Recently I started a thread arguing that the retraining rules were overpowered as I consider some feats to be much better then other feats at low level but worse than those same feats at higher levels and consider that to be part of the balancing effect of these feats. Others had persuasive counter arguments and other arguments to highlight the benefits of the retraining rules.
I'm not looking for a rehash of those arguments but an instead interested in hearing people's actual play experiences in using these rules. Have you noticed an increase in the effectiveness/power of your players? Are your players optimised who are inclined to exploit these rules to increase their effectiveness in every possible way? Or have you found it's largely had story benefits which are much more the focus then a slight increase in power?
In Pathfinder I find that higher levels tend to break down for me in my ability to challenge the party without TPKing them. Higher levels for me at least are around level 10-12. I'm concerned these rules would speed up my player's ability to "break" the game (and I do realize this is a DM issue, although it seems built into Pathfinder, the level it occurs seems DM-dependent). I'm interested to see if these fears have actually played out in other people's games though.
My players aren't afraid to try new things because they know they can retrain whenever they want. (I run a sandbox game where time isn't a constraint)
I like the idea of feats being "tiered" in a way that some just aren't as useful in the higher levels. I like to think that it reflects life in a way: skills that we learned at 20 aren't all as useful when we're 30, and really just the ones we keep using and improving on stay current.
I'm a heavy equipment operator. I originally trained and certified on all my equipment, but now, 10yrs later I've never ran a Grader (feat) and I've retrained that skill to specialize in a Bulldozer (new feat). If I picked up a job running a Grader I can always retrain that Grader feat with a few weeks of practice.
(not the best example, but I think it makes my point)
The retraining rules haven't had much effect on the games I play in since the DMs haven't allowed us to use them. I have seen PCs commit "suicide by monster" so their players could get a new and improved PC though. The effect there can be pretty profound though I think the problem comes from the ability to buy just the right gear as much as from being able to disregard feats which would have been useful at lower levels.
I think retraining allows more exploration and risk-taking in builds. It lets you pick a more situational or non-combat feat, for example, without the fear you'll be stuck with it forever if it doesn't work out as well as you were hoping.
A recent example was Disarming Threat Deed. I wasn't sure how often it was going to come up, so I wasn't sure if I should take it. If there wasn't retraining, I may not have taken it. But I tried it out and have had a blast with it.
As far as I knew you had to retrain the feat into something else that could have been taken at that level? So you could swap Weapon Focus for Dodge if you were a level 2 fighter and took Weapon Focus at level 1?
If this is wrong, then apparently I misread some things.
No, you must qualify for the new feat at whatever level you currently are retraining, and it must not be a prerequisite for any others you have (unless retraining the whole tree sequentially)
So instead of your feat list basically looking like
Bonus
1
3
5
7
9
It could (in theory) look like
Bonus
3
5
7
7
9
After gaining level 9 and then retraining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's had no effect because we've always just allowed people to "re-spec." Playing something you are unhappy with is basically anathema to the point of a game.
We've also always assumed you have to retrain to something you could have taken at the time.
|
One of the things in d20 based RPGs that had bothered me was the lack of retraining rules (until UC came out). This was especially obvious (and painful) in PFS. In my game, I never wanted a player to take a feat/ability/skill and regret it later only to be told that once they chose it, they are stuck with it. It is not realistic and it is disappointing.
I have allowed retraining rules in our game, although they are not the same as what is in Ultimate Campaign. Several players have taken advantage of them after they have changed their minds on aspects of their character concepts and have ended up satisfied because of it.
It is important that players accept the circumstances of choices that they have made (including in character creation), but it is also important that they be allowed to remedy mistakes they have made.
Another aspect of retraining that I do like is the opportunity for role playing as the player must find and interact with a teacher.
I'm surprised by the number of people who've always allowed it! although I have done the same myself when someone was genuinely not enjoying the character. For that purpose I have no reservations. On the retraining rule. Although have you found people deliberately take options they know they'll retrain at higher levels?
As far as I knew you had to retrain the feat into something else that could have been taken at that level? So you could swap Weapon Focus for Dodge if you were a level 2 fighter and took Weapon Focus at level 1?
If this is wrong, then apparently I misread some things.
Apparently not. If something has a BAB +4 pre-requisite then you can swap out a level 1 feat for it once you get BAB +4. I've been told the devs have confirmed this in a FAQ.
An introduction of characters that don't need to depend on minimums. All they need to do is account for a retraining cost in their gear purchase and they can essentially have all maxed out options for the given level.
Is this what you've found in your game? Has it improved your game? Or has it led to an arms race?
Although have you found people deliberately take options they know they'll retrain at higher levels?
I've allow respecing / retraining since 3.0, and have never seen that once.
I use it. I value my players to have fun more then to be stuck with something that turns out to be useless. It really helps people that don't plan their characters. And it seems to help fighters more then anyone.
I don't allow retraining,just because of continuity,but I do allow extra training.
SPECIAL TRAINING
The purpose of this rules addendum is to allow players a means to customize their characters between levels.You must be trained by an Instructor or study an appropriate text to receive such benefits.Once per level.
Here are the XP,and average training expense costs.
· Class skills: 25 xp per rank,times character level.
· Non-class skills:50 xp per rank,times character level.
· GREEN feat:500 xp,+500 xp per 5 character levels attained.
· FULL feat:1000 xp,+1000 xp per 5 character levels attained.
Players may choose to gain on of the following combinations:FULL feat(only),GREEN feat and up to 2 skill points or 4 or less skill points.
TIME:A FULL feat takes 1 month per 5 character levels attained to train.A green feat takes half this time.Class skills take 2 days per character level for each rank.Non-class skills take twice as long.
COST: The monetary costs associated with training are highly circumstantial.Here are the averages.SKILLS: 10 silver ,times current skill rank +10 gold per week.FEATS:100 gold per Month.
DOWNTIME:All PC’s gain 100 xp/a lvl per month of untrained downtime.
Green feats are ones designated 2 for one.
I have a player who plays a Sorcerer, and it isn't built to be a damage dealer, he's more into knowledge and crafting and plays the character that way. At one of his previous levels ( 5 or 7) he basically took a dump feat because nothing interested him for his build. At level 9 he will be retraining it and ultimately ending up with two lvl 9 feats.
Yes it can be abused by min/maxers, but it's impossible to build a system that is immune to it. More often than not it should be used for unique builds and fixing mistakes. If you have a power player abusing it then that should be the focus of correction.