Should I allow retraining rules?

[gogogome]

They seem kind of OP.

1. Sorcerers switch out 2 spells every level. They already have spell retraining rules, so this would kind of make that worthless.
2. Anyone can switch out feats every level. If that feat is Extra spell, it's ridiculous.

Am I overreacting? Are retraining rules RAW or just suggestions/guidelines?

[Honest Tiefling]

Retraining rules can do some things I don't think were entirely expected (swapping out a Skill Focus Heal on a healer for instance) by the designers. Personally, I am not terribly fond of them for this reason.

However, some form of rebuilding helps new players out quite a lot, as they don't have the expertise or experience to build a character that is enjoyable, appropriate, and competent. I usually allow at least one rebuild per campaign per player, especially if its an ability that can be easily erased from the narrative. Most of the other players never object, and it helps the player in question enjoy the game. What's the harm?

[gogogome]

Well in my case its a sorcerer retraining Extra Spell constantly to have 2 level 2 spells at level 4, 2 level 3 spells at level 6, etc., and the next level he swaps out both spells for 2 new spells. So he grabs spells that are awesome against lower HD guys, then immediately swaps em out for something that scales better next level.

It's not a rebuild a bad decision, it's optimizing the rebuilding rules.

edit: Oh, i forgot about extra spell's restrictions.

[Zanos]

I recommend a pretty simple clarification for use with the retraining rules.

"Retraining cannot be used to create any arrangement of features that would not be possible in a normal progression that did not make use of retraining."

I.E. you can't retrain out of your base class levels to self qualify for a PrC, or retrain a low level feat into something you couldn't qualify for at the time.

Other than that, you're probably fine. If you can't abuse it it's really only used to get rid of options that aren't effective anymore or were just mistakes.

[Honest Tiefling]

If this is a degree of optimization you are uncomfortable with, approach the players. See if this has migrated out of their comfort level as well. Let them volunteer other rebuilding rules to suit the party, if they so desire.

Swapping spells is a valid, and sometimes, necessary tactic of the sorcerer, given that some spells were oddly designed to only be effective at certain levels for whatever reason. Consider, perhaps, allowing spells from other source books (or back-porting Pathfinder spells) to give the sorcerer thematically appropriate spells that will be useful at all levels instead of rebuilding rules.

Then again, bias, I prefer rebuilding to tweak a character, not to gain more power.

[eggynack]

I think they're a good thing, but I'd limit them to their intended purpose. The rules are meant for fixing mistakes, or altering a character to better fit a new plan, and they work well in that role, but they shouldn't act as an optimization tool. As a broad guideline, I don't think you should ever take something that you plan to retrain.

[gogogome]

I think they're a good thing, but I'd limit them to their intended purpose. The rules are meant for fixing mistakes, or altering a character to better fit a new plan, and they work well in that role, but they shouldn't act as an optimization tool. As a broad guideline, I don't think you should ever take something that you plan to retrain.

That's pretty solid. Thanks. I'll tell him that.

I still haven't come to a decision. Please post your opinions.

[fishyfishyfishy]

All I can speak of its my own experience with retaining. I have some players that are much better at optimization and intelligently playing their character than other players. So when one of the players who's not as good stayed to fall behind I let her husband, who is one of the better optimizers, help her rebuild her character so that she was more effective. She ended up doing it 3 times before she was completely happy with her character and her performance in game. Another player swapped out a few maneuvers here are there and a feat or two when he realized they didn't quite work out in play the way he imagined. We approach it as a tool to help the players get a better feel for their abilities and really figure out what they enjoy. The game is all about having fun after all.

[gogogome]

All I can speak of its my own experience with retaining. I have some players that are much better at optimization and intelligently playing their character than other players. So when one of the players who's not as good stayed to fall behind I let her husband, who is one of the better optimizers, help her rebuild her character so that she was more effective. She ended up doing it 3 times before she was completely happy with her character and her performance in game. Another player swapped out a few maneuvers here are there and a feat or two when he realized they didn't quite work out in play the way he imagined. We approach it as a tool to help the players get a better feel for their abilities and really figure out what they enjoy. The game is all about having fun after all.

How about players intentionally optimizing the retraining rules? Extra spell level 1 spell at level 4, retrain it to level 2 spell at 6, level 3 spell at 8, etc.

[Arael666]

I think they're a good thing, but I'd limit them to their intended purpose. The rules are meant for fixing mistakes, or altering a character to better fit a new plan, and they work well in that role, but they shouldn't act as an optimization tool. As a broad guideline, I don't think you should ever take something that you plan to retrain.

I totally agree, for optimization puposes we already have Psychic Reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) wich is faster and potentially cheaper :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

I am a fan of retraining because it takes a lot of pressure off of character creation. There's no fear of making a suboptimal choice and being stuck with it, so you don't need to spend as much time researching and deliberating every choice. This is especially helpful to new players, who are most likely to learn about better options as they play.


Retraining rules can do some things I don't think were entirely expected (swapping out a Skill Focus Heal on a healer for instance) by the designers.
You can only retrain feats that you selected.


How about players intentionally optimizing the retraining rules? Extra spell level 1 spell at level 4, retrain it to level 2 spell at 6, level 3 spell at 8, etc.
You can only retrain a spell to another spell of the same level.

[gogogome]

You can only retrain a spell to another spell of the same level.

He's retraining the feat: Extra Spell for a new feat, Extra Spell.

[Troacctid]

He's retraining the feat: Extra Spell for a new feat, Extra Spell.
Oh, well, you can't retrain a feat to itself. You must exchange it for "another feat." So that doesn't work.

Anyway, even if it did work, it seems less effective than just taking Apprentice (Spellcaster) plus a bloodline feat.

[fishyfishyfishy]

How about players intentionally optimizing the retraining rules? Extra spell level 1 spell at level 4, retrain it to level 2 spell at 6, level 3 spell at 8, etc.

That's still pretty tame as far as I'm concerned. It's just an extra spell. Then again I'm pretty liberal as a DM and allow many things some people consider too powerful.

Ask yourself this before making a decision: "Is this going to cause problems or increase fun"?

[Necroticplague]

Yes, you should allow retraining. Otherwise, you can get people stuck in builds that aren't fun to play anymore. So they can either suicide the character, negating any development and stories in the future attached to their past, or have the player stuck not enjoying the game. Both are undesirable.

[Deadline]

He's retraining the feat: Extra Spell for a new feat, Extra Spell.

I'm not sure how this is game breaking, unless someone is misreading the feat retraining rules.

Let's take this example:

Scenario A:
A 6th level sorcerer takes the Extra Spell feat, and uses it to learn Scorching Ray (a 2nd level spell). This is valid, because the sorcerer qualifies (at the time) by being able to cast 3rd level spells. Now that same sorcerer hits 8th level. He want to retrain the Extra Spell feat and learn a different spell, Acid Arrow. He loses the Scorching Ray spell, and gains access to the Acid Arrow spell. This is valid because using Extra Spell to select Acid Arrow was a valid choice for the sorcerer's 6th level feat.

Scenario B:
A 6th level sorcerer takes the Extra Spell feat, and uses it to learn Scorching Ray (a 2nd level spell). This is valid, because the sorcerer qualifies (at the time) by being able to cast 3rd level spells. Now that same sorcerer hits 8th level. He want to retrain the Extra Spell feat and learn a different spell, Fireball. He loses the Scorching Ray spell, and wants to gain access to the Fireball spell. This is not valid because using Extra Spell to select Fireball was not a valid choice for the sorcerer's 6th level feat.

So I'm not sure how this is OP? Am I missing something?

[Psyren]

I am a fan of retraining because it takes a lot of pressure off of character creation. There's no fear of making a suboptimal choice and being stuck with it, so you don't need to spend as much time researching and deliberating every choice. This is especially helpful to new players, who are most likely to learn about better options as they play.

This - and there may be roleplay reasons for it too. Your ranger might have geared his entire life around hunting goblinoids because they ransacked his village while he was a teenager, but what about when he matures/gets further along in levels and realizes that the goblins were simply pawns of a cabal of devils? Or your cleric might, without changing faiths, become more drawn to another aspect of their god's portfolio and want to alter their domains accordingly. Or your monk, as he grows older, might wish to gravitate towards more philosophical and educational uses for his ki than directly combative ones. And so on.

For more dramatic changes, you're well within your rights to demand the character find a teacher, magical/alchemical assistance, be temporary, be more expensive, or any combination - but nobody should be forced to play something they don't have fun playing, and a character who is capable of molding themselves feels more alive.


I recommend a pretty simple clarification for use with the retraining rules.

"Retraining cannot be used to create any arrangement of features that would not be possible in a normal progression that did not make use of retraining."

I.E. you can't retrain out of your base class levels to self qualify for a PrC, or retrain a low level feat into something you couldn't qualify for at the time.

Pathfinder explicitly allows you to do this, and it makes sense. When I retrain at level 15 with +12 BAB, that is who I am - all my choices should be based on the combat ability, baseline defenses, and skills that I possess now.

[Âmesang]

I'll admit to making judicious use of the retraining rules to fix up a sorcerer, but it was primarily to swap out regular spells known for new, regular spells known (command undead for locate object) and to fix some feat selections (1st-level Heighten Spell for WORLD OF GREYHAWK'S® Pureblooded Suel after integrating the character into that setting).

I think the closest I've come to straight-out optimization is using the skill rank retraining rule to keep Bluff maxed out while taking levels of archmage without having to spend extra skill points. :smalltongue:

[LTwerewolf]

I use retraining rules for all of my players, but I don't use the published retraining rules, I use my own. It costs half a level of experience to retrain things (lower level members get extra xp based on how many levels lower they are than other people). The idea is that there's an actual cost to it, but it's not so prohibitive that they have to just deal with a mistake for the entire length of the character. Sometimes it's a mistake, other times over the campaign the development of the character changes.

For example when the campaign starts, the cleric is originally going to be a very martial cleric, but over the course of the campaign, they find the situation requires them to use a lot of spells and they run into possessions. They decide to change their path from ruby knight vindicator to sacred exorcist. The problem for them is that they used a lot of their low level things to qualify for RKV, and they can't qualify for SE. Retraining allows them to do that over time.

[Surpriser]

Extra spell level 1 spell at level 4, retrain it to level 2 spell at 6, level 3 spell at 8, etc.

If this is what is bothering you, enforce the following rule:
"Any feat (and all associated choices) acquired through retraining must have been eligible at the level the original (retrained) feat was taken".

So if the player wants to retrain their level 4 feat (assuming it came from a house rule, a bonus feat or any other source that is not retraining itself), they can only choose options they could have chosen also when they were level 4. If they retrain Extra Spell to Extra Spell, they may swap their lvl 1 spell with any other eligible level 1 spell, but no higher.

This is basically a stricter version of the rule Zanos proposed above.

[gogogome]

If this is what is bothering you, enforce the following rule:
"Any feat (and all associated choices) acquired through retraining must have been eligible at the level the original (retrained) feat was taken"..

Oh, I just understood what everyone in this thread was saying. If he's retraining an extra spell gotten at level 3, he's stuck with cantrips forever.

It's not that it's bothering me, its just that it rang my alarm bells. I felt like this could potentially be overpowered, taking advantage and optimizing a system designed to fix broken characters. I know sorcerers need a buff because they are vastly inferior to wizards, who knows what other people would do when they can swap out feats every level.

I guess I should've worded the title better. "Should I allow players to power game the retraining rules?"

[nyjastul69]

I like the retraining rules. As has been said, they allow a player who has made either, a poor choice, or a good choice that they'd like to change. It definitely helps character creation because one doesn't have to 'eat' a poor choice for their entire career. Your player is trying to game the system and is doing it incorrectly, as has been pointed out.

I'll give an example from the game I'm currently playing. I play a Strongheart halfling Factotum. Since Font of Inspiration was allowed I chose it, for every feat slot (we started at 3rd level so 3 FoI's). As the game progressed the party got involved in a political dispute. I had built my Factotum as a 'dungeonier'. I didn't put much emphasis on being a 'face'. As the game progressed we came to realize that a 'face' was necessary. I allocated skill points appropriately. Upon reaching 6th lvl I chose to retrain a FoI for the Negotiator feat. Yes, as suboptimal as that choice was, it's working very well for our current storyline. YMMV.

[atemu1234]

As has been said repeatedly, they're ok with a little adjustment. I use them on occasion to allow a new player to rebuild (so that they won't be outstripped by more experienced players), but I don't allow cheese with it or to retrain outside of what they needed at a certain time to qualify for, or into something they wouldn't have qualified for when they initially took it.

[Zanos]

Pathfinder explicitly allows you to do this, and it makes sense. When I retrain at level 15 with +12 BAB, that is who I am - all my choices should be based on the combat ability, baseline defenses, and skills that I possess now.
That's well and good, but I don't think characters that don't engage in retraining should be weaker because they haven't.

[Psyren]

That's well and good, but I don't think characters that don't engage in retraining should be weaker because they haven't.

Which is why you either allow it for everyone equally or ban it for everyone equally rather than being selective.

Also, I'm not understanding the point of your stance. Yes, of course optional/variant benefits give the PCs more power. Your argument is like saying PCs who have access to Traits or Hero Points shouldn't be any stronger than PCs that don't.

[eggynack]

Which is why you either allow it for everyone equally or ban it for everyone equally rather than being selective.

Also, I'm not understanding the point of your stance. Yes, of course optional/variant benefits give the PCs more power. Your argument is like saying PCs who have access to Traits or Hero Points shouldn't be any stronger than PCs that don't.
I don't think it's necessarily about the more power itself. It has more to do with the method. I'm not really sure how to make sense of the idea that basically all characters are swapping out old things they learned for new things in the pursuit of power, at least beyond a metagame object. Like, did the character take this feat knowing they'd eventually swap it out for a feat that's better in the late game? Do people in this universe lose their past knowledge with crazy regularity? In isolation, applied to the occasional character that was constructed in a mistaken way, it's easier to justify what is essentially a metagame object, but it's harder when you universalize it to be this weirdly natural element of the game world. I guess it could just be considered magic or something, but that doesn't feel like what retraining is.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's necessarily about the more power itself. It has more to do with the method. I'm not really sure how to make sense of the idea that basically all characters are swapping out old things they learned for new things in the pursuit of power, at least beyond a metagame object. Like, did the character take this feat knowing they'd eventually swap it out for a feat that's better in the late game? Do people in this universe lose their past knowledge with crazy regularity? In isolation, applied to the occasional character that was constructed in a mistaken way, it's easier to justify what is essentially a metagame object, but it's harder when you universalize it to be this weirdly natural element of the game world. I guess it could just be considered magic or something, but that doesn't feel like what retraining is.

The stuff you currently have is maintained through practice - drills, meditation, etc. Even spontaneous casters have to meditate daily. So it's not hard to imagine that retraining represents a shift of mindset that causes older skillsets to atrophy (functionally removing them as game constructs) to be replaced with new.

If after that it's still tough for you or the player to square, you as the GM are allowed to make the method of retraining magical, mythical, or alchemical in nature and thus wave off any verisimilitude concerns with "a wizard/god/mad scientist did it." Fluff is mutable and always takes a backseat to the game itself being fun.

Regardless, the bottom line is that the game is far better off for having this option codified, than not.

[eggynack]

The stuff you currently have is maintained through practice - drills, meditation, etc. Even spontaneous casters have to meditate daily. So it's not hard to imagine that retraining represents a shift of mindset that causes older skillsets to atrophy (functionally removing them as game constructs) to be replaced with new.

That's fine and logical in and of itself. Again though, it's an explanation that makes a lot less sense in this model where it's optimal. Does anyone really practice how to do a certain thing, all the while planning to let that skill atrophy in the future in order to practice another skill that's going to be more suitable at that point in time? Point being, it's weird to me to not have the caveat that you can only retrain if you feel like your original choice was wrong or ill suited, and in that context the fact that retraining is optimal is more problematic than for other variant rules.

[Crake]

I recommend a pretty simple clarification for use with the retraining rules.

"Retraining cannot be used to create any arrangement of features that would not be possible in a normal progression that did not make use of retraining."

I.E. you can't retrain out of your base class levels to self qualify for a PrC, or retrain a low level feat into something you couldn't qualify for at the time.

Other than that, you're probably fine. If you can't abuse it it's really only used to get rid of options that aren't effective anymore or were just mistakes.

If we're talking about PHB2 retraining rules, I'm like 99% sure that this is already a rule.

I personally only allow the retraining rules in cases of extreme disatisfaction. For example, I wouldn't let a sorcerer retrain out color spray that he used in every slot until 5th level or so, he can use the sorcerer's normal spell retraining rules for that, because he got good mileage out of it, it's just only now become less useful. On the other hand, a sorcerer who picked up Misdirection because he thought it sounded cool, but has not once had a chance to use it and is really regretting his decision, I would allow him to retrain that. Basically, I don't let people retrain options that are good when taken, but become less useful down the track. If you want good early game you sacrifice good late game and vice versa, you can't just use the retraining rules to have whatever you want whenever you want.

[Psyren]

That's fine and logical in and of itself. Again though, it's an explanation that makes a lot less sense in this model where it's optimal. Does anyone really practice how to do a certain thing, all the while planning to let that skill atrophy in the future in order to practice another skill that's going to be more suitable at that point in time? Point being, it's weird to me to not have the caveat that you can only retrain if you feel like your original choice was wrong or ill suited, and in that context the fact that retraining is optimal is more problematic than for other variant rules.

The player planning something and the character planning it are two different things. The player for instance might know that the campaign will start off with a lot of goblinoid opponents before moving on to their demonic masters at higher levels, but the character would find that out over the course of play, and realize that they need to retrain their favored enemy class feature such that the demons are their primary foe and goblinoids actually become a secondary choice, if not abandoned for being useless completely.

[eggynack]

The player planning something and the character planning it are two different things. The player for instance might know that the campaign will start off with a lot of goblinoid opponents before moving on to their demonic masters at higher levels, but the character would find that out over the course of play, and realize that they need to retrain their favored enemy class feature such that the demons are their primary foe and goblinoids actually become a secondary choice, if not abandoned for being useless completely.
That's not really the kinda thing I'm talking about. I mean the more direct sort of retraining, like picking up wild cohort at first level and swapping it when it lowers in value. The difference between the two is that the character could plausibly have metagame awareness of the dynamic in question. Alternatively, maybe the character does know that they're going from goblin world to demon world. In that case, would you say the character has an active role in forgetting their goblin facts and using that brain space to learn demon facts? Yes, there are situations where this issue isn't present, but there are also situations where it is present, and one of said situations is the one fundamentally at issue here, where you're either simply swapping things good early for things good late, or even swapping things you can take early for things you can't get until later.

[Psyren]

In that case, would you say the character has an active role in forgetting their goblin facts and using that brain space to learn demon facts?

Sure - the key in this case is that a Ranger's Favored Enemy class feature is far more involved than simply a list of "facts." You have to mentally put yourself in the very mindset of your prey, become one with the target, that sort of thing. Such an approach would indeed be more demanding from a "brain space" perspective. In fact, it also explains why they get so few favored enemies to begin with - any class can learn "facts" about a monster type after all (that's the Knowledge skill) but knowing them to the degree that you get various combat bonuses against them is different.


Yes, there are situations where this issue isn't present, but there are also situations where it is present, and one of said situations is the one fundamentally at issue here, where you're either simply swapping things good early for things good late, or even swapping things you can take early for things you can't get until later.

It's only a simple/fluffless swap situation if you want it to be (or choose to put no thought into it.) I can come up with perfectly plausible (and suitably involved, if need be) in-character reasons to have a Wild Cohort/Animal Ally early on and then retrain that ability later.

[eggynack]

Sure - the key in this case is that a Ranger's Favored Enemy class feature is far more involved than simply a list of "facts." You have to mentally put yourself in the very mindset of your prey, become one with the target, that sort of thing. Such an approach would indeed be more demanding from a "brain space" perspective. In fact, it also explains why they get so few favored enemies to begin with - any class can learn "facts" about a monster type after all (that's the Knowledge skill) but knowing them to the degree that you get various combat bonuses against them is different.
Sure. That was a shorthand, really.


It's only a simple/fluffless swap situation if you want it to be (or choose to put no thought into it.) I can come up with perfectly plausible (and suitably involved, if need be) in-character reasons to have a Wild Cohort/Animal Ally early on and then retrain that ability later.
I suppose that's fair. It's kinda weird that such swaps would possibly be really common, but lotsa things are weird, and feat selection has a strong metagame element to it inherently.

[AlanBruce]

I allow retraining, but make it quite clear that while they are swapping feats/classes/skills, etc, it's a week per feature they want to retrain. And while doing so, they are usually under tutelage from some NPC that would fit what they want to retrain and are not actively involved in the campaign, which does not stop for them to retain.

For example, our group had a prestige paladin/inquisitor/cleric who, after a bunch of plot exposition, decided to train under the auspices of a dryad druid in an ancient forest,

His complete rehaul took him eight weeks to change his build drastically, but the other PCs were involved in the current campaign and had to face off against a trio of assassins without this guy, who was a melee brute.

The party survived the encounter and won, but that retraining PC got no part in the encounter or a share of XP, since he was retraining. This made the encounter that much more difficult for the the party, but they magaed to overcome it with one less party member.

Later on, the party's wizard decided to retain his entire build at an Arcane Academy. this took him several months, given the complete change of feats, class features and such.

Needless to say, the party, who had quests to undertake at the moment, felt a little overwhelmed by the current enemies they had to face without their conjurer to get them out of a jam.

But the players knew this in advance and still chose to retrain. Like I mentioned to them earlier: the plot does not wait for you to come out upgraded. If you chose to stay behind and retrain, you can. But know that your fellow party members will be one PC short.

There are, of course "downtime"moments when the party is not at risk, but the players chose to retrain in a moment when there was active conflict and so, they faced these problems with smaller numbers.

The upside to this is that during their retraining PcC learn a bunch of stuff about the campaign from their mentors that they would not otherwise learn and that may come into play later on.

[Seto]

So your Sorcerer is basically a Pokémon, foregoing old attacks in favor of newer, more powerful ones as he levels up? :smallbiggrin:
Actually, I just realized how Pokémon evolution would work in D&D. When they hit a certain level, they suddenly retrain their entire build in another, better class that fits the same concept. (E.g. Fighter --> Warblade). Or they could even suddenly Gestalt. Oh my, that sounds like such a terrible, terrible, badly unbalanced fun idea for a game.

In seriousness, that is your call. Personally, I wouldn't allow "retraining rules" per se, unless there's a lot of demand for them, but informally allow retraining on a case-by-case basis. I would allow it when a character is performing poorly (which is a good OoC reason) or has a good in-universe reason. I probably would not allow what your Sorcerer is doing.

[Chronikoce]

For me it would come down to the group.

I generally only enforce one rule.

Rule 1: don't be a Jerk.

Since I am blessed with mature and understanding players who want the game to be fun for all this means I can just say all content is open but make sure you're all on the same page. If one of them starts to trivialize the existence of the rest of the party then we address the problem as a group and discuss viable changes that retain the fun for all.

[Yahzi]

Well in my case its a sorcerer...
So what's the problem?

Be grateful he didn't play a druid, cleric, or wizard, and let him have his fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I suppose that's fair. It's kinda weird that such swaps would possibly be really common, but lotsa things are weird, and feat selection has a strong metagame element to it inherently.

I don't think it has to be any more common than, say, Atonement. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it's expected to be used frequently, or can't require a lengthy quest chain or other obstacle before it can be used. You as the GM have all the guidance/tools you need to forestall actual or perceived abuse of the rule.

Codifying retraining in the ruleset has other advantages - namely, enabling its use in sanctioned/organized play. Simply saying "sure, rule zero, your GM can let you redo your character if you want" wouldn't have cut the mustard there.


For me it would come down to the group.

I generally only enforce one rule.

Rule 1: don't be a Jerk.

Since I am blessed with mature and understanding players who want the game to be fun for all this means I can just say all content is open but make sure you're all on the same page. If one of them starts to trivialize the existence of the rest of the party then we address the problem as a group and discuss viable changes that retain the fun for all.

Indeed, Wheaton's Law is paramount - on top of that which, anything the player wants can be used as a vector for plot hooks or other negotiations that ultimately make the game better for players and GM alike.

There are so many interesting ways to allow Retraining to spice up a game. Maybe the PC embarks on a quest to find a wizened master, and after growing attached to this person (who has directly benefited both the PC and his player), you have the BBEG capture or kill this person as an inciting incident. Maybe the retraining comes from a darker source, like a pact devil or a cursed tome, whose long-term effects are not immediately apparent. Maybe the key to utilizing it is a rare material found on another plane or even another planet. Remember, the PC is inherently getting a reward out of it (reshaping their character the way they want) so you don't even have to think up any additional carrots, at least for that person.