PHBII: Retraining?

[KarinsDad]

What is said above, is certainly much less than that. Being able to swap out one thing every now and then is ok. Being able to completely redesign the character every other level is not.

Why not? Couldn't that be fun as well?

I suspect it is a matter of where you want to draw the line. But from your statement here, you still appear to draw the line such that "total chaos does not enter your campaign".

 

[Prophet2b]

Granted, I understand the "fun POV" and even agree with it. But, I still have concerns about balance and consistency when you can change your PC like you can change your clothes.

Well, I hardly think their systems of rebuilding can be compared to changing clothes. I mean, it costs something to do it. And if you don't like it, then you don't have to use it.

I think they're good ideas, though. But I am also concerned with breaking the game by using them. So... House rule? Make things harder? Take the good, throw out the bad, and revise it a bit so that it's better than originally presented?

Personally, I don't think it necessarily matters that these things make it "easier" to munchkin - because, quite unfortunately, if a player is dead set on playing like that, it's all too easy for him to do so with previous abilities and rules. Power gaming is more of a mindset than it is a list of easily abused rules.

Take guns as an example - some people are perfectly fine owning guns, shooting guns, and they can handle them responsibly. Some people are irresponsible and cause harm to others with the use of guns. Well... That's you've got throughout all of the D&D materials. I can munchkin just as easily without the PHBII...if I wanted to. But I don't want to. Because it takes away from the fun of the game - the reaslistic roleplaying aspect, I think.

So what you have now is what you had before: a system of rules that, if used by pc's appriopriately and properly add a lot of fun to the game without being over-balanced. Anyone who would abuse them will find ways of abusing any previous rules, too. :-/ It's just an unfortunate aspect of the game as a whole...

 

[KarinsDad]

This one I don't get. Why not? Why shouldn't a worshipper change in which aspects of their deity they venerate as they themselves change?

Domains are not just a veneration aspect. It is an aspect boon for clerical worshippers. The deity gives the Domain ability to the worshipper.

I can maybe understand a Chaotic deity allowing switching of this (but even this is suspect), but not a Lawful deity.


Think of it like "KD gives MarkB a gift". Later on, MarkB comes up to KD and says "You know, I just do not want this gift anymore. Give me a different one instead."


If I was a deity, I would be insulted if a worshipper was dissatisfied with gifts I give him.


In our gaming community, there is a growing sense of entitlement. If it is in a book, the player is entitled to take it. In this case, the PC is entitled to the Domain and entitled to change the Domain.

No, the deity grants the Domain. The PC is not entitled to change anything given to him by a deity. IMO.


Nor should a character even want to change his Domain. As if one aspect of the deity is "not good enough". It just feels like powergaming and metagaming, and not real roleplaying. Again, IMO. I'm sure that some players could plausibly justify any change they want, but it still feels like metagaming and not roleplaying.

 

[Thanee]

I suspect it is a matter of where you want to draw the line.

Correct.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Piratecat]

I'll make a case for this rule reducing munchkinism.

One of the few things I dislike about 3e is that in order to qualify for a prestige class, you really have to start planning at 1st level. That means you rigorously map out your advancement for part or all of your career before you've barely started playing, and if a cool story opportunity arrives to let you join another neat prestige class (or make you want to stay in your core class), you're at a real mechanical disadvantage.

Adding the retraining rule lets people be more relaxed and flexible about their advancement. It lets you model a wizard who starts out tough (toughness), but who eventually loses his brawn as he concentrates instead on magic (replaces toughness with spell focus.) I really like that idea.

This new rule also helps casual players who want to try an interesting-sounding feat, but who aren't sure it's best. I know that I've had a PC who took improved sunder and then found himself fighting only monsters with natural attacks. I'll enjoy that character even more if I can swap it out.

 

[Deset Gled]

Allowing player's to re-choose their feats is not something entirely new. It is also possible to do this with a psionic power (whose name escapes me at the moment). Of course, that doesn't mean it's balanced.

I haven't read the complete rules for Retraining yet, but the only problem that I see so far is with PrCs. It used to be a common practice to give a PrC a prereq of a lower power feat to balance the power of the class (such as Skill Focus of Toughness). This is now no longer a balancing factor.

Of course, getting rid of a feat that is a prereq for a PrC is not an option if you use the rules for losing prereqs printed in Compete Warrior. These rules have the problem of making your Dragon Disciple asplode, but are otherwise not too bad (as long as you don't mind that WotC is completely redesigning the system with an optional, non-core source book). Can anyone tell me if these rules are reprinted in the PHB II? It seems logical to me that they should be.

 

[axp_dave]

I believe it is a great rule option. Who hasn't regretted a feat because it is not as useful as you thought it was, or the campaign style doesn't allow the feat to be used much. As a DM I think you may want final approval to prevent people from taking feats for only a level for the next adventure, but overall it is a great option.

 

[Thanee]

These rules have the problem of making your Dragon Disciple asplode, ...

That's not really an argument, though. Well, maybe it is one, but not a good one.
It's obvious enough, that it is intended there, that the original race cannot be dragon.

This is just a case of sloppy editing/wording, nothing else. It doesn't make the rule about PrC prerequisites bad.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Presto2112]

In the campaign I'm currently playing, when a character levels up, he/she can level up and take feats and skill ranks and stuff as if he/she had been trianing to do those things during his/her downtime. What I think I'd do for PCs who wished to retrain would be to actually take in-game time and or gp cost to do it, as a way to balance things out a little.

 

[MarkB]

I haven't read the complete rules for Retraining yet, but the only problem that I see so far is with PrCs. It used to be a common practice to give a PrC a prereq of a lower power feat to balance the power of the class (such as Skill Focus of Toughness). This is now no longer a balancing factor.

One of the ground rules of Retraining is that changes you make cannot make any previous choices illegal - so if a feat or PrC has a specific feat as a prerequisite, then once you've taken it, you cannot retrain that prerequisite feat away.