Do you allow retraining rules?

[gogogome]

Do you allow retraining rules or do you ban them for balance issues?

[Amphetryon]

Do you allow retraining rules or do you ban them for balance issues?

Any 'balance issues' I can think of with retraining are niche cases, at best. I allow retraining, assuming it makes any sort of sense with the campaign and Character concept to date.

[sideswipe]

i don't impose penalties for bringing in new character usually, unless they make a habit of a new character every 5 sessions. i like variety.

if someone really dislikes their character i will just allow a rebuild, or their older brother who is better just turns up.

[Know(Nothing)]

I am very lenient with retraining, particularly for martial classes. Archery in particular is already pretty weak in the long-run, so I just let people ignore Point-blank Shot as a prereq. Like anything else, as long as it keeps the players on a fairly even footing, I can always counter-balance things as a DM.

For instance, my players know they can retrain feats and things, but they also know I can and will tweak the feats for enemies, including monsters.

EDIT: I was thinking retraining feats, not the entire character. I would be fine with it as long as the player really plans out his next build, and we can find a way to make it fit the story. Might require a side-quest.

[Troacctid]

I have a hard time imagining balance issues with retraining. Anything you could retrain into, you could also just have built from the start.

[P.F.]

Do you allow retraining rules or do you ban them for balance issues?

I do not allow retraining rules. In-character, a person can't unlearn their skills, feats, or class levels anymore than I can unlearn the songs seared into my brain by the pop radio station I have to hear at work. Out-of-character, the system is abuseable as all hell.

I allow "Retconing" instead. A player may Retcon their character to better match the character concept as it evolves over time, or in the event that a major change in rules interpretation, party makeup, or other similarly grave circumstance makes the previous build untenable. The change itself has no in-game justification, costs nothing, takes no time, and is entirely subject to a DM's discretion and approval.

[Optimator]

My DM (and I, when I DM) are very forgiving and liberal with retraining. It generally serves to make the game better.

[CGNefarious]

I'm normally not for it, but sometimes it's for the best.

For instance, I was recently in a [Pathfinder]campaign playing a sorcerer who would eventually go dragon disciple and focused on melee combat. We started at level one, and those first few levels were really, really rough. I then discovered the bloodrager, which much better fit my character concept than sorcerer, and my DM let me respec. I've had a much better contribution to the campaign since.

Really it's up to you. If the player is unhappy with the character, or something about the character is causing issues, then I'd say go for it. But having a new character every five sessions is a bit much in my opinion.

[Elkad]

One rule I've used often is "tell the DM you want to retrain feat X". Then play an entire level without using that feat. After a level, swap it out.

I've even allowed a wizard to drop from specialist to generalist that way, though that was a fairly weak player who really did need some help catching up with the rest of the party.

[Flickerdart]

I just let my players swap out things they feel aren't working for them. Why would I punish them extra for making a bad choice? They already had to sit through enough sessions of underperforming, no need to demand additional payment.

[eggynack]

Retraining rules are fine, but I would consider not letting someone make plans using it. They're supposed to be for when you feel you've made a mistake in your build, rather than for taking feats that are good at low level and then trading them out at high level. Even that could be relaxed based on the character's power level relative to the rest of the party though.

[Brookshw]

I ignore them. If a player wants to swap something they just have to ask.

[DJroboninja]

In my 3.P games, I allow a retrain at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18. This way, every character gets something every level (these are the levels where no feat or ability bonus is gained) and characters have a defined point to change aspects of their character that aren't working. It's worked great for us.

[Zanos]

I let people retrain as long as it doesn't enable an otherwise illegal character.

[gogogome]

I see

Allow them to retrain if they made an mistake or are otherwise unhappy.

Do not let them retrain if they plan a build around it. i.e. sorcerers repicking a large number of their spells known consistently to act like a wizard. 1 day + 5gp/spell level for 2 spells retrained seems a bit too much.

[SiuiS]

I have a hard time imagining balance issues with retraining. Anything you could retrain into, you could also just have built from the start.

It's possible to have a character with twenty levels of prestige classes, no base classes, and a whole heck of a lot of powers. That's not a possible when you can't replace your first five levels with something else down the road.


Retraining rules are fine, but I would consider not letting someone make plans using it. They're supposed to be for when you feel you've made a mistake in your build, rather than for taking feats that are good at low level and then trading them out at high level. Even that could be relaxed based on the character's power level relative to the rest of the party though.


I am very lenient with retraining, particularly for martial classes. Archery in particular is already pretty weak in the long-run, so I just let people ignore Point-blank Shot as a prereq. Like anything else, as long as it keeps the players on a fairly even footing, I can always counter-balance things as a DM.

For instance, my players know they can retrain feats and things, but they also know I can and will tweak the feats for enemies, including monsters.

EDIT: I was thinking retraining feats, not the entire character. I would be fine with it as long as the player really plans out his next build, and we can find a way to make it fit the story. Might require a side-quest.

You folks are aware that these are specific, in the book wih requirements rules, right? You can retrain 1/5 (iirc) your current levels after undertaking an appropriate quest. Not rules for retraining in general, but the existing rules, are at question.

[Troacctid]

It's possible to have a character with twenty levels of prestige classes, no base classes, and a whole heck of a lot of powers. That's not a possible when you can't replace your first five levels with something else down the road.

You folks are aware that these are specific, in the book wih requirements rules, right? You can retrain 1/5 (iirc) your current levels after undertaking an appropriate quest. Not rules for retraining in general, but the existing rules, are at question.

Yes, the rules are in PHB2, pp192-195. You can retrain class features, feats, languages, skill ranks, spells known, and substitution levels. And you have to have legally qualified for the new option at the level you originally took it. None of the stuff you're describing can be done with retraining.

[eggynack]

You folks are aware that these are specific, in the book wih requirements rules, right? You can retrain 1/5 (iirc) your current levels after undertaking an appropriate quest. Not rules for retraining in general, but the existing rules, are at question.
I know the rules being discussed, yes. What I'm saying is, I might not let someone pick up something like, say, precocious apprentice with the expectation that they'll just trade it out when they hit level three. I think there's a good faith understanding embedded in the retraining rules that you didn't initially take the feat with the hope of swapping it out later. This is supported by the introductory paragraphs to the section, which talk about remedying mistakes, or learning that your plans were ill formed. Also, it seems somewhat worth note that level swapping is under the header of rebuilding, rather than retraining.

[SiuiS]

I know the rules being discussed, yes. What I'm saying is, I might not let someone pick up something like, say, precocious apprentice with the expectation that they'll just trade it out when they hit level three. I think there's a good faith understanding embedded in the retraining rules that you didn't initially take the feat with the hope of swapping it out later. This is supported by the introductory paragraphs to the section, which talk about remedying mistakes, or learning that your plans were ill formed. Also, it seems somewhat worth note that level swapping is under the header of rebuilding, rather than retraining.

... Dang it you're right, and I should have known that. I used them on my last character! Ach.

In that regard, I agree with the rest of y'all. I've abused the retraining rules (I changed at least one feat every level from 1-6), but it didn't add anything to the game, and I only did it because I was scrambling to adapt a concept that kept getting shifted as new players trickles in and new sources were allowed (I finally settled on a rebuild as sorcerer with some ACFs once they were on the table).

[jjcrpntr]

I allow retraining of feats/skills but I make (or will be starting to make) my players take the time for it like they are supposed to and it has to make sense. If they are all underground and they level up and suddenly someone wants to retrain all of their diplomacy into knowledge arcana well that wouldn't make sense to me and they'd have to wait until they went to a city to retrain that (which I'd allow them to do inbetween levels as long as it was a stated desire).

One thing I don't allow to be retrained is class abilities. If the barbarian wants to get pounce he has to take the prereqs all along, he can't just hit level and decide to retrain his rage powers and take the beast totem line.

[jjcrpntr]

I know the rules being discussed, yes. What I'm saying is, I might not let someone pick up something like, say, precocious apprentice with the expectation that they'll just trade it out when they hit level three. I think there's a good faith understanding embedded in the retraining rules that you didn't initially take the feat with the hope of swapping it out later. This is supported by the introductory paragraphs to the section, which talk about remedying mistakes, or learning that your plans were ill formed. Also, it seems somewhat worth note that level swapping is under the header of rebuilding, rather than retraining.

My first dnd character was a Cleric of Pelor. Loved that character. But my early feats were augmented healing, improved initiative and combat casting. I had never played dnd before and told one of the guys that my idea was a combat medic (this cleric wore a mithral chain shirt and ran in with a glaive was tons of fun). After a few levels I realized that ya the little extra healing was nice but if I was wasting a turn healing during combat I was either doing it wrong or we were in trouble.

Thankfully my dm let me retrain out of stuff.

[Know(Nothing)]

I feel like, if you're allowing the written rules for retraining, you may as well just let your characters retool their character how they like. If they aren't abusing the privilege, what does it matter? They have more fun, and you probably end up with a more balanced party.

I'd rather have a player who asked permission to redo things outside of the rules than a player who cited flawed written rules to get away with something unbalanced.

[137beth]

I do, and I'm more lenient about it than the default rules.
I have players of different skill levels, so the less experienced players make mistakes. Once they figure out they made a mistake in their build, I don't think it is helpful to make them 'live with their mistake' when it is just as easy to let them retrain.

[BWR]

In general I don't. If you've learned something, you're stuck with it.
I have on one or two occasions allowed someone to exchange a feat they've never used for something else.

[Coidzor]

Fighters certainly beg for the ability to retrain their feat chains, I suppose.

Feats and Skill points I'd be the most easy-going about, though the further back in time for the character having made that investment, the more scrutiny, since there's a difference between retraining max skill ranks from, say, Craft (weaponsmithing) to Use Magic Device at level 12 and retraining 1 skill rank each from Climb, Jump, and Swim into Profession (fortune-teller) at level 4.

Sorcerer's Spells Known would be a spell by spell basis without paying some cost such as using a Psychic Reformation equivalent.

Reselecting choices for a Class Feature but not trading it out for an ACF would be once per retraining opportunity and then as long as one didn't reselect a choice for that same class feature, another Class Feature could be exchanged for an ACF, but, again, only one per retraining opportunity, so if one wants to ACF chain, then one has to gradually transition between ACFs.

One of the bigger problems with the system, especially for newer players is the way that builds have to be planned out from starting level to whatever level the game ends at. Retraining helps alleviate that to some extent and I view that as a good thing, and one that doesn't completely eliminate the advantage of having the system mastery to plan out one's build from 1 to 20 correctly the first time around.

[WeaselGuy]

My Kobold was originally supposed to be a mounted archer, but we had plenty of ranged capability by the time his build was supposed to start shining, and I had ended up doing more lancing than shooting. I spoke to my DM about retraining my archery feats that I wasn't using to more favorable lancer feats, and he let me do it, for a fee and some RP. It didn't really change my character levels any (Ranger/Fighter/Wild Plains Outrider/Halfling (adapted) Outrider), and he ended up performing really well as a Lancer.

Unfortunately, Qit-Qat went the way of the dodo when he failed a Will save to our Diabolist, and suffered the side effects of his Pact (namely, jumping off a tall building with no source of slow fall or flight).

[Fitz10019]

I tell my players to make sure their character is fun this level. They can experiment with quirky feats, and at later levels retrain them into the prereqs for the feats they really want / need for their main role.

But I wouldn't allow any of the metamagic feat retraining shenanigans I've read about here.

Years ago I had a DM who didn't even allow me to retrain a feat I'd never used. This was before PHB2.

[Max Caysey]

I am torn... One the one side, theres No reason for someone to play with a character they dont like or dont work, but one the orherhand it seems strange that one could unlearn anything. I have accepted the use of the psychic transformation psionic power, as a means of like the matrix alter the "harddisk" of the character. But I dont like if the changes are too big...

[Milo v3]

I am torn... One the one side, theres No reason for someone to play with a character they dont like or dont work, but one the orherhand it seems strange that one could unlearn anything. I have accepted the use of the psychic transformation psionic power, as a means of like the matrix alter the "harddisk" of the character. But I dont like if the changes are too big...

People do unlearn things. If they can't then it would be impossible to every change your profession, since getting more than $2 a day from a job require ranks in profession.

At the very least, I have learnt skills that I could do proficiently and then forgot years later because of lack of use.

[stack]

I can't remember all the things I've unlearned in my life (literally!), so unlearning something is not unreasonable. Fluff is as neglecting a skill and having it atrophy.

Sometimes those equations would come in handy too...

[WeaselGuy]

I can't remember all the things I've unlearned in my life (literally!), so unlearning something is not unreasonable. Fluff is as neglecting a skill and having it atrophy.

Sometimes those equations would come in handy too...

Yeah, a decade ago I was actually a decent violinist. Today you wouldn't want to hear me play, I think dying cats sound better...

[Red Fel]

Like many other things, I have a policy of inclusion by default, rather than exclusion. As a rule, I will allow retraining, provided the player asks me for it and explains the need. This isn't a "justify your existence" sort of thing, so much as "Look, just tell me what's bothering you, and let's see if we can fix things without having to resort to rewriting your character, but if we can't, going back and making a few changes isn't a terrible idea."

That said, I generally don't allow retraining in the middle of a dungeon or something. The PC usually has to be in a place appropriate to their retraining - for example, a city, or a temple, or another place conducive to the particular type of skills or feats they intend to acquire.

And every time someone in this thread remarks on how it's unrealistic that a person can unlearn something, I smile, shake my head, and go back to designing a build for a living construct of steel and wood who channels the divine energies of a gnomish deity into his fists when he's not teleporting to other worlds and talking to angels.

[eggynack]

People do unlearn things. If they can't then it would be impossible to every change your profession, since getting more than $2 a day from a job require ranks in profession.

Or, looking at it the other way, the issue isn't that people can unlearn things in game. The issue is that people can't learn things outside of very specific contexts. In real life, when you want to learn to trip folks really efficiently, you don't have to do so within the bounds of really particular universal timing, and you certainly don't have to forget grappling. Point is, the most realistic method might just be to allow training, which isn't exactly a thing allowed by the current rules. That would be kinda unbalanced though, as it'd allow access to piles of feats, so we're stuck with things rather as they are.

[Roxxy]

In some circumstances, yes, but I do not use any written retraining rules. If a player chooses an option they end up not liking as much as they thought they would, I'll probably let them retcon it out for something different. If I get a new Paizo or 3PP book and a players want to try something I plan to allow but wasn't available during initial character creation because I didn't own the book then, I would likely let them rebuild the character with the new rules. Outside of that, I only allow the normal Pathfinder class features that allow switching out a feat, spell, or martial maneuver at specific levels.

[ericgrau]

I haven't DMed but if I ever do I plan on allowing some form of retraining. Perhaps 1 thing a level. I don't like the idea of forcing people to plan 10 levels in advance, nor making them pay for their mistakes until their next character.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm probably pretty harsh on this. I don't like retraining unless the player just cannot have fun with their current character. In that case, I greatly perfer small tweaks or replacing unused choices as opposed to a full rebuild. For some reason, planned rebuilds irk me.

[ericgrau]

I can agree on that. I was thinking more of a small change each level so that it's gradual and not a complete rewrite. So it remains close to the same character but one bad choice doesn't haunt you for life and you don't have to waste so much time planning your build rather than playing it.

[Threadnaught]

I see no problem with letting my players play the character they want to play at each level, over them building the character they want to play at 20th while they play through levels 1-19.


I am not insinuating any issue with any other way of playing. It may be implied, but it isn't the core of my post, this entire section of my post is a disclaimer in order to prevent a long argument for no real reason whatsoever.

[Coidzor]

I'm probably pretty harsh on this. I don't like retraining unless the player just cannot have fun with their current character. In that case, I greatly perfer small tweaks or replacing unused choices as opposed to a full rebuild. For some reason, planned rebuilds irk me.

That's contradictory though. :smallconfused: Your preference is for minor tweaks but your stated requirement to get any opportunity is so harsh that it would mean that only something so egregious that it'd require a complete rebuild of the character would qualify.

[ericgrau]

I think he means a full rebuild only when truly needed and minor tweaks otherwise, which I'd agree with (and sorry if that's not what you meant).

[Yael]

Yeah, retraining is allowed in my games (except for one, but it had pretty much everything banned). As long as you DO roleplay it, how did you forget about your old feat/skill/class feature, and how you learnt the new one. Also, replacing knowledge you own is totally diferent from just adquiring new, it takes time to forget.

[jaydubs]

Yes, I allow retraining for no cost and far more permissively than the normal rules allow.

1. Disallowing it punishes people who are bad at planning more than those who are good at it. It essentially increases the difference in power between people who have knowledge about builds and optimizing, and people who don't. That seems counter-productive.

2. I strongly dislike the entire notion of playing a weak character at low levels in order to earn a more powerful character at higher levels, and vice versa.

I suppose it could be abused by someone so intent on playing the most powerful character that he/she retrained to optimize at every level. But honestly, I've never had a player who would do that. And if I did, I'd rather have a frank conversation about the problem than structure the entire system around him/her.

On the other hand, I've had several players who realized they made a build mistake. Or who later realized the role they built the character for isn't actually one they enjoy playing.

Edit: I draw lines where large amounts of retconning would be required. The wizard for the last 10 levels doesn't suddenly become a single class paladin. In that case, the player just has to roll a new character.

[Honest Tiefling]

That's contradictory though. :smallconfused: Your preference is for minor tweaks but your stated requirement to get any opportunity is so harsh that it would mean that only something so egregious that it'd require a complete rebuild of the character would qualify.

My preference is only small tweaks, but sometimes that just won't cut it. Also, sometimes my players would be happier with a full rebuild despite my own preferences, or everyone else thinks its a good idea. But I still prefer discussing small tweaks to see if it could fix the issue before going to the full rebuild option.

[big teej]

personally, I don't allow the retraining rules, I *do* however offer a 3 session grace period for things the player is new to.


for example. back when I started my campus group, nobody (except me, your humble DM) had played dnd 3.5.

one player, let's call him James, wanted to play a TWF combat style ranger.

he quickly abandoned this at the sight of the penalties involved. not that he took me up on taking the archery combat style instead, he kept the TWF, but only shot arrows at people.

okay maybe he's not the best example.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I do not allow the retaining rules, but not for "balance reasons". The rules are completely balanced and fair. I an much more permissive and allow complete character rebuilds to help players who made poor choices. 3.5 punishes people who don't plan their character ahead of time and I prefer everyone to just have fun and not be sucky because they aren't as good at optimization as others.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yeah, a decade ago I was actually a decent violinist. Today you wouldn't want to hear me play, I think dying cats sound better...

I used to be able to speak 9 languages (and read and write in them too). Now English gives me issues sometimes. I literally never used 8/9 and rarely used any form of sophisticated English so bye bye all those skills went.

I allow retraining within reason. We all make mistakes, but I ask that people not abuse the retraining privilege (I am more conservative than the PHB II most of the time).

[prufock]

I allow retraining for any game I run (though our group doesn't allow them for arena challenges). I don't see any reason not to. It's only ever come up once or twice anyway, and never been abused. I like my players to be happy with their characters.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, without reservation. I see no reason to punish a player who ended up building a character they don't like to play.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm firmly on the "retraining" side. If you're not having fun for any mechanical reason, let's talk and see what we can do-- anything from equipment drops to a complete rebuild to houserules are on the table. As long as the goal is to better fit your character concept (and party balance), we'll do whatever we need to make sure you're having fun again. And if you need a totally new character concept, replacement characters are fine. (And may even be retconned in, if there's no other convenient way of doing things). Having fun is far and away the most important part of the game, and if verisimilitude has to take a hit for that, so be it.

[Troacctid]

I also like being able to tell new players "Don't agonize too much over this choice, since you can always retrain it later if it doesn't work out." Takes some pressure off character generation.