Hello all,
So I was messing around with the retraining rules today when I started to wonder how does retraining the additional traits feat work? I took the additional traits feat at level one with my sorcerer and I used it to take rich parents and gifted adept(shocking grasp). But, now that I'm a little higher level shocking grasp is capped as far as how many dice I can use to deal damage with it. So, I was thinking about retraining out of my old additional traits into a new additional traits so I can change my gifted adept trait to enhance a higher level spell, but I was thinking about it and I started to wonder; can I drop rich parents for something more useful? So my questions are:
A. Can I use the feat retraining rules to change a feat into the exact same feat, but with different choices(so for example weapon focus and skill focus)?
B. If I can retain additional traits into additional traits; if I choose to drop a trait that gave me money or items and I drop them by retraining additional traits do I lose said money or items? What if I no longer have the money or items in question?
The problem with retraining Additional Traits is that you aren't simply "forgetting information" to clear space for new feats.
You are changing your character's backstory to better suit your current character. I would even go as far as to say that changing your Traits is like changing your race just because you realized that your current race isn't the optimal choice.
It can be done by RAW, but it should be frowned upon from a roleplaying perspective.
Powergamers will tip their hat to you as you walk by, though.
I see traits as fitting into two different type. There are born-in traits, and learned traits. Most born-in traits, I would say are permanent. You cannot train away the fact that you had more gold at the coming of adulthood (Rich Parents trait), and more than you can train away overgrown teeth (Tusked trait). As with all things, there are many ways to interpret things. GM fiat should be used for pretty much all retraining.
The problem with retraining Additional Traits is that you aren't simply "forgetting information" to clear space for new feats.
You are changing your character's backstory to better suit your current character. I would even go as far as to say that changing your Traits is like changing your race just because you realized that your current race isn't the optimal choice.It can be done by RAW, but it should be frowned upon from a roleplaying perspective.
Powergamers will tip their hat to you as you walk by, though.
There are some traits that realistically could be learned/unlearned later in life - the very existence of the Additional Traits feat sort of tips off that fact. But after 1st level, any trait you acquire should be backed up with some sort of experience, or otherwise explained how this property of your character did not exist prior to this point, and now does.
|
The old traits just are not as big of an influence any more. his family doesn't need to get killed that is stupid.
Starting gold isn't a statistic that matters any more so I would also take all of that back as a gm in addition to the cost of retraining. (Fluffing it as someone in the family needs monetary help, like bail, or a wedding, or a weeping gift, legal fees, what ever.)
Retraining is not free it is 10gp x level x days. It is 5 days for a feat.
SwitchIng to magicial lineage is great for a shocking grasp based build. Once you get the meta magic feat to increase the dice cap...I hate that trait though.
IMHO, retraining is an abberation. How can you "unlearn" something, especially traits which deal with your character's past life?
This said, there *are* rules for retraining, so the RAW says you can do that. Go to town with it.
It just seems to me that you are "unborn-ing" yourself, pretending that you never had rich parents, that you never had that innate affinity for "burning hands". To me, that's just so many kinds of wrong.
But the RAW disagree. Go to town with it, if your DM is on board.
IMHO, retraining is an abberation. How can you "unlearn" something, especially traits which deal with your character's past life?
This said, there *are* rules for retraining, so the RAW says you can do that. Go to town with it.
It just seems to me that you are "unborn-ing" yourself, pretending that you never had rich parents, that you never had that innate affinity for "burning hands". To me, that's just so many kinds of wrong.
But the RAW disagree. Go to town with it, if your DM is on board.
Retraining, as a general concept, is certainly not an aberration. People retrain every day. Skills and abilities that are no longer used lapse from proficiency and ultimately from memory, while new skills and abilities are acquired through experience and training.
@GeneticDrift
900 starting gold is a big deal at lv 1. We're talking about having around 5 times as much gold as the other PC's. this trait does not scale well, but that is what you give up for taking them.
You take Rich Parents to gain that extra edge at level 1. To have MWK weapons and armor and the like.
You shouldn't be allowed to switch out Rich Parents since the benefit of the trait has already been spent.
But if you really want to let your players switch it out, then let them repay their parents with interest. 5-6 times their current WBL.
*****
@CraziFuzzy
Yes, Additional Traits is proof that some traits can be learned later in life. Religion traits are a good example of such traits.
But traits which deal with your upbringing are good examples of traits which shouldn't be learned/unlearned.
Your interest in magic was inspired by witnessing a spell being cast in a particularly dramatic method, perhaps even one that affected you physically or spiritually. This early exposure to magic has made it easier for you to work similar magic on your own.
Switching out Gifted Adept would mean you change a crucial point in your PC's life. The moment he/she found interest in magic is now gone from your PC's life. Would he/she even have pursued the arcane arts without witnessing this spell?
|
|
900+gp is significant at lvl 5. And i just noticed the gm can veto it.
Some of the options listed below involve retraining features of your character that are essentially permanent parts of your heritage, such as a sorcerer's bloodline. The cost of retraining these things presumably includes magical or alchemical alterations to your body. The GM might rule that these changes are unavailable in the campaign, are only available under rare circumstances, take longer, are temporary, require some sort of quest, or are more expensive than the listed cost.
Can you retrain Rich Parents if taken via the Additional Traits feat? Probably.
As a GM, I wouldn't allow it. Of course, as a GM I generally don't allow that trait, anyway. But if I did, I'd definitely have the "You're going to be stuck with it" conversation before the player took it, meaning there's no way I'd allow retraining it.
Retraining a "+1 to whatever skill" trait because you realize it isn't giving you much benefit now and you'd like to change it up a little is a bit different than retraining "I get to start out with 900 gold" because at 9th level having started out with an extra 750 starting gold isn't giving you any benefit. You know going in with Rich Parents that you're coming out ahead for at most 2-3 levels (and probably significantly less than that). After that, it's utterly worthless. That's what you get for choosing that trait. But you certainly weren't complaining about its lack of utility for those 2-3 levels. Besides, there's no real way to pay that back. Giving away 750 gp at 9th level is not losing the same kind of benefit as trading out what was a class skill or a bonus to a save, for instance.
Conversely, using a trait to make Ride a class skill back when you were level 1, then realizing you don't really make use of any mounts now that you're level 9 seems like a good thing to swap out. The lack of utility many levels down the road is not necessarily foreseeable in this case, which is absolutely not the case with something like Rich Parents.
Retraining should probably for the most part be reserved for situations where you realize that the build you wanted isn't quite functional or you're really not having fun with it, but tweaking some previous selection would change things for you.
Omitted
Not sure how one can prove that 750gp at 1st level was more beneficial than say +2 on initiative at 1st level or +1 on a skill and having it become a class skill (which gives you another +3 for adding a rank). Add all the other Trait options, some of which are even better than feats, and I'm not convinced of your assertion. In fact, one might argue that a static bonus might and or additional class skill may have been far more beneficial to someone from levels 1-9 than the 750gp.
/.../
750gp? We're talking about the cost of a wand of CLW.
If the players want to bet on the long run with a skill bonus then that is their choice. But we're not talking about levels 1-9, we are talking about the first level(s): When the PC's can be killed by a single crit and knocked unconscious by a badger.I bet they will appreciate their wand more than a skill bonus during that first and second level. When they hit level 5, they might think that the trait was wasted, but it could have been what allowed them to survive this long.
Yeah, actually. Let's view the 750gp as a wand of CLW.
When they have spent all the charges then some will complain that they wasted their resources. They view the wand as 750gp when it was actually worth 275 hp.
I mean, if you allow me to use a hyperbole...
Would you allow your first level players to "take a loan" of 20,000 gp, provided that they pay it back later?
Wonderstell: I take Fey Magic as an alternate racial trait and pick cure light wounds as my 1st-level druid spell. I snag several levels and now it's not as impressive so I retrain it. So this is cool because gp weren't involved even though I healed more than that 750gp wand?
I agree with N N 959. Rich parents is no harder or easier to explain and justify than any other element you can retrain and the benefits of any option is going to be situational at best. And paying interest seems excessive. You're already paying once to retrain so the extra cost because gp where involved seems odd.
Wonderstell: I take Fey Magic as an alternate racial trait and pick cure light wounds as my 1st-level druid spell. I snag several levels and now it's not as impressive so I retrain it. So this is cool because gp weren't involved even though I healed more than that 750gp wand?
I agree with N N 959. Rich parents is no harder or easier to explain and justify than any other element you can retrain and the benefits of any option is going to be situational at best. And paying interest seems excessive. You're already paying once to retrain so the extra cost because gp where involved seems odd.
I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between casting a spell and having a wand. You can't compare being able to cast the spell once per day and the wand which have 50 charges to use when you need them.
And it is "cool" (as the hip kids like to say) since it is mentioned in the retraining rules. Since it has a cost of 200 x character level. Since it isn't a trait.
Traits (not Racial Traits) aren't mentioned in the Retraining rules at all. It is only because the feat "Additional Traits" exist that we are having this discussion at all.
But now you've opened Pandora's Box by referring to the Retraining rules. If you were meant to be able to switch out Traits, surely that would be addressed in the Retraining rules?
|
|
Not talking about the OP, just the trait//retraining
If that clw wand kept the party alive and the game fun, what is the problem? A clw wand is probably the least game upsetting thing a spoiled child could buy, a mw item, some helpful gear? A few potions? Unless they pick up a murder zoo its not breaking the game. It is no where as broken as some magic traits.
As a gm use what the player did with it to set the cost. A few hp is nothing to worry about, especially if the party had no cleric which channel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how one can prove that 750gp at 1st level was more beneficial than say +2 on initiative at 1st level or +1 on a skill and having it become a class skill (which gives you another +3 for adding a rank).
The player proved that, at least for himself, when he made that choice at first level. Having that extra money at the start will impact some characters a lot more than others.
I am not argumenting for that you shouldn't be able to pick Rich Parents.
I am argumenting against being able to switch out a trait when you have already benefited from it.
The PC kept the party alive in the lower levels. That's why he picked the Rich Parents trait. There is no problem here.
The problem arrives when the PC wants to switch it out.
Imagine if there was a trait that granted you +1000 xp at level 1.
One of your players chose this trait and reached level 2 atleast 1-2 sessions before all other players. He had a huge advantage over other players at lower levels, but as he levels up this difference in xp decreases. When the PC reached half of the xp to level 7, he decides that his trait isn't as good anymore and switches it for another.
Static bonuses in Money and XP has very different importance at lower and higher levels.
+1000 xp at level 6 is not worth +1000 xp at level 1.
+750 gp at level 6 is not worth +750 gp at level 1.
The player proved that, at least for himself, when he made that choice at first level. Having that extra money at the start will impact some characters a lot more than others.Not sure how one can prove that 750gp at 1st level was more beneficial than say +2 on initiative at 1st level or +1 on a skill and having it become a class skill (which gives you another +3 for adding a rank).
No, the player didn't prove anything. Making a choice isn't proving something. There is no way for a player to know the comparative benefit of Choice A over Choice B when taken at 1st level, unless that player can see the future i.e. knows the outcome of every die roll and what's behind every door.
There's a reason PFS allows a person to completely rebuild a character until 2nd level.
There's also a reason that this particular trait isn't allowed in PFS.
OmittedThen I guess that's probably why there isn't a trait that gives 1000xp at 1st level.
The problem with your analysis is that you have no idea what the cumulative benefit of getting +2 on every single initiative roll is. Not being flat footed at the start of combat can save your life, it can save other's lives. It can allow you to end combat earlier and save your self money and resources over the long run. Alternatively if you take a trait that makes Diplomacy a class skill, and you put 1 rank in it, you're starting out it at +5 versus +1. How much does an item that gives a permanent +4 to a skill cost? More than 750gp?
I am trying to make a point about traits that have a different value at different levels.
OP chose to take Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) since he knew it would be good at the first levels. When he picked that trait, he knew there would come a time when the trait wouldn't have any worth.
I am against letting someone retrain a trait simply because the PC has outleveled the benefit, since the PC already gained the benefit of the trait.
Taking a trait with a level cap is the same as investing into those levels before the cap.
*****
And, really. My analysis has nothing to do with how good Rich Parents is compared to other traits. You are missing the point.
We are discussing whether anyone would be allowed to switch out traits, and Rich Parents/Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) are both good examples of traits which you shouldn't allow someone to retrain/switch out.
Why? Because they are both traits which scale badly compared to other traits. When OP chose Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) he invested a trait into levels 1-4, since he knew +1 caster level would only benefit him during those levels.
If I could give you a clear simile, it would be this:
Trait A will give you a +4 bonus to Inititative at levels 1-5.
Trait B will give you a +2 bonus to Inititative at all levels.
They don't stack, you can only pick one.
Would you allow one of your players to pick trait A, then switch that out for trait B at level 6?
On the topic of retraining things that give you tangible benefits, consider the following class feature of the Noble Scion prestige class:
Affluent (Ex)At each level, a noble scion gains a stipend worth a number of gold pieces equal to 750 multiplied by his class level. (He gains 750 gp at 1st level, an additional 1,500 gp at 2nd level, and so on.)
Given that the minimum entry point is 6th level, you can actually turn a profit retraining into and out of the 2nd level (and up) of Noble Scion:
retraining cost is 490 gold, takes 7 days - so to train out and back in and re-obtain your stipend is a profit of 520 gold every two weeks. (Note that you have to qualify for some other prestige class to do this since you can't train base levels into prestige levels.)
In other words, there are some holes in the retraining rules and you should probably not allow retraining anything that messes with character wealth.
@N N 959
Why? Because they are both traits which scale badly compared to other traits.Opinion, not fact. If I take a trait for a skill I never use the entire life span of the character, then I would have been better off taking Rich Parents.
Nice. Real nice. You have a peculiar way of argumenting that depends on ridiculing your opponents arguments.
As I was saying, Rich Parents/Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) scale badly compared to other traits. "other traits", as in, "the majority of traits".
Not "other traits", as in, "obscure example of a situational waste of a trait".
Gifted Adept (Shocking grasp) is useless after (caster) level 4. How can you even compare that to a skill bonus which will always be there? Even if you chose to not use it, that is still true.
*****
Fabricating an example where it is unequivocal that A is better than B doesn't prove your point. Why? Because you haven't proven that this is true in this particular case. Even more to the point, the rules do not prohibit retraining for any value based reason. The rules don't prohibit training based on why you want to retrain or what the realized benefit may be. If you can retain, then you can retrain.Trait A will give you a +4 bonus to Inititative at levels 1-5.
Trait B will give you a +2 bonus to Inititative at all levels.
Now, let me slap you in the face with some knowledge.
Benefit: Whenever you cast a spell that deals damage, you gain a +1 trait bonus to the total damage dealt. This damage is considered force damage regardless of the type of damage dealt by the spell.
*****
Here we have a good trait to compare with Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp).
You begin at level 1. You are making a Shocking Grasp-focused build.
Which one of these two traits would you pick?
Gifted Adept, which would raise your damage with Shocking Grasp from 1d6 to 2d6, or Havoc of the Society, which would add +1 damage?
Gifted Adept? Yeah, that's a good choice between those two. I mean, that one is clearly superior.
But what happens if we skip to level 5? Your Gifted Adept trait does not grant you any benefit now since you have outleveled the benefit.
If you had chosen Havoc of the Society, you would have gotten a lesser bonus which would always be in use, regardless of level, but you didn't take that trait.
You chose the trait which would grant you an edge at lower levels instead. That was your choice. And that choice is something you should have to respect.
*****
I am against letting someone retrain a trait simply because the PC has outleveled the benefit, since the PC already gained the benefit of the trait.That's your prerogative as a GM in your own game. But the retraining rules support that exact option: retraining something less useful for something that is more useful. In fact, there are several classes that are allowed to retrain spells or feats as part of the class' ability. Clearly Paizo anticipates players will swap out any spells/feats that are less useful.
Allow me to hold your face under the putrescent waters of knowledge. Again.
Nowhere in the retraining rules are you allowed to retrain Traits. Nowhere. Racial Traits are not Traits.
If Paizo meant for players to switch out their Traits, then that should have been addressed in the retraining rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most generous possible interpretation would be to charge a character who loses the Rich Parents trait through retraining the feat that gave it to him an additional 900 GP (beyond the standard retraining costs) to reflect the money from his parents that he no longer has. As the discussion in this thread indicates, many GMs would consider even this too generous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, keep it on target. You can retrain feats.
Nobody is talking about retraining pure traits. They are talking about retraining a feat which grants traits, another ball of wax.
Omitted
If Paizo didn't want people to be able to retrain traits gained with the feat, then they could have made that exception. They didn't.
More to the point, you aren't arguing that traits are some sacred aspect of the character that should not be disturbed, you're arguing value, which is subjective.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I have made it very clear that traits can have different value at different levels. There is nothing subjective about Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) granting absolutely nothing after level 4 (with an exception for Negative Levels and SR).
Yet again, you are ridiculing and avoiding arguments instead of facing them. That might make you a good debater, but it does not lead to any kind of development.
I have said from the beginning that traits can have different value at different levels. That not every trait is a +4 to a skill. If you are still of a different opinion, I can only redirect you to my previous posts where that statement is proven again and again.
Now, would you pick Gifted Adept or Havoc of the Society at level 1? What about if you started at level 5?
If you can't answer this question, and provide an argument as to why you would take Gifted Adept (Shocking Grasp) at all starting levels, then I see no point in continuing this conversation.
*****
And, yeah, I've already stated my "opinion" on OP's question. RAW allows it.
So what I and N N 959 have been doing is straying from the original question.
Wonderstell: I take Fey Magic as an alternate racial trait and pick cure light wounds as my 1st-level druid spell. I snag several levels and now it's not as impressive so I retrain it. So this is cool because gp weren't involved even though I healed more than that 750gp wand?
I agree with N N 959. Rich parents is no harder or easier to explain and justify than any other element you can retrain and the benefits of any option is going to be situational at best. And paying interest seems excessive. You're already paying once to retrain so the extra cost because gp where involved seems odd.
I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between casting a spell and having a wand. You can't compare being able to cast the spell once per day and the wand which have 50 charges to use when you need them.
And it is "cool" (as the hip kids like to say) since it is mentioned in the retraining rules. Since it has a cost of 200 x character level. Since it isn't a trait.
Traits (not Racial Traits) aren't mentioned in the Retraining rules at all. It is only because the feat "Additional Traits" exist that we are having this discussion at all.
But now you've opened Pandora's Box by referring to the Retraining rules. If you were meant to be able to switch out Traits, surely that would be addressed in the Retraining rules?
Yes, the racial trait is much better as they can heal every day and it levels up with them. This is based on your total of healing done by the wand vs what a character could heal every day over 5 levels. If you don't agree, then your total damage healed by the wand is a pretty useless metric for figuring out value.
On retraining rules, paizo made a feat for picking up traits after creation. This means at 10th level you can suddenly get dragon blood for instance. It also allows said traits to be retrained, as feats can be retrained.
Guys, retraining as a whole doesn't make sense from an in-character perspective. You can retrain a high level wizard into a fighter or vice versa. Finding a way to swap out some additional traits is a pretty minor thing if you're already allowing retraining.
While you may eek out some minor advantage by swapping out two traits, it's generally not much different than swapping out a feat. Just make sure you do your best to revert any benefits gained, as best you can, and avoid being overly cheese-weasily over such minor stuff.
Pretty much what I've been saying. If you can justify retraining your race, class, bloodlines and feats, traits seems an odd place to draw a line for having special rules based on making sense or relative strength/usefulness since the whole thing can swing wildly in those areas.
Pretty much what I've been saying. If you can justify retraining your race, class, bloodlines and feats, traits seems an odd place to draw a line for having special rules based on making sense or relative strength/usefulness since the whole thing can swing wildly in those areas.Guys, retraining as a whole doesn't make sense from an in-character perspective. You can retrain a high level wizard into a fighter or vice versa. Finding a way to swap out some additional traits is a pretty minor thing if you're already allowing retraining.
While you may eek out some minor advantage by swapping out two traits, it's generally not much different than swapping out a feat. Just make sure you do your best to revert any benefits gained, as best you can, and avoid being overly cheese-weasily over such minor stuff.
Especially with feats like Cleave at low levels getting to hit 2 guys after a move action is great but at higher levels where you may be dealing with a lot more single target fights retraining it into another feat would definitely be beneficial. And also completely allowed.
Not sure how one can prove that 750gp at 1st level was more beneficial than say +2 on initiative at 1st level or +1 on a skill and having it become a class skill (which gives you another +3 for adding a rank). Add all the other Trait options, some of which are even better than feats, and I'm not convinced of your assertion. In fact, one might argue that a static bonus might and or additional class skill may have been far more beneficial to someone from levels 1-9 than the 750gp.
As for the role playing...eh. You found out that your parents weren't rich, they were crooks, so you have to pay back the 750. In a game where you can spin anything, I don't see this as any different. I'd argue that this is actually easier to retconn than a mechanical bonus that one has been using for 9 levels suddenly being forgotten.
Of course 750 gold is a worthless difference after 9 levels. It's worthless after 2 levels. It makes an immediate impact that maybe lasts through level 1. Unquestionably, a static benefit like +2 initiative or making something a class skill is better over 9 levels. That's not really the point, though.
My point is that the drawback of changing out that trait at 9th is negligible. After 9th level, you're out a class skill versus you're out 750 gold. Losing 750 gold at 9th level isn't remotely problematic. So you're changing out a thing after you've derived all possible benefit up to that point for absolutely no drawback. At least if what you were trading out was the loss of a class skill, you don't get that benefit going forward (even if it was an infrequently used class skill).
But again, you can probably do it. I don't like it, but that's my thing. *shrug*
The player proved that, at least for himself, when he made that choice at first level. Having that extra money at the start will impact some characters a lot more than others.Not sure how one can prove that 750gp at 1st level was more beneficial than say +2 on initiative at 1st level or +1 on a skill and having it become a class skill (which gives you another +3 for adding a rank).
No, the player didn't prove anything. Making a choice isn't proving something. There is no way for a player to know the comparative benefit of Choice A over Choice B when taken at 1st level, unless that player can see the future i.e. knows the outcome of every die roll and what's behind every door.
There's a reason PFS allows a person to completely rebuild a character until 2nd level.
It's hard to know what the comparative benefits will be if it's the first time you've played. It's not all that hard to tell if you've been through it a few times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are way too many variable for anyone to make any kind of scientific argument that Rich Parents is empirically better than every other choice at 1st level.
No one believes that the worth of Rich Parents comparatively with other traits is important to this discussion. You are the only one bringing this subject up over and over again.
We are discussing the worth of the trait Rich Parents relatively to player levels.
"Most" are of the opinion that taking Rich Parents at level 20 is a worse choice than taking Rich Parents at level 1.
You "refute" this claim by saying that +2 Initiative is better, which is highly illogical.
*****
Retraining should usually be done by players who have made mistakes.
Experienced players taking Rich Parents at level 1 when it is empirically better than taking it at level 20 just to "loan" money from the bank is something to contempt from a roleplaying perspective.
The ones doing so are abusing both a system to give your players a backstory and a system to help new players.
So, yeah, if OP took the traits because he didn't know it was a suboptimal choice then by all means let him retrain it. But if he knew the choices he made were suboptimal with the intent to benefit from retraining them, then it is bad taste.
Edit:
Yes, +2 Initiative is awesome, I am not saying that Rich Parent is the better trait. Don't bring this up.
Retraining should usually be done by players who have made mistakes.
I missed that in the rules. So rolling less than max hp is a player mistake? Gaining extra language is a player mistake? No, the base system isn't in place so that it's usually used for mistakes only. That may be how YOU use it, but it isn't a universal rule.
If a player is willing to spend the gp on retraining, it's for those that made a mistake AND those that made a strategic choice that they planned to change latter in the game.
No one believes that the worth of Rich Parents comparatively with other traits is important to this discussion.And that's exactly why your analysis fails. You're ignoring the opportunity cost. It's not just about Rich Parents, it's about what you're giving up and the cumulative loss that results the longer you keep the trait. Fret suggests 750gp is no longer valuable after 1st level. So every level you keep it, you're getting nothing for it. Retraining, you pay back the entire amount plus tax. So you've gained nothing financially (and actually lost money) and now you have to justify that whatever you purchased for 750gp was worth the retraining cost and the loss of some other trait or even feat. You haven't done that. Nobody has. You're just focused on someone getting 750gp up front and paying it back when 750gp is trivial. That's only half the analysis.
You and others are all up in arms because you assume that some player is gaining an advantage when the reality may be that they are actually putting themselves at a disadvantage.
You're assuming that at the time the repayment is made, money is also an issue. It's still a fixed amount likely paid when paying that amount isn't much of a detriment, if at all. I know what opportunity costs are. I know how that all works.
But here's the deal, you don't lose out on the feat. You're now retraining into the feat that gives the benefit you want. That's the point. So you trade out for negligible cost the thing that no longer does you any good, so you can benefit in the long run from something else. Again, on paper that's what retraining is for. When it involves something like Rich Parents, it seems particularly system-gaming to me.
Current money is typically better than future money. That's why it's (usually) the better option to take the lump sum, then invest it on your own.
And again, retraining rules are what they are. You can do this. There are perfectly fine reasons to do it. And even if I think a reason for doing it are lame or system-gaming, so what? You can still do it; play your game however you want. I simply think it's a bit cheese-tastic to take something like Rich Parents with the intent of trading it out later. The entire point of that trait is you get a significant benefit now for virtually none later. That is the opportunity cost - you are foregoing longer term benefits for a short term gain. But if you can just trade it out after you've utilized the benefit, then you are minimizing, reducing, or completely negating the opportunity cost, which basically is the exact opposite of what you are arguing.
I'm not railing against retraining. But I am saying that I think allowing retraining something like Rich Parents (which is relatively isolated) completely undercuts the whole opportunity cost analysis, which is the point of making relatively permanent choices. Rich Parents is relatively unique in this regard - you lose virtually nothing by giving it up after the point where money is relatively easy to come by (which in the amounts we're talking here, doesn't take too long).
Anyway, I don't know that this is going to go anywhere else. As I've said, you can do this. But if a person is GMing this situation, if you're going to allow a trait like Rich Parents to be taken, I'd make sure the player knew what they were getting when they choose it, and I'd never let them retrain it later. And I certainly wouldn't let them take it if I knew their intent was to retrain it later. Rich Parents is relatively unique, but retraining it is a no-brainer after you're a few levels in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NN 959, you are misusing the concept of an opportunity cost. You see the long term disadvantages and are ignoring the short term advantages of extra cash.
At level 1, gold spent on masterwork weapons and tools are worth a few feats. That puts the Present Value of Rich Parents fairly high compared to other traits (1 trait ~= 1/2 feat). The difference is the Future Value. As WBL increases, the relative value of extra gold plunges.
The overall value of a trait can be estimated as the integral of (relative value at level) d(level). Most traits have constant value at level. But you can maximize your value by integrating over the levels you expect to be playing and comparing overall expected values.
In low level games, certain traits are much better. But, early value traits have a level where their total expected value falls below that of constant traits. If you plan to be playing longer than that, you should consider other traits instead.
By retraining an early value trait into a constant value one, you take all the benefits of low level play and replace the late game low value tail with a constant benefit. Effectively getting more out of a trait slot than is normally allowed. Probably not unbalanced, but silly enough you might want controls so that not everyone takes advantage of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that you come out behind by paying money back later, that's the point. The money paid back is not as valuable when paid back later because you have far greater access to it, that's what I'm getting at. The benefits gained in that first level or so from having early access to even just a masterwork weapon are pretty notable. 5% better chance to hit at first level, particularly for a melee character is not insignificant. Combine that with masterwork armor or masterwork tools or a master backpack.Or maybe you get that mighty composite bow 1-2 levels sooner. Whatever. That is a significant advantage over other first level characters.
Pay a little extra money in a couple levels to retrain and get a +2 initiative bonus a +1 to your Will save as those get to be more important and it seems like a very worthwhile trade.
For the career of an adventurer, +1 to a save or +2 to initiative is unquestionably better. For a first level character? Give me the masterwork weapon, armor, backpack, and a few potions hands down (especially if you're going to let me trade it out in a few levels for the better long term bonus for a nominal fee).
To me, that seems a bit system-abusive. It applies the letter of the law, but not the spirit, so to speak.