attacks to very viable in combat. My GM is currently mulling it over.
With such an enormous set of rules and so many nuances to character building, I see no problem with retraining Feats to better fit the character you had in mind (but was too unfamiliar with all the rules to completely visualize)
A note: You can't take Slashing Grace with a dagger, because it's a Light weapon, not a One-Handed weapon. But, you are correct, that is absolutely one of the intentions of retraining - that you can replace a feat that you don't want with another that you meet the prerequisites for.
A note: You can't take Slashing Grace with a dagger, because it's a Light weapon, not a One-Handed weapon. But, you are correct, that is absolutely one of the intentions of retraining - that you can replace a feat that you don't want with another that you meet the prerequisites for.I am interested in this as well, as when I began at Lvl 1 as a Rogue, I had no idea the direction to take the character. Now that I am more familiar with Pathfinder in general, and specifically the Feat progressions, I would like to retrain a WEapon Focus: Unarmed into a Weapon Focus: Dagger in order to get Slashing Grace. THis will take my 10 Str/ 18 Dex char from worthless outside of Snk Attacks to very viable in combat. My GM is currently mulling it over.
With such an enormous set of rules and so many nuances to character building, I see no problem with retraining Feats to better fit the character you had in mind (but was too unfamiliar with all the rules to completely visualize)
Yep on both points. The retraining section says if "you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability". Slashing grace says "Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon".
I'd be inclined to let you do it regardless of the retraining rules.Agreed! It's unfair to say to a player "Oh well, you didn't spend months reading and absorbing the thousands of pages of nuanced rules for your character prior to creating it? TOUGH S+#%."
My humble opinion would be this:
Retraining will be allowed if:
1. If it can make sense in the narrative (ex: trading a WF for another WF when there is a Milita posted in the city would make sense...spend a week with a trainer) and doesn't contradict an event in the overall narrative
2. It does not fundamentally alter the character (like say dropping metamagic feats for weapon finesse or something to change your mage into a melee combatant)
3. It doesn't eliminate a pre-req for another feat you have, obviously.
or
4. The player enjoys the characters personality, but inept leveling is making the character a liability to the party as opposed to an asset.
I initially thought the retraining rules were originally intended for this exact situation. I was wrong though.
So I'd either have to go with a longsword or some such...that would work though, because my party just found a Keen Longsword +1
Would you think smeone is following the spirit of the rule if they take a feat with the express purpose of replacing it at a higher level?
Sure.
Haven't you ever learned something for a job, or for school, a particular trade, and then didn't use it when you moved to a new position. Then years later tried to do what you knew and not do very well?
That's how I see the retraining. It's skill/talent atrophy, and they learn something new in it's place.
I never look at player motivation on rules, just in character motivation - and it works completely fine from an in character perspective, to me.
Make no mistake, the retraining rules are amazing; they fixed a lot of the things that were wrong with the game. But to say that no power creep came out of it? What exactly is stopping a player from having his character take the Focused Overseer and Craft Wondrous Item feats, making nearly all of his gear for 1/8 the standard market price, then retraining those feats out for something more combat oriented prior to play--essentially octupling one's starting gear over non-crafters for no meaningful investment?
No power creep they said. *rolls eyes*
helps reduce suicide by monster if the player wants to change, but is trapped in their previous character choices.Is this a real concern for DMs? I've never met a group who would force a player to continue playing the same character rather than let the character retire and make a new one.
When a player is dissatisfied with a character, I've almost never seen them simply retire. It almost always comes down to a disruptive suicide by monster scenario.
Then the retraining rules came along, and suddenly those instances became much more rare.
A wand that I get at level 1 and pay for at level 6? I'd happily take that. I can't see many DMs offering it though.
It actually happens on a lot of premade adventures from paizo, every other adventure has a 10-20 charged wand on the first few encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No power creep with retraining? In that case, what exactly is stopping a player from having his character take the Focused Overseer and Craft Wondrous Item feats, making nearly all of his gear for 1/8 the standard market price, then retraining those feats out for something more combat oriented prior to play--essentially octupling one's starting gear over non-crafters for no meaningful investment?
No power creep. *rolls eyes*
LOL The powercreep is with those feats and not retraining. Most downtime rules are axed for me. Simply removing Earn Capital from downtime removes the majority of issues with super reduced prices.
LOL The powercreep is with those feats and not retraining. Most downtime rules are axed for me. Simply removing Earn Capital from downtime removes the majority of issues with super reduced prices.No power creep with retraining? In that case, what exactly is stopping a player from having his character take the Focused Overseer and Craft Wondrous Item feats, making nearly all of his gear for 1/8 the standard market price, then retraining those feats out for something more combat oriented prior to play--essentially octupling one's starting gear over non-crafters for no meaningful investment?
No power creep. *rolls eyes*
Before the retraining rules, you had to invest in no less than three non-combat feats to get that kind of discount, and you'd be stuck with them for your whole career. That's a lot of investment and it should get you a lot of gain. But with retraining? It basically becomes FREE power creep at that point. Now you are no longer required to invest the feat resources to pull it off (at least not for long).
Before the retraining rules, you had to invest in no less than three non-combat feats to get that kind of discount, and you'd be stuck with them for your whole career. That's a lot of investment and it should get you a lot of gain. But with retraining? It basically becomes FREE power creep at that point. Now you are no longer required to invest the feat resources to pull it off (at least not for long).LOL The powercreep is with those feats and not retraining. Most downtime rules are axed for me. Simply removing Earn Capital from downtime removes the majority of issues with super reduced prices.No power creep with retraining? In that case, what exactly is stopping a player from having his character take the Focused Overseer and Craft Wondrous Item feats, making nearly all of his gear for 1/8 the standard market price, then retraining those feats out for something more combat oriented prior to play--essentially octupling one's starting gear over non-crafters for no meaningful investment?
No power creep. *rolls eyes*
It's power creep YOU allowed, so it's hard to feel bad for you. For instance, Sacred Geometry feat is power creep, not the ability that lets you retrain for it.
CWheezy: I agree. Love the retraining rules.
personally, I could care less about 'power creep'. Retraining is a useful role playing tool. When my campaign started, my character was an apprentice at a smithy. He had traits and feats in line with his training to that point. As he aged, advanced, and experienced strife away from the forge, his focus in life has changed.
"Power creep" is a roll-playing issue. For those role-playing, retraining is a great boon.
There are a few situations where I'd say the retraining rules are power creep. Those would be the Focused Overseer chain, and potentially the Dimension Door chain.
Reason for the first: Stupid amounts of savings on your gear
Reason for the second: Gives you access to the entire chain at a much lower level than you'd normally be able to access it.
Overall, those two reasons are about the only reasons I'd see it being power creep at all.
You need time which is not insignificant. Anyway the game is strictly improved by retraining.
Generally, I agree. Though, time is not much of an issue if it all takes place in the character's background prior to play, much like the crafting feats do already.
There are a few situations where I'd say the retraining rules are power creep. Those would be the Focused Overseer chain, and potentially the Dimension Door chain.
Reason for the first: Stupid amounts of savings on your gear
Reason for the second: Gives you access to the entire chain at a much lower level than you'd normally be able to access it.Overall, those two reasons are about the only reasons I'd see it being power creep at all.
Focused overseer does not really save any gp at all, it only saves time , allowing you to purchase capital at the same price you could have earned it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the Ultimate Campaign rules are pretty much a failure. They seem to me to be crutches for an inability to adapt, compromise, and generally just make a game world run but they are insufficient to actually accomplish it correctly and prone to abuse.
Kingdom building is probably the best, downtime probably the worst with retraining in the middle. I think a reasonable GM and a reasonable player can come up with ways to 'fix' a character, maintain continuity and maintain the suspension of disbelief without the retraining rules. But I think that a group lacking the reasonableness and social skills necessary for doing it without the rules, will find that the rules make the situation worse, not better.
I don't feel its a suspension of disbelief issue. To me, the way you alter focus/acquire abilities via dedicated training time with a skilled instructor makes a lot more sense than "I killed a bunch of monsters, so now I am better at profession (brewer)."
|
Before the retraining rules, you had to invest in no less than three non-combat feats to get that kind of discount, and you'd be stuck with them for your whole career. That's a lot of investment and it should get you a lot of gain. But with retraining? It basically becomes FREE power creep at that point. Now you are no longer required to invest the feat resources to pull it off (at least not for long).
Assuming I even allowed those feats, at the first hint that the player intended to keep flipflopping them in and out, I'd just arrange to move the plot forward, so his workshop got raided while he was in NPC crafter mode.
The problem isn't retraining, it's crafting in general, and those specific feats, and it's exacerbated by telling the players 'You have exactly xx days available, to do downtime stuff."
Make them take each day as it comes, and the decision to begin some long project becomes harder to justify.
"Those orc tribes are gettin' mighty restless, Mister Mayor..."
"Damn, I was going to varnish that staff today. Looks like I may have to get my old suit of armour out of storage, and practice the old sword moves."
I will certainly agree, that Ultimate Campaign, specifically Downtime, is horribly written. Its as if it was rushed out the door without enough playtesting. The concept and base rules are fine, but the way they are explained is just awful.
I generally suggest using the downtime rules with the pirates code in mind. But i like the retraining rules.
Focused overseer does not really save any gp at all, it only saves time , allowing you to purchase capital at the same price you could have earned it.
Except for the part where the feat specifically states its "changes in price apply to both the purchased cost and the earned cost of the affected forms of capital."
I think most people would agree that using retraining to regularly flip-flop your feat selections for something like only having crafting feats while crafting is the kind of thing a GM should step in and put a stop to.
I think most people would agree that using retraining to regularly flip-flop your feat selections for something like only having crafting feats while crafting is the kind of thing a GM should step in and put a stop to.
I'm inclined to agree. However, even if allowed, there is a benefit to holding onto those crafting feats: You can still craft while adventuring. Anywhere you can prepare spells is a place you can craft. It's just a little slower then when you're using downtime (unless you are earning Magic capital to pay for it--in that case, it's probably faster). That's not something the player can do if he retrains them out. People seem to totally forget that about item crafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how it's power creep at all.
It basically just has the same effect as bringing in a new PC of X level, except with the same character.
You could get the same effect before by offing yourself and bringing in Bob, cousin of Rob.
This just applies a slight cost and a not insignificant period of time.
It's power creep in the sense that it opens up some possibilities that didn't exist before in the RAW. However most everything is a form of power creep (anytime you give a new option you can use) and a lot of power creep isn't actually worth being concerned over.
The most obvious example of power creep could come in the form of prerequisites. For example, let's say you have a dwarf barbarian and you envision him to eventually be running around dual-wielding axes and stuff, but you're playing standard 15 PB and starting with a 15 Dex isn't really practical (or you rolled stats and got screwed 'cause your highest stat before mods was a 14). Now with the retraining rules, maybe after you put one of your +1s from your 1/4 level increase into Dex, now you qualify for the feat, so wham, you swap Toughness (your "filler" feat from 1st level) with TWF and your dream is realized!
You wouldn't have legally been able to acquire that at 1st level, but the rules only require you to qualify for it now. That could be seen as power creep. A similar situation would be if you took Weapon Focus (Greataxe) at 5th level, but swapped it for Improved Critical (Greataxe) when you meet the BAB+8 requirement.
I think that's what upsets some people. IMHO, it's rare that you come up with one of these little retraining quirks that is actually damaging to the game. In fact it even makes sense from a narrative because you're essentially spending time to become less rusty in something you used to do, but you have a greater wealth of experience to draw on now.
For example, if you were an elite athlete in your youth but knew nothing about computers so you had the Run and Acrobatics feats, but now you're older, put more ranks into Knowledge (PC Networking) and traded them out for feats like "Network Guru". You couldn't have qualified for that back when you were an athlete, but you don't have to suddenly forget all the tech-stuff you learned since. Instead you just pick up your tech-guru feats while becoming less athletic.
But it REEEEAAALLY makes some people angry when it comes to prestige classes. God forbid you mention using multiple prestige classes to qualify for each other (since you can retrain away all your base classes). Most are totally fine with aasimars jumping right into classes that require you to be level 7 minimum as other races because of a dumb FAQ entry, but don't you dare think of using Shadowdancer and Assassin to qualify for Arcane Trickster you munchkin! :P
But it REEEEAAALLY makes some people angry when it comes to prestige classes. God forbid you mention using multiple prestige classes to qualify for each other (since you can retrain away all your base classes). Most are totally fine with aasimars jumping right into classes that require you to be level 7 minimum as other races because of a dumb FAQ entry, but don't you dare think of using Shadowdancer and Assassin to qualify for Arcane Trickster you munchkin! :PMeh I'd love to see 1 Wizard, 1 Cleric 10 MT.
That would actually be really fun. You could just train out of wizard/cleric entirely since the MT provides the requisite effective caster levels and spell progressions after 5th level. At which point you might decide to do something like look into other prestige classes.
EDIT: Maybe mystic theurge 10 / loremaster 7 / cyphermage 3 for a bookish sagely sort. Or dump some levels of diabolist on it and make a Chelaxian priest(ess). Or Envoy of Balance choosing (Mystic Theurge) as the your class to progress, making you some sort of "super balance" character that seeks to perfectly balance arcane, divine, life, and death.
That would actually be really fun. You could just train out of wizard/cleric entirely since the MT provides the requisite effective caster levels and spell progressions after 5th level. At which point you might decide to do something like look into other prestige classes.But it REEEEAAALLY makes some people angry when it comes to prestige classes. God forbid you mention using multiple prestige classes to qualify for each other (since you can retrain away all your base classes). Most are totally fine with aasimars jumping right into classes that require you to be level 7 minimum as other races because of a dumb FAQ entry, but don't you dare think of using Shadowdancer and Assassin to qualify for Arcane Trickster you munchkin! :PMeh I'd love to see 1 Wizard, 1 Cleric 10 MT.
Check the FAQ: "In any case, you cannot use rule elements from a prestige class to meet the requirements of that prestige class."
AND
"You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level".
So you are stuck with two levels of non-prestige classes.
Check the actual rules. The actual retraining rules do not have those stipulations. FAQ =/= Rules.
If your group wants to run it that way, power to you. PFS is also stuck with FAQs as their house rules. However, unless there is a real errata issued and the PRD updated, let's just skip that discussion, m'kay?
Generally, I agree. Though, time is not much of an issue if it all takes place in the character's background prior to play, much like the crafting feats do already.That's when the GM says no.
Indeed. It's entirely fine for a GM to do so. I have had to politely decline lots of potential characters for whatever reason. Sometimes those reasons are as simple as "That doesn't exist in this campaign" (such as characters built around Hero Points, which I just don't use).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check the actual rules. The actual retraining rules do not have those stipulations. FAQ =/= Rules.
If your group wants to run it that way, power to you. PFS is also stuck with FAQs as their house rules. However, unless there is a real errata issued and the PRD updated, let's just skip that discussion, m'kay?
You have that backwards. You are more than welcome to house-rule the FAQ away but the actual rules follow them as they are official. m'kay?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the retraining rules only apply to one specific situation?
I can't get behind the idea, that the only reason retraining was created, was for those who created poorly built PCs.
I feel that it would be demeaning to players, to say that this is the only purpose, for which these rules were created.
It is even further demeaning, to suggest, that if you are not a player who has a poorly built PC, then by using these rules, it is some sort of "cheat".
So, this "bunglers, and beginners only" clause, is, in my opinion, not in the spirit of the rules.
You have that backwards. You are more than welcome to house-rule the FAQ away but the actual rules follow them as they are official. m'kay?Check the actual rules. The actual retraining rules do not have those stipulations. FAQ =/= Rules.
If your group wants to run it that way, power to you. PFS is also stuck with FAQs as their house rules. However, unless there is a real errata issued and the PRD updated, let's just skip that discussion, m'kay?
This. I totally agree with graystone.
The FAQ section is an interim area for the designers to respond to the questions that originate on the Forums/elsewhere -- and ultimately from our tables. Ideally, these rules would immediately be updated within the published documents... but in a physical world, constrained by time and money, these unpublished errata will not be added to the text until a re-printing is run for the document the FAQ deals with.
What you might have been thinking of were the sporadic postings of Paizo employees buried within the Forums in direct response to questions. These are not necessarily official, though a subset are. Because it is somewhat dubious to expect anyone to forum crawl for the possibility of an official response, the development team repeat their findings on the FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just as unreasonable to expect everyone to crawl through the FAQ for unofficial "future errata" (which don't even always propagate to real errata). The PRD exists, and only publishing errata when new print runs occur is a self-imposed restriction.
On Topic: Retraining lets you change out one decision you made for another decision you like more now. It doesn't matter if it was because you made a mistake, or a better option was published, or what. It lets you play your ideal character better and have more fun. Restricting it only to new players messing up kills all that.
I have of late introduced a term to a group I GM for based on a prior experience:
Begurk (verb): The act of recreating a character that proved widely popular both in mechanics and characterization after the first iteration was killed.
Example Urk Begurk was a half-orc monk with the lowest possible charisma and intelligence scores, and was role-played accordingly as an incredibly ugly and stupid, but also loyal and friendly half-orc monk that was eager to punch things. The group took a fast liking to Urk, but was horrified when a gnoll with a great-axe killed Urk on a critical hit. Later, the group was joined by the equally ugly, stupid and lovable Urk Begurk Junior.
It's just as unreasonable to expect everyone to crawl through the FAQ for unofficial "future errata" (which don't even always propagate to real errata). The PRD exists, and only publishing errata when new print runs occur is a self-imposed restriction.
Ultimate Campaign has 2 entries... Not quite a "crawl" to go through. Now a core rule FAQ is a bit to go through but a quick search will normally lead to the an FAQ if there is one.
I do agree that the PRD should actually be updated to reflect the FAQ's but Paizo seems allergic to any edits that changes page count/ word count/ page layout.
From the rules.
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document contains all errata to the Roleplaying Game line of products as of 11/10/2014.
I see the rules were not changed in this regard.
Imagine that.Off to work now.
Errata, yes.
Not FAQs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, FAQs and errata are (supposed to be) different things. FAQs don't (usually) get printed in books, since they're (supposed to be) clarifications of text that already exists, not changes to the rules.
From the rules.
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document contains all errata to the Roleplaying Game line of products as of 11/10/2014.I see the rules were not changed in this regard.
Imagine that.Off to work now.
That's some mighty fine sticking of your head in the sand. Almost professional level. So what makes you think that the official FAQ area of the same site that you looked that PDF up on is incorrect? Or that rules can't have both errata and FAQ's?
|
|
No, FAQs and errata are (supposed to be) different things. FAQs don't (usually) get printed in books, since they're (supposed to be) clarifications of text that already exists, not changes to the rules.
Okay, I worded it improperly. It's still an official statement on how things should work. It is not a houserule, and it is official "word of god" on whatever it's talking about.
You know that thematically it makes more sense to retrain right?
Not being able to is way more weird, like our characters are actually golems, built once and cannot change
I love the retraining rules for this reason alone. Makes characters actually feel more like living, learning creatures instead of static automatons.