PHBII: Retraining?

[Thaniel]

can I swap Toughness for Dodge? Or does the fact that when I took the Toughness feat, my Dex was 12, prohibit it?

-Hyp.

I believe it states that you must have met the prerequisites at the time that the original feat was taken. Though I don't think they took inherent ability bonuses into account.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe it states that you must have met the prerequisites at the time that the original feat was taken. Though I don't think they took inherent ability bonuses into account.

A similar question might come up if an elf has, say, a feat with an "Elf or Half-Elf" prerequisite, and gets reincarnated as a dwarf. He can no longer use that feat; can he retrain to swap it for a feat with a "Dwarf or Gnome" prerequisite, or could he only swap it for a feat that he could have taken as an elf?

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

I don't see that the language really allows for any wiggle room. You had to qualify for it at the time you took it, period. So, no dwarf feats for the former elf, no dodge for the non-level drained guy. Kinda goofy how the latter works out, but I think of it as more justification for my level drain house rule (you never lose the level, just the XP.)

 

[FireLance]

Unless one actually buys the book in which case "unnecessary rules bloat" becomes both a DM gaming decision and a waste of actual money.

Sorry, I still don't understand why it is considered a step backwards.

If you buy a rules supplement, decide that you don't like the rules, and never use them in your game, that would be a bad purchase decision or a waste of money, not a step backwards for the game.

If you are a player and your DM decides to implement rules that you do not like, that would be a clash of gaming styles, not a step backwards for the game.

Would you care to elaborate further on your point?

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Unless one actually buys the book in which case "unnecessary rules bloat" becomes both a DM gaming decision and a waste of actual money.

So tell your players now that the rebuilding rules will not be used. If they still decide to buy the book - that is their choice and their money. You warned them ahead of time.

Saying you won't be using the rebuilding rules doesn't stop you from using other stuff in the book (I know how you feel about the feats but there is more stuff in the PHB2 than feats and the rebuilding rules).

 

[Jedi_Solo]

While that covers the feats, it doesn't do anything to record how you got your skill ranks (important for some feats) or the order that you took your class levels in. For someone who's trying to a relatively even split of levels between two classes, this becomes important to figure out.

I don't see how skills are that important to track (at least what level you gained them). There is level drain and similar effects but that isn't what we're talking about here. You needed the skill ranks in order to get the feat or PrC in the first place. That requirement still exists. If a feat said you needed 9 ranks in Tumble, just be sure that when you pull Tumble ranks that you still have nine ranks in tumble when you are finished. We can assume that it was the later ranks that got moved.

Character level is something else though. Did the player have four levels of fighter for his sixth level feat that he wants to change to Weapon Specialization? Did he grab his first cleric level in time for his third level feat to require Turn Undead?

I would guess that most players know the order their levels were taken. If they aren't sure, I would say talk to the DM about it. I, personally, don't think it would be so game breaking to allow a PC, now at level 13, to switch out their sixth level feat (that hasn't been doing that much for them) to Weapon Specialization even though their fourth fighter level actually occured at 7th level (don't ask why they didn't take WS at 7th to begin with - just using as an example).

 

[Garnfellow]

My group has used ad-hoc retraining rules from the beginning with no real problems, and it's nice to see something formalized. My player wants to change out an old feat that never got used for a nice shiny new one? Why not? Who am I helping by "forcing" him to be stuck with an unwanted feat? Whose experience suffers if I let him change?

I originally thought the Toughness question was a very good objection to retraining rules -- it's one of the few feats I can think of that is more useful at low levels than at high levels, and I could see potential for abuse.

But the more I think about it, the more I think "so what?" I don't think this upsets game balance at all. RJS's note that the replacement feat can't require any prerequiste that couldn't have been met by the original feat helps bring this in line balance-wise.

And I don't think forgetting skills or feats is all that unrealistic. Anyone want to tell me where all my ranks in Knowledge (trigonometry) went?

Consider this: A low level wizard, who must have at least an Int of 10, must clearly realize that he is very vulnerable in combat. So when the swords come out, that wizard is on pins and needles, trying to stay out of harm's way. The Toughness feat models this wariness. A little later in his career, that same wizard now has bracers of armor, shield spells, stoneskins, etc. He's not as worried about getting hit. The replacement of Toughness with another feat models that new confidence.

I don't have the PHII, but are you limited to swapping only one item per level: be it a spell, skill or feat. Or are you limited to one feat and one skill and one spell, etc.

 

[MarkB]

I don't have the PHII, but are you limited to swapping only one item per level: be it a spell, skill or feat. Or are you limited to one feat and one skill and one spell, etc.

It is only one item per level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, I still don't understand why it is considered a step backwards.

If you buy a rules supplement, decide that you don't like the rules, and never use them in your game, that would be a bad purchase decision or a waste of money, not a step backwards for the game.

When the 3E PHB first came out, I read the feat section and said:

"Wow. They have really opened Pandora's box now and then will never close it again. There will now be boatloads of feats in supplements, web pages, Dragon Magazine, etc. for the DM to look through and decide if it is a) balanced and b) right for his game."

At the time, I did not realize that this would happen for PrCs as well, but it has.


I view many optional rules this way as well. I understand that WotC has to come up with new product to stay in business. And, I also understand that source books devoted to players sell more copies than ones devoted to DMs. But the amount of class dilution that I see in the source books is a bit alarming (e.g. feats where Paladin levels and Rogue levels stack for xyz purpose). It reminds me of the "almost anything goes" 2E days.


The other thing I am seeing is that some rules are no longer rules. Obviously, any DM and group of players can change any rule that they do not like. But, WotC is adding in rules such as retraining and immediate actions which directly change not only how other rules work, but how the game is played. And, most of this is not really playtested.

The concept of "player entitlement" is something that WotC is endorsing. It used to be that if you wanted a specific higher level ability, you had to plan for it and work for it. Now with retraining rules, it becomes more of "you are entitled to it". It's just a gaming community direction that I dislike.

Eventually, the game will become just one massive list of abilities and classes will be gone completely. Any ability a player wants, he just goes up and buys: similar to GURPS or HEROES. If you want third level Divine spells, you merely have to meet the requirement of second level Divine spells and buy them.

This is the direction I see DND going in. Anything goes. No class restrictions. No class advantages.

 

[Benimoto]

The concept of "player entitlement" is something that WotC is endorsing. It used to be that if you wanted a specific higher level ability, you had to plan for it and work for it. Now with retraining rules, it becomes more of "you are entitled to it". It's just a gaming community direction that I dislike.

I think the concept they are going with here is less "entitlement" and more giving the players more power. Immediate actions give the players power to do something out of the normal turn structure. The retraining rules give players power to undo past mistakes.

I have sympathy for your position, since the changes do put less emphasis on careful planning.

Ultimately though, D&D is a game about escapist fanatasy, where players can excape the tensions of the real world. I think situations where the rules makes you feel powerless are ultimately bad design.