Spirit of the Retraining rules


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Over in the Rules subforum I accidentally waded into a discussion to talk about whether someone was following the spirit of the retraining rules and I discovered that subforums only intended for RAW so I thought I'd come over here.

What do you feel is the intent and spirit of the retraining rules? Do you think it's intended to be a power-up for players (by allowing them to take feats that are largely only useful at low levels and then swapping them out once they're irrelevant for much more powerful feats that would have been useless to a level 1 character)? Or do you feel it's intended to act as a safety net for new players or those exploring completely brand new options that no-one has ever seen before (e.g. a class from Occult Adventures)?

For me I would only ever use this rule as a safety net for newer players or those exploring some brand new option no-one's ever seen before. Pathfinder is a game where system mastery can allow for a significant power gap between someone who has it and someone that doesn't so giving those who know the system well additional tools to eke out even more DPR is not necessary given they can already break encounters that assume average system mastery.

What do others feel is the intent of this rule and with that intent in mind, would you allow it at your table?


I think it applies to all that you mentioned - both as a safety net, and allowing a change in build to fit campaign progression - and also for flavor - say a 4th level paladin that starts casting spells, and for RP reasons loves the concept of being closer to the deity by casting spells, and retrains to cleric (as an example).


Some replies from people in this thread (made here to avoid derailing that thread further).

kinevon wrote:
Now, on your question about a Sorcerer retraining the Combat Casting feat, taken at low level when it is needed, into some other feat, useful at the level at which it is retrained, would your attitude be different if the player was new to Sorcerers and/or spellcasters in general, and, as their PC leveled, found that a feat he had taken in terror of failing to cast originally, is no longer providing any practical benefit later?

No. They took a feat that was very helpful for them at level 1 and got the full benefits of that feat.

graystone wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Would you as DM count any gold spent on this towards calculating their WBL?
#1 Yes, that's gold they can use for potions, wands, scrolls and/or retraining. It's not a freebie.

That would remove the abusiveness of the rule assuming that you didn't use the default math and instead looked at the effect that the PC has gained from this retrain and then priced it appropriately. Anything less than that is outright power creep. I personally wouldn't count it as RAW but then again the rule is serving two different purposes in our game so that makes sense.

kinevon wrote:
Do you have any issues with Fighters retraining a bonus feat at every Fighter level divisible by 4? How about Sorcerers and Bards retraining a spell...

Not at all. That's a key class feature written up in the core class itself. It's part of the core math that the game is (in theory) balanced around. If it had been a rule published in a later book (not an archetype, but just a brand new rule for fighters only) then I would look at the fighter in relation to the Core Rulebook classes and see if this was a necessary fix. Much like the monk and barbarian options in later books have taken them from flat out bad to becoming comparable to the other classes. Retraining rules do not fix some massive disparity between monsters and PCs (those with enough system mastery can already trivialise monsters) so therefore isn't a math or balance fix.


Lord Mhoram wrote:
I think it applies to all that you mentioned - both as a safety net, and allowing a change in build to fit campaign progression - and also for flavor - say a 4th level paladin that starts casting spells, and for RP reasons loves the concept of being closer to the deity by casting spells, and retrains to cleric (as an example).

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?

Safety net? Sounds like a good rule. Flavour as someone has a religious experience and thus wants to become a cleric? Go for it. Want to use it to eke out more DPR at lower levels so that you can defeat monsters even more easily then before? Seems like a very different spirit from the newbie or Paladin retraining to become a cleric.

Power gamers are good at what they do and Pathfinder is a great game for them to explore that itch. Giving them yet another tool in a Pathfinder expansion is nothing short of power creep unless you price it appropriately (which the core rules in Ultimate Campaign simply cannot do as it's going to have a very build specific effect in the game). I'm not saying power gaming makes you a worse roleplayer or that you shouldn't power game. I'm simply saying this rule doesn't seem intended to be aimed at them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quotes from retraining rules.

"If you are unsatisfied with a feat, skill, archetype, or class ability you chose, you may spend time in intense training to trade the old ability for a new one.": The only intent is that you are unsatisfied with the feature you wish to retrain. It doesn't care if you are unsatisfied because you've outgrown the feat or you picked badly. Both result in you being "unsatisfied".

"Unless otherwise specified, there is no limit to how many times you can use retraining."+"Retraining a feat requires you to spend gp, takes time, requires a trainer, and can happen as often as you want." : You got the cash you can switch your character around all you want. Nothing about only using it as a safety net. In fact, the DEV's have said you can use retraining to take a feat you couldn't qualify for when you got the first feat. Your 1st level feat can be retrained to take Vital Strike when you get a +6 BAB.

"Unless stated otherwise, retraining costs gp equal to 10 × your level × the number of days required to retrain.": This is the cost. The 'effect' it has on the character is build into the training time already. You're looking to punish people for playing wrong and not in a way YOU think is appropriate.

Dark Archive

It's up to the DM. You may not like it, I may think it's a fantastic idea.

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I hate builds that only come online at level 4, or 7, or 11, or whatever, and think retraining is a great way to reduce the low level slog and allow the character to take options that don't fit their overall plan for the character, put allow them to be more functional in the meantime. Also helps reduce suicide by monster if the player wants to change, but is trapped in their previous character choices. I'm not so keen on changing class, but you want to focus on conjuration now instead of transmutation, go right ahead. Want to change from a regular rogue to a knife master or scout, go right ahead. Feel like grappling really isn't your thing, swap out improved grapple for a style feat.

In fact, the only reason I'd enforce the gold cost of retraining is to ensure they don't change from session to session to optimize for the type of encounters they expect to be coming.

I don't think that the intent was to keep characters from becoming powerful, or choosing new feats that they couldn't qualify for before. The fighter could already do this, swap out his dodge feat for improved critical at level 8, where AC doesn't matter as much, and extra damage is more important. In fact, if anything, I imagine they thought the mechanic worked so well, that the wanted to find a way for other classes to do something similar.

Like most of the rules, I'd run with it until it becomes apparent that one of your players is clearly trying to abuse the system, which I would only consider that constant retraining I mentioned earlier.


graystone wrote:
the DEV's have said you can use retraining to take a feat you couldn't qualify for when you got the first feat. Your 1st level feat can be retrained to take Vital Strike when you get a +6 BAB.

If that's what the devs intended then that's fine, I am completely wrong.

Although to me it seems to be unadulterated power creep.

graystone wrote:
You're looking to punish people for playing wrong and not in a way YOU think is appropriate

Not at all. I've consistently said it seems like it's against the intent. I wouldn't use this rule as a player nor would I allow this rule in a game I DM. But as you've cleared up that the intent is clearly this is an acceptable use of the rule I'll stop discussing it. Apologies for creating a second thread on the issue, I only did so because I was told I was not allowed to discuss this in the original thread.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
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.


2 people 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.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
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.

Really? You've never played in a campaign where it was frowned upon to drop a character? Do you not have character development and back story in your games? I'm not saying people can't stop playing a character they no longer enjoy, but when there's a lot hanging on the roleplay and story of a character, it's easier to just have them die, then to have to convince everyone that it's not worth just sticking it out for a bit for story reasons. GM can't be mad he killed a character central to the plot if he's the one who did it. If you just show up next week with a new character and say the old one decided to go home may not go over as well.

Also happens with poor ability rolls, but nothing retraining can do about that.


Rynjin wrote:

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.

This. You know how many builds I look at and go "dang this would be awesome, if it didn't come online at level 7."

Or the fact that if someone dies and brings in a new PC at a higher level, minus potential wealth/XP issues(which may be none depending on GM rules), the new PC is almost always better than the guy who survived and has had to play his PC.

Also, it vastly helps martials more than casters, which is another plus IMO.

As a GM I not only encourage retraining, I let it be known that players should take full advantage of the system. The retraining system is actually probably my favorite thing from UC. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but my experience with it on both sides of the table is that it enhances the game.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
the DEV's have said you can use retraining to take a feat you couldn't qualify for when you got the first feat. Your 1st level feat can be retrained to take Vital Strike when you get a +6 BAB.

If that's what the devs intended then that's fine, I am completely wrong.

Although to me it seems to be unadulterated power creep.

graystone wrote:
You're looking to punish people for playing wrong and not in a way YOU think is appropriate
Not at all. I've consistently said it seems like it's against the intent. I wouldn't use this rule as a player nor would I allow this rule in a game I DM. But as you've cleared up that the intent is clearly this is an acceptable use of the rule I'll stop discussing it. Apologies for creating a second thread on the issue, I only did so because I was told I was not allowed to discuss this in the original thread.

Check out the FAQ for the Ultimate Campaign. They said it's cool to upgrade feats to ones you couldn't qualify when you got the feat. It's pretty clear intent to me. http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gn

As to the rest, you seemed ok with this as a 'safety net' so I'm not really understanding your 'don't use this' stance.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
Really? You've never played in a campaign where it was frowned upon to drop a character?

Sure. Continuity is the main goal. But if someone is not enjoying a character to such a high degree that they're driven to actively suicide the character. As a group the enjoyment of everyone is more important then story.

Rynjin wrote:
I don't see how it's power creep at all.

Furious Focus is a great feat for low BAB characters (cleric being the prime example) who don't get many iterative attacks. Allowing someone to take furious focus and then retrain it at level 6 is the equivalent of giving them a +1 to hit bonus that automatically upgrades to a +2 bonus at level 4 that stacks with weapon focus and masterwork for the low low price of 300gp. This is a mere 1.2% of their total wealth when they have to pay it (at level 6). An item that gave them the equivalent bonus would need to cost 600gp (sell it for half at level 6 when they stop using it). Find me a core rulebook item that costs 600gp for a +1/+2 to hit bonus that stacks with enhancement bonuses.

Another way to look at it is you're buying a fighter class feature for 300gp AND you get to take it at the optimal time (level 6) rather than when a fighter would be forced to take it (at either level 4 or level 8).

That seems like a significant increase in power. Of course if your group routinely suicides characters, then sure. It might not seem like such a big deal.

Rynjin wrote:
You could get the same effect before by offing yourself and bringing in Bob, cousin of Rob.

Again. Suiciding characters is not a common occurrence in my groups. We'd rather let someone bring in a new one they could enjoy rather than force them to secretly trick the DM into killing their character. Also bringing in identical characters except for 1 or 2 feats/items is also not allowed. When your character dies, they're dead (unless you raise them back). You don't get to make a slightly different character in order to circumvent the raise dead rules.

Rynjin wrote:
This just applies a slight cost and a not insignificant period of time.

Campaigns I've been in typically occur at the speed of plot. If crafting is allowed then the plot puts in resting points to allow crafting without trainwrecking the plot. I don't see why retraining wouldn't be treated the same way.


Deighton Thrane wrote:

Personally, I hate builds that only come online at level 4, or 7, or 11, or whatever, and think retraining is a great way to reduce the low level slog and allow the character to take options that don't fit their overall plan for the character, put allow them to be more functional in the meantime. Also helps reduce suicide by monster if the player wants to change, but is trapped in their previous character choices. I'm not so keen on changing class, but you want to focus on conjuration now instead of transmutation, go right ahead. Want to change from a regular rogue to a knife master or scout, go right ahead. Feel like grappling really isn't your thing, swap out improved grapple for a style feat.

In fact, the only reason I'd enforce the gold cost of retraining is to ensure they don't change from session to session to optimize for the type of encounters they expect to be coming.

I don't think that the intent was to keep characters from becoming powerful, or choosing new feats that they couldn't qualify for before. The fighter could already do this, swap out his dodge feat for improved critical at level 8, where AC doesn't matter as much, and extra damage is more important. In fact, if anything, I imagine they thought the mechanic worked so well, that the wanted to find a way for other classes to do something similar.

Like most of the rules, I'd run with it until it becomes apparent that one of your players is clearly trying to abuse the system, which I would only consider that constant retraining I mentioned earlier.

Right right…. the "fighter sucks" because later rules ALWAYS give everything the fighter can do to everyone… but the fighter sucks….

I find this so Ironic.

What other sucky things can we steal from the fighter that everyone wants, because they suck so much?


graystone wrote:
As to the rest, you seemed ok with this as a 'safety net' so I'm not really understanding your 'don't use this' stance.

Running something as RAI (or the spirit of the rule) is different to houseruling an optional system. It's easier to not use optional systems and then make rulings in extenuating circumstances (i.e. someone's so unhappy with the character that they completely balls-upped that they want to suicide the character rather than continue playing it).


Rynjin wrote:

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.

not mention it costs money (and more so at higher levels)

the more you do it, the less money you have to shop at the magi-mart (which is the highest level of offense when it comes to "power creep")

so for all those theory crafter/power gamers who "expect" to have X magic weapon/item by Y level based on WBL…if they retrain more than a few times, they will significantly gimp themselves on gear.

so it's a fairly balanced option in that regard; it also takes time, which also helps explain the passage of time for PCs (how did he get so powerful in a few weeks?)

I generally require training and side questing etc for all characters because I do not like the idea of 10 levels advancement in a month.

But, the more PCs craft, and retrain, the more "sense" the time line makes.
so retrain away! I say.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
As to the rest, you seemed ok with this as a 'safety net' so I'm not really understanding your 'don't use this' stance.
Running something as RAI (or the spirit of the rule) is different to houseruling an optional system. It's easier to not use optional systems and then make rulings in extenuating circumstances (i.e. someone's so unhappy with the character that they completely balls-upped that they want to suicide the character rather than continue playing it).

It seems more like Rules as You Want Them more than Rules as Intended to me. If you're using it only when the fancy strikes you instead of allowing it as an equal, open option for everyone, I'd call that a house-rule. It's clearly adding to the existing rules as they stand. No where is there a safety-net only clause in the rules.


graystone wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
As to the rest, you seemed ok with this as a 'safety net' so I'm not really understanding your 'don't use this' stance.
Running something as RAI (or the spirit of the rule) is different to houseruling an optional system. It's easier to not use optional systems and then make rulings in extenuating circumstances (i.e. someone's so unhappy with the character that they completely balls-upped that they want to suicide the character rather than continue playing it).
It seems more like Rules as You Want Them more than Rules as Intended to me. If you're using it only when the fancy strikes you instead of allowing it as an equal, open option for everyone, I'd call that a house-rule. It's clearly adding to the existing rules as they stand. No where is there a safety-net only clause in the rules.

I've stated twice now that you were right and I was wrong. Is there anything else you me to say?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


John Lynch 106 wrote:


Rynjin wrote:
I don't see how it's power creep at all.

Furious Focus is a great feat for low BAB characters (cleric being the prime example) who don't get many iterative attacks. Allowing someone to take furious focus and then retrain it at level 6 is the equivalent of giving them a +1 to hit bonus that automatically upgrades to a +2 bonus at level 4 that stacks with weapon focus and masterwork for the low low price of 300gp. This is a mere 1.2% of their total wealth when they have to pay it (at level 6). An item that gave them the equivalent bonus would need to cost 600gp (sell it for half at level 6 when they stop using it). Find me a core rulebook item that costs 600gp for a +1/+2 to hit bonus that stacks with enhancement bonuses.

Another way to look at it is you're buying a fighter class feature for 300gp AND you get to take it at the optimal time (level 6) rather than when a fighter would be forced to take it (at either level 4 or level 8).

That seems like a significant increase in power. Of course if your group routinely suicides characters, then sure. It might not seem like such a big deal.

I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "power creep" refers to, if this is your response.


Find an item that gives you a +1/+2 bonus to hit for 600gp in the core Rulebook that stacks with enhancement bonuses. Find an item that let's you replicate a classes class feature (one so rare they get to use it 5 times only) for 300gp in the core Rulebook.

If you can't, do you see the fighter's class feature or stackable bonuses to hit as not powerful?


On your table you can change any rules you want, that said, the rules are there in case you need them, someone asks how they can change that feat that has become useless to them, or unlearn a spell for another one that will help the group and they cant wait for two more levels to do so. The retraining rules tried to cover all the steps of a character progression (except for abilities), so you dont really have to use them unless your group asks for it and you feel they need them.
That also said, in my table i dont allow it to retrain HP, or classes completely, unless its a multiclass you tried that didnt work out (ex: cleric 3/monk 1 -> cleric 4). But feats, spells and everything else is ok, but i warn my players that i will analize their retraining on a case by case basis.

Quote:
Find an item that gives you a +1/+2 bonus to hit for 600gp in the core Rulebook that stacks with enhancement bonuses. Find an item that let's you replicate a classes class feature (one so rare they get to use it 5 times only) for 300gp in the core Rulebook.

A) Any masterwork weapon.

B) Any masterwork tools. There are also plenty of weak magic items that will grant you one or another bonus that is normally restricted to a certain class:
- boots of the cat is only 1.000 and nearly make you ignore fall damage).
- phylactery of the faithfulness duplicates a lv1 cleric spell (1000 gp).
- hand of mage duplicates a wizard's cantrip at will (200 gp)
- cloak of human guise duplicates the effect of a illusion spell (with limitations (900 gp).
- armbands of the brawler grants +1 grapple (500 gp).
- sleeves of many garments duplicate (with limitations) a lv1 wizard spell (200 gp).
- ioun torch duplicates the effect of a wizard cantrip (75 gp).

Also, a traveller's any tool can duplicate the effect of like ten other artisan tools for only 250 gp.


Masterwork weapons don't stack with enhancement bonuses. I'm not sure what "PO" meant. Is that platinum pieces or gp?


Fixed it, po = "peças de ouro" (gold pieces/gp in portuguese).


I Think retraining is a great oppotunity to allow some sort of character progression and evolving in Down time. I like the idea of a hero needing to retrain to get back his improved initiative after a mission where skill focus( diplomacy) have been more important.
For me the retraining rules is about giving players a chance to have a relevant character for the whole game.
I also allow folks to train in a crafting feat if they want it and then to train back spell focus or what ever they gave up.
And i am not above letting the bad guys swing by when skill focus and craft rod is on the sheets.
If retraining is only to help the new guys fix mistakes then i dont need in game rules for it. I Will just help them rebuilt between sessions.


Considering retraining is a part of the downtime rules, and if your campaign is really using the downtime rules, the retraining character is giving up a lot of downtime days to retrain. That's not a negligible opportunity cost lost there.

Sovereign Court

Cap. Darling wrote:

I Think retraining is a great oppotunity to allow some sort of character progression and evolving in Down time. I like the idea of a hero needing to retrain to get back his improved initiative after a mission where skill focus( diplomacy) have been more important.

For me the retraining rules is about giving players a chance to have a relevant character for the whole game.
I also allow folks to train in a crafting feat if they want it and then to train back spell focus or what ever they gave up.
And i am not above letting the bad guys swing by when skill focus and craft rod is on the sheets.
If retraining is only to help the new guys fix mistakes then i dont need in game rules for it. I Will just help them rebuilt between sessions.

I am playing a Ranger (freebooter)2/Fighter(weapon master)2 just about to get to level 5.

Through the adventure the PC has been slightly changing his tactics from what I initially envisioned at creation, and as what was used in his background.

He has gone from pure martial TWF dorn dergar, to using wands to buff and sticking mainly to just 1 THF attack.

So now I am retraining to Alchemist (vivesectionist+beast)/Barbarian (urban)/fighter(weaponmaster).

My retrain will make him a stronger character, fits RP-wise and makes him even more fun to play. All for the "low" cost of eating up ~2k gp and a month of down time.

Couldn't have done this if retraining wasn't an option.


OilHorse wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:

I Think retraining is a great oppotunity to allow some sort of character progression and evolving in Down time. I like the idea of a hero needing to retrain to get back his improved initiative after a mission where skill focus( diplomacy) have been more important.

For me the retraining rules is about giving players a chance to have a relevant character for the whole game.
I also allow folks to train in a crafting feat if they want it and then to train back spell focus or what ever they gave up.
And i am not above letting the bad guys swing by when skill focus and craft rod is on the sheets.
If retraining is only to help the new guys fix mistakes then i dont need in game rules for it. I Will just help them rebuilt between sessions.

I am playing a Ranger (freebooter)2/Fighter(weapon master)2 just about to get to level 5.

Through the adventure the PC has been slightly changing his tactics from what I initially envisioned at creation, and as what was used in his background.

He has gone from pure martial TWF dorn dergar, to using wands to buff and sticking mainly to just 1 THF attack.

So now I am retraining to Alchemist (vivesectionist+beast)/Barbarian (urban)/fighter(weaponmaster).

My retrain will make him a stronger character, fits RP-wise and makes him even more fun to play. All for the "low" cost of eating up ~2k gp and a month of down time.

Couldn't have done this if retraining wasn't an option.

I am unsure why you reply to me but i can share a somewhat similar story.

An my last character started out as a barbarian, retrained to bladebound magus at 5 and then again to diviner wizard at 8. This mostly made sense in a storywise context.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Find an item that gives you a +1/+2 bonus to hit for 600gp in the core Rulebook that stacks with enhancement bonuses. Find an item that let's you replicate a classes class feature (one so rare they get to use it 5 times only) for 300gp in the core Rulebook.

You're drawing parallels where there are none. You are not getting any numerical benefit you could not already have gotten. You're trading one option for another. Training a poor option for a better option will result in a net increase in power, but it is still not "power creep" which is a specific phrase referring to the options themselves growing more powerful in comparison to previous options.

This does not do that.

However:

John Lynch 106 wrote:
If you can't, do you see the fighter's class feature or stackable bonuses to hit as not powerful?

No, I don't. Especially not the part where he can trade out Feats, which is only slightly more useful than Bravery, which just about takes the cake for most insultingly useless class feature in the game.

Stackable bonuses to-hit are all over the game already. Retraining doesn't make any of those options more or less available, it just provides a new opportunity to access them in exchange for the option you took previously.


shadowkras wrote:
Fixed it, po = "peças de ouro" (gold pieces/gp in portuguese).

Thanks for that. As I said furious focus stacks with the masterwork bonus (giving you a non magical +2/+3 to hit bonus).

Boots of the cat replicates no class feature that I know of.

Can you please tell me what cleric spell phylactrey of faithfulness actually replicates? Because my one says it lets it's wearer know when an action it will take will change their alignment and I know of no spell in the core Rulebook that does that. Also I guess it's Of some use for a paladin I guess? Although most DMs warn a paladin in my experience.

Hand of the Mage is 900gp. So:
1) It is more expensive then the retraining rule.
2) A 0-level spell is not (IMO) comparable to a class feature that a fighter gets to use a total of 5 times across 20 levels.

Cloak of human guise, armbands of the brawler, sleeves of many garments and ioun torch are not in my Core Rulebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Cloak of human guise, armbands of the brawler, sleeves of many garments and ioun torch are not in my Core Rulebook.

If that is your condition, then you can ignore the retraining rules completely, because they are not in your core rulebook.


Rynjin wrote:
it is still not "power creep" which is a specific phrase referring to the options themselves growing more powerful in comparison to previous options.

For me deciding what feats to take have always been tempered by weighing up the usefulness of having a feature that helps now versus having it for the rest of the character's life. This ability was initially reserved for fighters at certain levels and is now available to everyone at a all times. Characters using this rule are more powerful then those who don't, because those who don't either have to give up power now to get it later or have it now and limit their power at later levels. The ability to not have to consider those aspects and instead optimise the character for every level at a negligible price is a direct increase to a character's power.

Rynjin wrote:
No, I don't. Especially not the part where he can trade out Feats, which is only slightly more useful than Bravery

Fair enough. If I considered this class feature to be nigh worthless then I'd probably not see it as power creep.


You know the PRD is free and the link is right here on the site right?


shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
Cloak of human guise, armbands of the brawler, sleeves of many garments and ioun torch are not in my Core Rulebook.

If that is your condition, then you can ignore the retraining rules completely, because they are not in your core rulebook.

Do you realize what power creep is and how to check for it? If you want to argue this is not a powerful feature (as Rynjin has) then that contributes to the conversation. Saying "don't use anything not in the core Rulebook" after failing to refute my call of power creep doesn't actually engage in the conversation. A simple "I disagree" would have sufficed.


graystone wrote:
You know the PRD is free and the link is right here on the site right?

I don't know if this is directed at me or what point this post is trying to make.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
You know the PRD is free and the link is right here on the site right?
I don't know if this is directed at me or what point this post is trying to make.

You where saying several items weren't in your book. I was directing you to where they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How exactly is the core Fighter retraining rules a powerful class feature? Could you give a specific example? Because for the most part I only remember the feature at all when I go to make a build and then go "ughh, I guess I have to fill this Fighter level with generic filler because I have X BAB and the next feat in my comically long and mostly useless feat chain requires BAB x+1."

And that doesn't necessarily make the class feature good so much as it makes bad the feat chains that only Fighters can reasonably qualify for due to the obscene number of bleh feats.


Quote:
Do you realize what power creep is and how to check for it? If you want to argue this is not a powerful feature (as Rynjin has) then that contributes to the conversation. Saying "don't use anything not in the core Rulebook" after failing to refute my call of power creep doesn't actually engage in the conversation. A simple "I disagree" would have sufficed.

You are the one excluding stuff from the game because they are not in the CRB, not me.

I gave you plenty of items that duplicate (or have similar effects to) class features for under 1000 gp, that you easily ignored or discarded.

300 gp is also a lv1 wand with half charges, that could easily make all the difference in a couple of sessions.


graystone wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
You know the PRD is free and the link is right here on the site right?
I don't know if this is directed at me or what point this post is trying to make.
You where saying several items weren't in your book. I was directing you to where they are.

Wikipedia article explaining that power creep is: the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content..

Retraining rules came out in a later release to the core game.

My claim: Retraining provides a power increase above and beyond what was available in the initial release of the rules (which was the core Rulebook). I have provided my reasoning and examples.

There are three ways to refute my claim:
1) Prove this rule was in the initial release of the rules.
2) Prove that my reasoning is flawed and that this doesn't increase a character's power.
3) Prove that there are options that have the same opportunity cost as the retraining rule in the initial release of the rules.

Citing magical items that aren't in the initial release of the rules does not refute my claim of power creep using method 3.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
Cloak of human guise, armbands of the brawler, sleeves of many garments and ioun torch are not in my Core Rulebook.

If that is your condition, then you can ignore the retraining rules completely, because they are not in your core rulebook.

Do you realize what power creep is and how to check for it? If you want to argue this is not a powerful feature (as Rynjin has) then that contributes to the conversation. Saying "don't use anything not in the core Rulebook" after failing to refute my call of power creep doesn't actually engage in the conversation. A simple "I disagree" would have sufficed.

There's a slight disconnect between what you wrote and what you meant.

You said "X, Y, and Z aren't in my core rulebook" when what you meant was "X, Y, and Z aren't in my core rulebook, and are more powerful than many items in the core rulebook, and I am using this as evidence of power creep". What they read was "X, Y, and Z aren't in my core rulebook, so I can ignore them if I wish."

Anyway, my 2cp on the matter:

There are numerous published NPCs that cannot be created organically, level by level, and have the right number of feats/abilities (mostly feats) because they meet the prerequisites at their actual level, but selecting them one level at a time would prohibit some combinations. The retraining rules exist to allow players to do the same. An 11th level fighter might meet the prerequisites for both improved vital strike and greater two-weapon fighting, and have both feats on the statblock, despite being an impossible combination to get if you level up.

Yes, it probably counts as power creep, but it's not something that Paizo haven't done with NPCs, so I don't see it as a problem.


Quote:
There are three ways to refute my claim:

4) Not try to prove anything because, given your reasoning, there is no way we can change your mind. So why are we having this discussion when you are unwilling to listen?

Saying that stuff isnt on the CRB will exclude a lot of things from the game, like every other base class, everything from ultimate combat/magic/campaign/equipment.

If you are excluding ultimate campaign (for not being part of the CRB), then this discussion is pointless. The rules for retraining dont exist in the CRB, so you cant compare them with anything in the CRB.

If what you want to read is "Yes, it causes a power creep", then:
Yes, it causes a power creep. That will likely happen with any book that adds new rules to the system.


shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
There are three ways to refute my claim:

4) Not try to prove anything because, given your reasoning, there is no way we can change your mind. So why are we having this discussion when you are unwilling to listen?

Saying that stuff isnt on the CRB will exclude a lot of things from the game, like every other base class, everything from ultimate combat/magic/campaign/equipment.

If you are excluding ultimate campaign (for not being part of the CRB), then this discussion is pointless. The rules for retraining dont exist in the CRB, so you cant compare them with anything in the CRB.

If what you want to read is "Yes, it causes a power creep", then:
Yes, it causes a power creep. That will likely happen with any book that adds new rules to the system.

Pretty much this. It seems disingenuous to complain about a rule you already discount as not core and therefor something you'll ignore as automatic power creep. This seems clear as you dismissed items not in core on that basis and NOT on their power level.


chaoseffect wrote:
How exactly is the core Fighter retraining rules a powerful class feature? Could you give a specific example?

At level 4 furious focus is twice as good as weapon focus. The reason they're balanced is for fighters at level 6 and higher weapon focus is better as furious focus only applies to the first attack. Getting to swap out furious focus for a different feat (especially one they don't qualify for at level 1) is a big boon.

An example on how this can be a big boon for a class other than fighter is sorcerers. At low levels where spells are limited and damage mitigation are rare a +4 bonus to cast spells defensively is worthy of a feat. At later levels when they can auto cast spells defensively without that +4 bonus the feat spent isn't worthwhile. Getting to retrain that feat into quicken spell is a giant bonus as it's effectively a free feat for the mere cost of 500gp if done at 10th level (0.8% of their total wealth). I'd gladly pay 500gp at level 10 to swap out combat casting (a great feat at low levels but of minimal use at higher levels) for quicken spell (a great feat at high levels but of minimal use at low levels). This is definitely not possible in the core Rulebook and represents a significant increase in power IMO.


Again, it's not an increase in power. The character would have been just as powerful had he made the same option at whatever level and stuck with it.

Relative to the game as a whole, his power is the same. He just chose a different option.

His specific character might be more powerful than the last iteration of that character, but that is NOT power creep. Options have not gotten more powerful even if a character has. By that logic leveling at all is "power creep". Your character got more powerful than he was last level, after all.


shadowkras wrote:
given your reasoning, there is no way we can change your mind. So why are we having this discussion when you are unwilling to listen?
shadowkras wrote:
Yes, it causes a power creep

If you agree it's power creep then you don't need to refute anything. If you want to argue this doesn't massively overpower characters then that's an entirely different argument. If that's the point you were trying to make I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Are there ways to use this rule that don't have an appreciable difference in your power level? Definitely. However those with high system mastery will be able to use it to incredible effect IMO. The cost doesn't scale (represents 1.2% of total wealth at level 6 and it goes lower the higher levels). The best example I can think of is my sorcerer example, although I don't have high system mastery.

As for your examples, a level 1 wand at level 1 has an enormous effect on a character's benefit. At a half charge (something I don't see GMs regularly make available) it represents 35% of your total wealth. This is significantly higher than 1.2% which is why Imdon't see them as comparable. 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.

shadowkras wrote:
If you are excluding ultimate campaign (for not being part of the CRB), then this discussion is pointless.

My point isn't "it's not in the CRB so therefore can't be used." My argument is "This represents a significant increase in power when compared to options presented in the CRB that have the same opportunity cost."

graystone wrote:
This seems clear as you dismissed items not in core on that basis and NOT on their power level.

Power creep can often happen incrementally. 1 option doesn't represent a significant increase in power so it's fine. Another option is compared to that and it's also deemed to not be a significant increase in power. And so it goes until 6 releases later you've got an item that when compared to the core Rulebook is a significant increase in power. This is where the "creep" part of power creep comes from and why I exclusively look at the core Rulebook when considering power creep.

shadowkras wrote:
[power creep] will likely happen with any book that adds new rules to the system.

I believe Inquisitor doesn't represent power creep as one example. But yes, this is also why I carefully look at new options Paizo releases. First blush of the advanced class guide seems to indicate they're not more powerful then the core classes which is a nice change. Paizo's optional subsystems (e.g. Piecemeal Armour) don't have as good of a track record unfortunately.


Rynjin wrote:

Again, it's not an increase in power. The character would have been just as powerful had he made the same option at whatever level and stuck with it.

Relative to the game as a whole, his power is the same. He just chose a different option.

His specific character might be more powerful than the last iteration of that character, but that is NOT power creep. Options have not gotten more powerful even if a character has. By that logic leveling at all is "power creep". Your character got more powerful than he was last level, after all.

I understand your viewpoint but we'll have to agree to disagree.


I Think the retraining of hit points is the only place where the retraining rules represent a real power increase. I must admit that i have fixed HP progression and no retraining there as a very likely house rule for my next campaign.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Again, it's not an increase in power. The character would have been just as powerful had he made the same option at whatever level and stuck with it.

Relative to the game as a whole, his power is the same. He just chose a different option.

His specific character might be more powerful than the last iteration of that character, but that is NOT power creep. Options have not gotten more powerful even if a character has. By that logic leveling at all is "power creep". Your character got more powerful than he was last level, after all.

I understand your viewpoint but we'll have to agree to disagree.

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).

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.


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)

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spirit of the Retraining rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.