|
Given the time they put in, players have a right to make the most of their PCs, so who cares if they retrain here or there?
...Also, my PCs never seem to have enough prestige.
I'm still so confused. What kind of situations are you encountering where players are needing to use retraining but don't have the PP for it? What are you using PP for that makes you not have enough for retraining.
Yes, retraining skills are bad, so lets ignore that huge outlier and look at the rest of retraining.Like, if characters are getting to higher levels and hate their character because of the choices they made then why would they have played so long?
The point of leveling is making choices. The goal is to have character be pretty static, and not changing a lot. Also, if you make it easy, you will have people, probably most, who abuse it. And once that happens the difference between characters who do and don't will be noticeable. It will become a "required" deal to get a good feat at lv2 if you had a free feat retrain.
I really don't see where you're coming from for this need of lower retraining costs to be considered. Also, your proposed solutions thus far have been ripe for "exploiting" but it's not exploitation because the rules allow it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>@Thomas Hutchins:
There are many uses for PP, including: consumables (wands, scrolls, potions, one-shot items), weapons, boons (take your pick - Expedition Manager, Fangwood Keep, other special chronicle items, etc.), vanities, Spire purchases, and raise dead/neg level buffers or other necessary condition removal - so many uses. My characters rarely have spare prestige to spend on significantly overpriced retraining taxes or otherwise. But, that's just me. Your use may differ.
It sounds like you understand that skill retraining is a huge problem. Archetypes are also a problem, spells are a problem, some class switching is a problem, as we have been discussing. I wouldn't call the system one that 'mostly works' with so many things about it that don't really work.
I'm not seeing the exploits that would arise as a consequence of my suggestions. I specifically comment in multiple places about how to limit abuse. Eliminate hit points, eliminate new languages, possibly use lifetime retraining caps, etc.
Also, philosophically, who cares if a character is static or undergoes change? I don't feel the need to make that judgment. It's up to the player and the hundreds of hours (and dollars) they end up spending on the game, at the table, in the game store, at CONs, paying for books, fees & gear, and immersed and engaged in Paizo content. What's the down-side? (There isn't one.) Great Golarion's Ghost - I don't even want to know what I've spent so far on Pathfinder Kool-Aid, but I probably could have bought the Grinning Pixie by now. As a fan, it really irks me that I have to spend 10PP to move 2 skill ranks.
Players can decide that they don't like things about their characters at any point in the campaign - maybe they don't like being a swashbuckler after 5 levels, but also don't want to totally start over and lose their huge time (and monetary) investment on that character. Maybe it's part of their character narrative. Maybe they don't like having multiple characters. Maybe they just want to move a few skill ranks, because taking Craft (underpants) seemed like a good idea at the time and they now realize that Profession (sailor) is a better choice for PFS. Everyone is different. It doesn't really matter what the individual reasoning is - what matters is that there is a fair and equitable system in place with minimal abuse (no system is 100% abuse-free) that doesn't cost an arm and a leg or try to exert too much external control or judge the reasons (or necessity for) why players want to change their characters.
But, that's not the case now. To me, the system seems skewed, where it uses prestige as a heavy tax to try and stop abuse or account for nebulous time (which makes no sense). There are better ways to manage the slew rate of retrains, where they happen, how to find the resources, etc. Players make the game and their characters are the primary point of attachment.
I will say, as before, that I love the level 1 retraining. I also like the one-time CORE-to-NORMAL conversion. All great stuff and good for the player base. Also, players at the store really like the new in-store purchase rewards, as do I. Awesome.
>@Ferious Thune:
The Guide says that the prestige cost is there because of undefined time between adventures. That explanation doesn't ring true for me. I agree with you on the data collection over the past few years and related analysis. In the circles I orbit, I'm not aware of any retraining abuse and have signed off on a couple...not many. In some cases, I have not retrained a PC where I have screwed up because of the prestige cost. In another case, I lost a bunch of prestige because I had to retrain because the PC was screwed up after I realized a feat error. I really didn't like it.
My hope in raising this topic is that Paizo will review the system and make any changes for PFS they feel are necessary. I think there are too many cases where it doesn't work and that prestige doesn't belong in the equation, or needs to be rendered in a different context (small, non-scaling finder's fee, for example, if at all).
Anyway - thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. I think there are a number of interesting points and perspectives and that we have covered a lot of the bases with a pancake-like consistency.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I've not heard of any where you need a party of highly optimized character to even have a chance of succeeding.
Yeah that's because you probably don't play a lot of high tier stuff. A lot of high tier stuff use some brutal tactics that usually makes sure that a single player is going to die. You can negate some of them but it always does feel like your one bad or good choice away from preventing that sort of disaster.
|
The Guide says that the prestige cost is there because of undefined time between adventures. That explanation doesn't ring true for me. I agree with you on the data collection over the past few years and related analysis. In the circles I orbit, I'm not aware of any retraining abuse and have signed off on a couple...not many. In some cases, I have not retrained a PC where I have screwed up because of the prestige cost. In another case, I lost a bunch of prestige because I had to retrain because the PC was screwed up after I realized a feat error. I really didn't like it.
That's part of it, too. That's not saying that spending the prestige is justifying anything in game, though. It's because in a different situation, taking several days or weeks to spend retraining might have an in game impact, say, in an adventure path or something where things are happening off screen during downtime. In PFS, the number of days would not be a limiting factor, so associating the prestige cost with the number of days corrects (or possibly overcorrects that).
If you go back to some of the original threads when retraining was being considered, I think you'll find the other concerns I noted mentioned as well. The point being that the prestige cost is not really there to be representative of anything in game/in world. It's there as a campaign rule to put a second limit on the use of retraining besides the gold cost. It just happens that it was chosen to correlate to the number of days so that part of the retraining rules would still be relevant. A different rule (like 1 prestige per 3 days, or 1 prestige=1 day, 2 prestige = 3 days, and 3 prestige = 5 days, etc.) might also work, while making it a little less costly to retrain. It's more complicated to keep track of, but not terribly so.
I'm good either way. Having a little more flexibility to retrain might help a couple of my characters, but I appreciate having the flexibility we do now. Personally, I'm more concerned with things like arguing about whether or not a specific class feature can be retrained or there not being a way to retrain a trait than I am the prestige cost, but those aren't generally things that fall under the PFS team unless they want to go there in the Campaign Clarifications document.
|
I've not heard of any where you need a party of highly optimized character to even have a chance of succeeding.Yeah that's because you probably don't play a lot of high tier stuff. A lot of high tier stuff use some brutal tactics that usually makes sure that a single player is going to die. You can negate some of them but it always does feel like your one bad or good choice away from preventing that sort of disaster.
I do play (and GM) a lot of high tier stuff. And I can tell you categorically that you don't need a party of highly optimized characters to succeed.
The most recent 7-11 I played was The Sarkorian Prophecy. Still considered a very hard scenario even nowadays (especially 4 players like we had). We succeeded in our mission with no deaths. If I had to pick a standout for the adventure it would be my "totally a role-playing character" inquisitor. Who still (at 10th level) has Combat Expertise as his only combat feat. The other characters were a cleric and a couple of rogues. All of which were average-fair builds and everyone had some feats that didn't directly contribute to combat.
Which isn't to brag. It's to say that no, you don't have to be perfectly built to succeed. At high levels GMs often have the tools at their disposal to guarantee at least one player dies. But the tactics are almost always written in such a way to give any party a decent chance. If the GM is doing her job right you will feel like you're one bad choice away from disaster (and not feeling like you were doomed no matter what you did).
At GenCon this year I ran 5 tables of Ageless Ambitions (a Tier 7-11). The "power" levels ran all the way from characters using nothing but the CRB to a table that included a bloodrager, life oracle, and grandfathered (chained) summoner. They all succeeded in their mission. Nobody died (I don't count breath of life as dying - that spell certainly got used a lot). No party "dominated" the scenario - even the beefiest teetered on the brink a couple of times.
As someone quoted above, the reason retraining was allowed was to correct mistakes - mixing up prerequisites or not understanding how a class feature would actually play out in practice. Not to allow you to build up the beefiest character possible.
Edit: Before I get misrepresented, I need to stress that there is a difference between an "average" build and a "bad" build. I do believe that there is such a thing as a bad build and that you may lose scenarios if you have one. An average build is decent and can succeed at all scenarios. You don't have to be optimized to succeed.
|
|
When this thread got going I found myself thinking about my -1 character. Who retired before retraining was allowed. One of his best personality traits was his naïveté - wandering wide eyed into the world (in a large part due to my own unfamiliarity with fantasy RPG tabletop games). That meant (along with believing whatever anyone told him and constantly assuming he was the best person for the job - no matter how horribly suited he truly was) he was constantly picking his class features and feats based on his immediately previous experiences. Like blind-fight after a particularly harrowing experience.
Since Ultimate Combat you don't see that as much. Blind-fight turned out to be not as useful or necessary as I thought it would be but I was stuck with it so I worked it into his personality. Similarly dodge wasn't that great, it isn't a prerequisite for anything else he knows. Nowadays I would probably just retrain it into something else. But he would have lost part of his personality in the process.
|
|
Yeah that's because you probably don't play a lot of high tier stuff. A lot of high tier stuff use some brutal tactics that usually makes sure that a single player is going to die. You can negate some of them but it always does feel like your one bad or good choice away from preventing that sort of disaster.
I've not heard of any where you need a party of highly optimized character to even have a chance of succeeding.
I've 1 retired character going through eyes and have a lv11 and 2 lv9's So not like all the 7-11s, but I've been through a fair amount of them I feel. I hear king of storval stairs is hard, yet I played a lv7 or 8 through that when the table was high tier and we had 1 melee damage dealer blinded before the last fight and we couldn't remove it, and we still won that fight without deaths. First session of Eyes done and no one died, and our source of healing in that party was UMD. I've even succeeded some where the GM accidentally more than doubled the DPR potential of an enemy.
So it's either I've been lucky and somehow still haven't ran into any of these deadly 7-11s, or my experience with them has been they aren't bad.
|
|
yea my first character was built as a full plate barbarian because I didn't know what I was doing. by the time I had played enough to realize what I did wrong I would need either 3 different feats or a archetype change to fix it... which I haven't done I am just slogging through with my mistakes but it would be nice to fix it if I could.
another time was a 5 class multiclass to get around something that turned out not to be a problem after all, sure again I can just play it as built but the retraining rules are there for the sole purpose of making mistakes fixable. I get what they are doing but instead of just making a new character and trying again I would have liked to fix the existing one
how is the barb needing to retrain 3 feats? And if you have ultimate campaign then you have the way to fix it. 3 feats is 15 prestige, very possible to have obtained. Now it seems you feel it's not worth it to fix your issue, that the character is still playable as is. So it's not seeming like a mistake that is really needing a fix since you aren't applying any of the fixes you already have available.
for your 5 class multiclass, 1 it sounds like you should have sought more advice or something to have realized an error before 5 levels, but hey, maybe you GM babied it up to that. retraining 3 levels is at most 21 prestige, most likely affordable by lv5 unless you uses PP for a raise dead already. But without knowing the build I don't know how crippled you are compared to what you'd be if you did the retraining you wanted.
I myself have had to pay 20 prestige to retrain 3 levels and a feat for one of my characters, realized I didn't like the skald class. I was able to fix that. So I'm not seeing how your issues are so much more different and unable to be fixed if I fixed mine.
|
|
>@Thomas Hutchins:
There are many uses for PP, including: consumables (wands, scrolls, potions, one-shot items), weapons, boons (take your pick - Expedition Manager, Fangwood Keep, other special chronicle items, etc.), vanities, Spire purchases, and raise dead/neg level buffers or other necessary condition removal - so many uses. My characters rarely have spare prestige to spend on significantly overpriced retraining taxes or otherwise. But, that's just me. Your use may differ.
It sounds like you understand that skill retraining is a huge problem. Archetypes are also a problem, spells are a problem, some class switching is a problem, as we have been discussing. I wouldn't call the system one that 'mostly works' with so many things about it that don't really work.
I'm not seeing the exploits that would arise as a consequence of my suggestions. I specifically comment in multiple places about how to limit abuse. Eliminate hit points, eliminate new languages, possibly use lifetime retraining caps, etc.
Also, philosophically, who cares if a character is static or undergoes change? I don't feel the need to make that judgment. It's up to the player and the hundreds of hours (and dollars) they end up spending on the game, at the table, in the game store, at CONs, paying for books, fees & gear, and immersed and engaged in Paizo content. What's the down-side? (There isn't one.) Great Golarion's Ghost - I don't even want to know what I've spent so far on Pathfinder Kool-Aid, but I probably could have bought the Grinning Pixie by now. As a fan, it really irks me that I have to spend 10PP to move 2 skill ranks.
Players can decide that they don't like things about their characters at any point in the campaign - maybe they don't like being a swashbuckler after 5 levels, but also don't want to totally start over and lose their huge time (and monetary) investment on that character. Maybe it's part of their character narrative. Maybe they don't like having multiple characters. Maybe they just want to...
So why keep track of anything? why care about chronicles or owning source material or anything. Why not bring custom made characters to each scenario? Free total and complete lv1 rebuilds but for always.
Like nothing but some words on a page and your integrity is stopping you from doing free retraining by cheating and doing it for free. (note, I'm not endorsing or encouraging cheating. Don't cheat cause cheating is bad.)
The point of PFS is to make a character and play them through missions, having them grow as you do. The current retraining allows fixes of mistakes. It's an expensive solution though, because they want you to play your character and live with your choices. Changing 2 skill ranks isn't a need or a mistake, it's just that you now would rather have it different. I haven't seen any new player make a character and then be complaining how they wish they could do a complete rebuild at lv5 or 7 or whatever, maybe you have and it's super abundant in your lodge. But I don't think that overall in PFS that there's a need for more lax retraining and I don't feel you've convinced me that there's a need even in your lodge from the examples you're giving to allow easier retraining.
|
Also, philosophically, who cares if a character is static or undergoes change? I don't feel the need to make that judgment. It's up to the player and the hundreds of hours (and dollars) they end up spending on the game, at the table, in the game store, at CONs, paying for books, fees & gear, and immersed and engaged in Paizo content. What's the down-side? (There isn't one.) Great Golarion's Ghost - I don't even want to know what I've spent so far on Pathfinder Kool-Aid, but I probably could have bought the Grinning Pixie by now. As a fan, it really irks me that I have to spend 10PP to move 2 skill ranks.Players can decide that they don't like things about their characters at any point in the campaign - maybe they don't like being a swashbuckler after 5 levels, but also don't want to totally start over and lose their huge time (and monetary) investment on that character. Maybe it's part of their character narrative. Maybe they don't like having multiple characters. Maybe they just want to...
A few things:
1) A lack of clear build continuity makes it very difficult to audit characters, to start. If I can just liquidate down and re-buy everything as part of a rebuild between scenarios, that's a pretty big headache. Especially in things like Eyes of the Ten.
2) While I can buy this argument in a regular progression campaign, where you could invest 100+ hours of play into a character before you even hit the halfway point of playing that character, it doesn't hold up in Pathfinder Society.
You can hit the halfway point in PFS at 60 hours of play or less with Modules/Bonekeep/Etc. A full character from 1-12, counting retirement arc, clocks in at about 130-140 hours. That sounds like a lot, but it is actually fairly fast turnover. For comparison, it could take several hundred hours of play and several years to get a character to that same point in other similar org play setups. PFS moves very fast.
If your character is not working out by mid level and you don't want to continue with it or pay Prestige, you can always roll another, go have other adventures, etc. and get back to that point relatively quickly. GMing scenarios for credit can even help move things along if you're not feeling low level play.
3) And honestly? I've seen attempts at a fluid, rebuild to X level and X gold at each scenario models. RPGA did it a lot in the late days of 3.5. It was not terribly enjoyable. The game becomes about building to the scenario/adventure.
|
|
@Thomas
>Free total and complete lv1 rebuilds but for always.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that. At least I'm not. ;-)
>The point of PFS is to make a character and play them through missions, >having them grow as you do.
To me, the main point of PFS is to have fun, and I try not to judge what that means for individual players, except that we pay for it with the valuable currency of our lives (time, money, etc.). Ongoing missions are secondary to fun and the imagined possibilities of what a character might become.
I agree with everyone that making choices is a good thing, and so is being able to correct mistakes or make modifications when choices don't quite work out.
>I haven't seen any new player make a character and then be complaining >how they wish they could do a complete rebuild at lv5 or 7 or whatever
I felt extremely fortunate to be able to do an unchained rebuild on my -1 rogue at around 19XP. He had too many build issues and the overall concept wasn't really working out as I had intended. I never could have afforded a rebuild under the current rules. My -2 was also a bit screwed up based on my lack of understanding, and I just had to grin and bear it and pay the price to sort it out.
>I don't feel you've convinced me that there's a need
No problem. I just see it as a discussion and I don't think there's a need to qualify or control who wants to retrain or when they might want to do it, other than to address the inequitable prestige tax. There are alternative methods - different PP ratings per time, lifetime retrain caps, etc.
@Ferious
Thanks - I'll check out some of those earlier threads. UC precedes me by at least a year, I think.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I've 1 retired character going through eyes and have a lv11 and 2 lv9's So not like all the 7-11s, but I've been through a fair amount of them I feel. I hear king of storval stairs is hard, yet I played a lv7 or 8 through that when the table was high tier and we had 1 melee damage dealer blinded before the last fight and we couldn't remove it, and we still won that fight without deaths. First session of Eyes done and no one died, and our source of healing in that party was UMD. I've even succeeded some where the GM accidentally more than doubled the DPR potential of an enemy.So it's either I've been lucky and somehow still haven't ran into any of these deadly 7-11s, or my experience with them has been they aren't bad.
Actually, there are two 7-11's whose encounter design at its worst effectively perma-blind the entire party. Most of the other egregious stuff like the spitefully making sure you can't spend 16 prestige points to come back from the dead as a GM tactic happens at lower tiers.
|
|
it is easier to train in society. Hence not needing a mission/subquest to find someone to train you.
Like I said, I paid 20PP to fix a lv4 guy, he "Died" to change. Yes it's a good amount, but quite afforable.
Also, why "shouldn't it be so hard to fix a character"? All you do now is pay gold, and some PP. done. NO quest or adventure or check needed. If it's hard because of the price why are you saying to to expensive? I see it working as intended. You SHOULDN'T have basically free access to retraining. Retraining is there as an option, but it is a serious question, is it worth it to my guy, and the answer shouldn't always be yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that like many old time players I have a PC or two that retired due to possible poor choices and bad information. With over 200 play choices between scenarios and such it's not a bad choice to simply stop playing what you don't enjoy.
Thats one thing on your -16 or when you can DM credit baby a character to level 3 from some spare parts lying around, but if your -1 doesn't work and you can't fix that, then you can get left out of the higher level adventures for a while, which can be a real problem with scheduling.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the PP cost being easy to calculate makes sense, but a lot of the original time values don't. It's funny, to say the least, that it's cheaper to retrain a level twice than do archetype replacement if you have a 1 level dip for some classes. It's also rather absurd that it takes 20 prestige to learn a language, while you could spend 5 prestige to move a skill rank into linguistics (assuming it's not maxed).
That said, I think the prestige cost to retrain a feat or a class level are perfectly reasonable. 5-7 prestige is kind of a big deal and it's nice that the retraining comes with an opportunity cost.
|
My main concern with rebuilding is along the lines of having two characters that are higher level (8 and 16) that where created prior to Archetypes existing that would work really well or be very thematic. One character simply will not be able to retrain (having spent a good deal of PP and money helping bring back other characters) and the cost will go up as he gets more, (adding more class features needing swapped out).
So, while I can certainly see and agree that keeping rebuilding from being done too easily needs to be avoided, there really should be a way to update characters as well, to help keep them competitive in their niche.
In this particular case, the character was first made around season 3, and played on and off. A lot has changed, been introduced, or the like over the years, and its to the point I like the character, who has a lot of investment, but it would be a lot more fun and interesting if I could change out a few things that didn't exist beforehand.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think archetypes are something that we could/should fix. Mainly because as it stands the rules are capricious; we determine cost based on the number of named items being changed, regardless of how powerful those items are.
However, I think it's in the nature of PFS that if you play a character over the course of a couple of years, new things will be published that would have been "just perfect", but which it's too later to incorporate. Trying to enable that looks like a very slippery slope though because any other choices (between two major versions of a build for example) will have changed in which is "better" if one of them gets a new toy.
I haven't so far seen a need to retrain skills (I tend to take a positive Int and have enough points). Retraining feats, class features and levels is about right as price goes. Expensive enough to make you think twice but not total deterrence.
Retraining into a new (unchained) version of a class is problematic. There was an "amnesty" arrangement when Unchained was new, but there'll always be future cases where someone starts with a chained rogue and later buys Unchained. If there's a very small set of these problem cases maybe we could set up a specialty rule for this, but again, slippery slope. We don't want to end up with people rebuilding every time they buy a new book. I feel that so far the unchained rogue as an almost strictly better version of the base class is the only one that merits such an arrangement.
So the only things I feel deserve an overhaul are:
1) A standing option to unchain your rogue.
2) Less variation in the cost to change/adopt/drop archetypes. For example, a flat fee of 5PP to gain or drop an archetype. That still makes it about 10PP to switch into an incompatible archetype, meaning you won't do so too often. But 10PP for "something I really want" isn't too expensive.
|
|
That's part of the deal of PFS. New material comes out for it all the time. If you really want a new archetype make a new character or "die" a few times of PP spending. If you had a monk/fighter before unchained you might have loved the brawler. Retrain or roll up a new one.
While I dont expect a change based on this one character, part of the problem is he is 1 xp from leveling to 8 or 9, (I forget off hand), and was started before there where any Archetype options, I believe.
Because Ive already burned a lot of my PP and gp on helping Rez other characters, among other things, its virtually impossible to Retrain him, as the cost increases more (due to more Class Features) faster than my ability to get PP. If not literally, by the time I could, it would be Seeker levelish, and kind of not worth it.
Its not that there is an archetype I want to play as much as there is now one that fits very well. A new characters an option, sure, but tossing aside an 8th level guy Ive played for years seems off to me.
|
|
You're able to finish your 8th level as is. He's just as sound as he was X years ago when planned (most likely). Sure something might have been cooler. I had the same thing, stock investigator and then the bonded investigator comes out to get a familiar trading away nothing I liked. My investigator has since finished reaching lv12 and doing Eyes, while the bonded investigator is on the list of cool archetypes I'd like to try out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get what you are saying. My point though, is that in this sort of situation, the Rebuild rules are ridiculously, (and absolutely unnecessarily), prohibitive. Spend 25 PP (and GP too!), just to add an archetype that hadn't existed at the time seems extremely off to me. This is not even in the same ballpark as adding a Feat I couldn't have qualified for as if I'd always had it, gaming the system for extra HP, or wanting to swap out for the newest shiny.
Now, I get it, PFS is not a home game, where such a thing would be obvious and easy under a single DM. But it seems there should be some sort of middle ground for cases like this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add me to the "excessive" list if anyone's counting.
Especially given that character options may change due to "errata" or "campaign clarifications" that may not seem to directly affect the actual build of the character, but would negatively impact them none-the-less.
One of my many wishes for the campaign would be the opening of the "full rebuild" option as a limited-use boon in a manner similar to the Expanded Narrative Boon (ie can only respect one character a year or every other year or whatever, but get a full rebuild) that doesn't require you to head to GenCon. The "flat rate" respect into or out of an archtype would also be a good start.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One option I haven't noticed people mentioning but that is also overly costly is racial traits. Twenty prestige for changing a whole class around like Thomas said he did is one thing. One player in my area wanted their halfling to change Surefooted to Outrider, and 20 prestige is excessive for that.
I paid for one of these due to a rules interaction I noticed late, making me want to reacquire a base elf feature. Suffering a penalty that is VERY close to the cost of a character death to change one thing is harsh.
I'm supportive of things like 5 prestige to retrain a feat, though. I've done that as well and it stings, but it isn't unreasonable.
|
|
It all comes down to what pfs leadership wants to allow. And from the pregen change and recent unallowed material, I get the feeling that they aren't for more power to the players.
Would there be as much complining if there was no retraining allowed?
Most of these choices are tough to get. Growing up in a desert or being an ambassi tor was your life, I imagine it's be hard to quickly change that in under a month.
Looking at old pfs guides you see that this is supposed to be a game where your choices are ones you need to live with, but returning is allowed in this expensive form.
When looking at something you need to figure, how bad can this be exploited and how annoyed would you be at people taking advantage of that exploit? I know some aren't fond of the lv1 survival barb that becomes a preplanned wizard at lv2.
So yes choices are hard to change and more so the longer it takes you to decide you want to change.
|
|
This actually locks in a little bit into the suggestion that Hmm and I (and a bunch of others) discussed a few months ago before the new Guide came out (but after it'd been put together for the most part).
Simply put: What is the 'value' of a PP?
We know that 1 PP can buy a certain value range of things, and likewise 2 PP can purchase either up to 750 gp worth of equipment or certain things.
We also know that vanities cost a certain price.
We also know what the 'death tax' is.
But would it be possible to attain a mathematical expression for *what* an increasing number of PP 'chart out' to in terms of 'gp', and then apply it to retraining from that perspective?
I know, I know, math.
However, if this were calculated out, it might make the math easier (and more palatable) for both sides of the equation, both those who feel that it's either too much or too little...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But would it be possible to attain a mathematical expression for *what* an increasing number of PP 'chart out' to in terms of 'gp', and then apply it to retraining from that perspective?Personally I don't think you even need that. I would prefer to see retraining costs completely divorced from the idea of retraining time. Simply set a fixed Prestige and Gold cost (link it to level if you want) for each of the different retraining options and you have a simple, easy to understand and use system.
I can get behind that.
The retraining system in UC is trying to maintain immersion in a game where the passage of time between adventures is somewhat observed, but not super expensive. PFS is trying to set costs on retraining to get to the fine edge between too cheap and too expensive. Those two schedules have little to do with each other.
Retraining a choice should cost something appropriate to the size of the choice. In the current system that's the case for most choices, but not for archetypes.
I'd also be okay with reducing the cost to retrain racial traits, and adding an option to retrain trait-traits.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
This actually locks in a little bit into the suggestion that Hmm and I (and a bunch of others) discussed a few months ago before the new Guide came out (but after it'd been put together for the most part).
Simply put: What is the 'value' of a PP?
The monetary equivalent of 1 Prestige Point is approximately 375 gp, though characters should normally only be able to spend Prestige Points on services, not physical goods.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Off topic, but has anyone heard when the Guide will actually be fixed? I'd have thought that would have been top priority considering how bad it was, but I haven't really heard anything about it since the week or so it dropped.
There was a whole committee of VLs and VCs who worked on overhauling the guide last year. Then they pass it to Paizo staff, and other things change in between the VO suggestions and the final print job. I suspect that it will be a similar process next year.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much as I would like the actual retraining rules (the underlying rules, NOT the PFS interpretation) changed I think it is highly optimistic to think that doing so is ever going to get to the top of Paizo's priority list. The current rules kinda sorta mostly work and the really silly edge cases can easily be handled outside of PFS by GM fiat.
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
So, all that really leaves is PFS deciding to change how the time requirements map to the PFS environment where time is (perforce) so Wibbly Wobbly in SO many ways :-).
And, for the various reasons mentioned upthread, I think the 1PP per day cost is about right. Its expensive enough to act as a deterrent, its cheap enough to make retraining still feasible in many cases, and it is simple enough to actually remember at the table when somebody asks :-)
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
Wait they change how the underlying rules work all the time when it comes to a lot of stuff especially when it comes to the topic of reducing cheese.
|
|
The other concern is classes, I think?Has it ever been lined out what any newer classes count as after the release of Ultimate Campaign?
hybrid classes did here for PFS
|
|
Wait they change how the underlying rules work all the time when it comes to a lot of stuff especially when it comes to the topic of reducing cheese.
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
Can you name 3 underlying rules that they've changed?
Banning isn't changing.|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Wait they change how the underlying rules work all the time when it comes to a lot of stuff especially when it comes to the topic of reducing cheese.
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
Can you name 3 underlying rules that they've changed?
Banning isn't changing.
In terms of class options yeah. Dedicated Adversary requires a human ethnicity even though it isn't written. From the same book from there are more feats whose prerequisites are changed from Craft(Poison) to Craft(Alchemy). There is that Warpriest Archetype that is banned from taking legal options which is technically a change. Dragonheir Disciple has what appears to be a typo fixed granting an ability it gets at the more obvious level. I'm not sure if Paizo proper errata'd the spiritual weapon issue so if not that is another deviation from RAW though I don't even think PFS kept up on that with the Int based divine caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The retraining rules are too complicated and can be simplified into one paragraph with a 5 day cost for all items (one feat, one class ability, one archetype, one class level, one level ability increase, add 2 hit points, learn 2 languages, rearrange 10 skill points, 1 racial option and/or a trait, learn 1 new spell maximum level level or 2 spells of less than maximum level).
|
|
In terms of class options yeah. Dedicated Adversary requires a human ethnicity even though it isn't written. From the same book from there are more feats whose prerequisites are changed from Craft(Poison) to Craft(Alchemy). There is that Warpriest Archetype that is banned from taking legal options which is technically a change. Dragonheir Disciple has what appears to be a typo fixed granting an ability it gets at the more obvious level. I'm not sure if Paizo proper errata'd the spiritual weapon issue so if not that is another deviation from RAW though I don't even think PFS kept up on that with the Int based divine caster.Wait they change how the underlying rules work all the time when it comes to a lot of stuff especially when it comes to the topic of reducing cheese.
There is essentially ZERO chance that PFS will change the underlying rules. For very good reason they just don't do that. Ever.
Can you name 3 underlying rules that they've changed?
Banning isn't changing.
Those aren't underlying rules. Changes to an option are changes to an underlying rule.
Underlying rules are like, skills system, magic system, mounted combat rules, lighting rules, combat rules, etc.