Retraining...

[ARTHAN]

As you all probably know, 4th edition has a feature called retraining which allows you, each time you level up, to change a power with one of your level or lower, change a skill, change a feat, etc.
I wonder, if let's say I am a 3rd level fighter who is going to get a new 3rd level encounter power, can I instantly get a 1st level one instead? Moreover, can I get the 1st level encounter power I already have 2 times instead of having just 2 level 1 encounter powers? Finally, if I reach paragon (or epic), can I retrain heroic tier feat slots in order to fill them with paragon (or epic) tier feats?
Should, as a DM, allow that and should, as a player, "abuse" these "loopholes"?

Note:
I don't put this in the question thread because I think it is a really good topic for discussion in general. Retraining is a really interesting feature imho that can create really interesting builds and able to (maybe) destroy the balance of the game if abused. What do you think?

[Waddacku]

You can pick lower-level powers instead of higher-level ones, but you can't pick the same one several times unless explicitly stated (such as in Adroit Explorer). You can retrain feats into higher tier ones.

Allowing players to pick the same powers several times will tend to turn combat into them spamming the exact same move over and over, making the tactical experience more same-y and repetitive, and might lead to some degenerate optimization cases (it's basically Rangers always Twin Striking, except now everyone is doing it with their most potent encounter attack instead). I'd consider allowing it on a case-by-case basis, though. It could help out otherwise under-supported builds or players who struggle with the kind of tactical decision-making having a lot of different powers can require.

I don't see much reason to change the feat-retraining rules in this regard, there are enough bog-standard feat choices to fill out your heroic slots anyway so forcing people to keep heroic tier feats in all of them wouldn't really lead to any significant increase in variety anyway. I don't know what other purpose doing that would serve, either.

[ARTHAN]

You can pick lower-level powers instead of higher-level ones, but you can't pick the same one several times unless explicitly stated (such as in Adroit Explorer). You can retrain feats into higher tier ones.

Allowing players to pick the same powers several times will tend to turn combat into them spamming the exact same move over and over, making the tactical experience more same-y and repetitive, and might lead to some degenerate optimization cases (it's basically Rangers always Twin Striking, except now everyone is doing it with their most potent encounter attack instead). I'd consider allowing it on a case-by-case basis, though. It could help out otherwise under-supported builds or players who struggle with the kind of tactical decision-making having a lot of different powers can require.

I don't see much reason to change the feat-retraining rules in this regard, there are enough bog-standard feat choices to fill out your heroic slots anyway so forcing people to keep heroic tier feats in all of them wouldn't really lead to any significant increase in variety anyway. I don't know what other purpose doing that would serve, either.

As a player, I love being allowed to choose the same power again and again because that, in the end, would had allowed me to focus in just 3 powers (an encounter, an utility and a daily) instead of turning my character to a mess of many different encounters, dailies and utilities. I was playing a player and DMing at the same time, so I had to allow that rule both as a player and a DM (I had too many creatures to command at the same time) and it turned out quite well actually (though my player character felt underpowered after a point).

I ought to also recommend it for 4th edition newcomers who can't handle a lot of different powers (or just don't want to) or vets who wish to build something really unique, like a "Sleep Wizard" or something.

As for the feats, I think there ought to be only heroic tier feats (with just a few exceptions maybe) and all paragon feats and all epic feats should be heroic feats instead, because right now it feels like "cheating" to replace a heroic feat with a paragon or an epic by using retraining and because you can use retrain only once per level up iirc.

EDIT: Just to make it sure, I disagree with the "Allowing players to pick the same powers several times will tend to turn combat into them spamming the exact same move over and over, making the tactical experience more same-y and repetitive, and might lead to some degenerate optimization cases (it's basically Rangers always Twin Striking, except now everyone is doing it with their most potent encounter attack instead)." part of yours. I have played that way (by having the same level 1 power 4 times per encounter) and it never felt repetitive, not as repetitive as you may imagine at least. Moreover, it wasn't like Twin Strike because I had it only for 4 rounds and only when it was useful; after that I had to rely on at-wills.

[Waddacku]

I'm picturing characters with four uses of Rain of Blows or similar, and fights going beyond four rounds is so rare anyway I don't really view having four uses of a standard action power as practically different from it being at-will.

EDIT: I should add, I have no experience playing Epic tier, but with the shenanigans that can happen there I don't really expect the round count to rise a lot.

[ARTHAN]

I'm picturing characters with four uses of Rain of Blows or similar, and fights going beyond four rounds is so rare anyway I don't really view having four uses of a standard action power as practically different from it being at-will.

EDIT: I should add, I have no experience playing Epic tier, but with the shenanigans that can happen there I don't really expect the round count to rise a lot.

I see you probably refer mostly to MV and similar sources for monsters while my experience comes mostly from MM1. With MM1, battles at paragon could take a long time iirc. About epic, according to my experience, people can rise from the dead in an instant (they all have abilities like these or similar abilities) and that can make some combats to last longer.

[Dimers]

This seems like two separate ideas. One is selecting the same power multiple times, the other is optimal use of retraining as the rules currently allow.

Like Waddacku, I'd expect combats to get a bit dull if all players just chose their most effective maneuvers four times. But not all players would choose to do that even if they could, because tactical variety can turn out to be powerful too. Sometimes when you only have a hammer, you really do need a screwdriver too. Some people want to play Essentials or spam psion's dishearten, and some see more benefit in picking a broader range of powers. Personally I don't see the need to change that rule but I wouldn't object if the DM did so.

I also don't see any problems with retraining feats into higher-tier ones. It's sometimes handy but rarely crucial to a build. Can you give a couple examples of retrainings that you consider abusive?

[ARTHAN]

This seems like two separate ideas. One is selecting the same power multiple times, the other is optimal use of retraining as the rules currently allow.

Like Waddacku, I'd expect combats to get a bit dull if all players just chose their most effective maneuvers four times. But not all players would choose to do that even if they could, because tactical variety can turn out to be powerful too. Sometimes when you only have a hammer, you really do need a screwdriver too. Some people want to play Essentials or spam psion's dishearten, and some see more benefit in picking a broader range of powers. Personally I don't see the need to change that rule but I wouldn't object if the DM did so.

I also don't see any problems with retraining feats into higher-tier ones. It's sometimes handy but rarely crucial to a build. Can you give a couple examples of retrainings that you consider abusive?

Do you mean feat retrainings that I consider abusive? Well, iirc, there are those paragon feats in PHB1 that give +2 to FORT or REF or WILL defenses. However, iirc, there are in another book some epic tier feats that give +4 to FORT or REF or WILL defenses. So, replacing those 3 paragon feats with those 3 epic respective feats by using retraining feels like cheating and seems abusive (keep in mind that I say "feels" and "seems" and not that it actually "is" because it is like the game wants you to do those changes and waits for you to do them as it is right now).

However, I still believe that there shouldn't be a difference between heroic, paragon and epic feats and all feats should be heroic instead.

Why (especially after giving that FORT/REF/WILL defenses example)? Because, by changing the numbers of some feats a little bit and making all feats giving feat bonuses instead (see my "reworking bonuses..." thread) you can have less feat taxing even if that means you change, rework (or completely eliminate) some of the feats the game has either because they are too broken or too weak. Moreover, allowing paragon and epic tier feats in heroic may allow for some interesting builds.

Here is an example of how feats could be reworked;

Great Fortitude
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to your Fortitude defense. At 11th level, the bonus becomes +2. At 21st level, the bonus becomes +3.

[NomGarret]

For the most part, higher tier feats while better are rarely straight upgrades over lower tier feats. The exceptions are few and not anything I've found game-breaking. Take Epic Fortitude, for instance. It's a straight upgrade over Great Fortitude. As the rules currently stand, I can retrain the latter directly into the former at any point, whenever I want to represent the character getting tougher. If the feats needed to be retrained within the same tier, I'd either have to do it on a level in which I gain a feat or briefly lower my Fortitude defense or lose the value of the heroic tier feat. It's the kind of meta build order juggling 4e feats generally don't do. The bard's Multiclass Mastery feat is another that comes to mind.

As far as choosing lower level powers over and over again, I'm not one who feels constrained by the inability to do so. There are certainly some powers that you'll find will abuse this, but essentials and psionic classes show it can be done for those who want it. It's not a change I'm inclined to make at my tables, but I'd play at a table that made that change if that's what makes people happy.

[ARTHAN]

For the most part, higher tier feats while better are rarely straight upgrades over lower tier feats. The exceptions are few and not anything I've found game-breaking. Take Epic Fortitude, for instance. It's a straight upgrade over Great Fortitude. As the rules currently stand, I can retrain the latter directly into the former at any point, whenever I want to represent the character getting tougher. If the feats needed to be retrained within the same tier, I'd either have to do it on a level in which I gain a feat or briefly lower my Fortitude defense or lose the value of the heroic tier feat. It's the kind of meta build order juggling 4e feats generally don't do. The bard's Multiclass Mastery feat is another that comes to mind.

As far as choosing lower level powers over and over again, I'm not one who feels constrained by the inability to do so. There are certainly some powers that you'll find will abuse this, but essentials and psionic classes show it can be done for those who want it. It's not a change I'm inclined to make at my tables, but I'd play at a table that made that change if that's what makes people happy.

The exceptions may be few (may be more than few, I can't tell for sure, that's subjective) but it can be somewhat game-breaking the fact you use retraining to gain Epic FORT instead of Great FORT while those who do not use retraining have to spend an extra feat to do so. Sure, retraining is there, it is free, use it, but I still believe that the game shouldn't rely too much to retraining for its gaming and combat balance. That's why I suggest those 3 things (and I suggest them for other reasons too):

1) Make all feats give feat bonuses instead of untyped bonuses.
2) Make all feats Heroic tier feats.
3) Slightly edit all feats to balance them according to the new meta. Drop all feats that are still too weak or too powerful.

[Waddacku]

Here is an example of how feats could be reworked;

Great Fortitude
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to your Fortitude defense. At 11th level, the bonus becomes +2. At 21st level, the bonus becomes +3.

This is literally already what they did do, except Great Fortitude is actually +2/+3/+4 so it supersedes Epic Fortitude as well. Most feats that increase basic numbers have been superseded by scaling Heroic tier feats already, leaving mostly feats with more qualitative effects in Paragon and Epic, things like Heavy Blade Opportunity that can significantly impact play. To some extent, character building turned into getting your numbers sorted in Heroic then doing playstyle stuff with higher level feat choices.

[masteraleph]

Do you mean feat retrainings that I consider abusive? Well, iirc, there are those paragon feats in PHB1 that give +2 to FORT or REF or WILL defenses. However, iirc, there are in another book some epic tier feats that give +4 to FORT or REF or WILL defenses. So, replacing those 3 paragon feats with those 3 epic respective feats by using retraining feels like cheating and seems abusive (keep in mind that I say "feels" and "seems" and not that it actually "is" because it is like the game wants you to do those changes and waits for you to do them as it is right now).

However, I still believe that there shouldn't be a difference between heroic, paragon and epic feats and all feats should be heroic instead.

Why (especially after giving that FORT/REF/WILL defenses example)? Because, by changing the numbers of some feats a little bit and making all feats giving feat bonuses instead (see my "reworking bonuses..." thread) you can have less feat taxing even if that means you change, rework (or completely eliminate) some of the feats the game has either because they are too broken or too weak. Moreover, allowing paragon and epic tier feats in heroic may allow for some interesting builds.

Here is an example of how feats could be reworked;

Great Fortitude
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to your Fortitude defense. At 11th level, the bonus becomes +2. At 21st level, the bonus becomes +3.

So this is getting back into the issue where most of us use all the sources and you're limiting yourself to a few early ones when the math was bad.

1) Great Fortitude was reprinted in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and as later sources they supersede the PHB version. The reprinted GF is a +2/3/4 feat bonus by tier.

2) Relatively few people take it, though, because Improved Defenses was printed in the same books, which is a +1/2/3 feat bonus by tier to ALL NADs. Also, since this is a math fix (+5 from stat boosts +6 from enhancement bonus +15 from 1/2 level +3 from ID= +29, which gets you 2 NADs that track with the increase in monster attack stats all the way up), many DMs, including the Guild, which is the largest single play group these days, grant ID or sometimes a different defensive feat of the player's choice for free.

3) As an alternative to ID, or in some cases a supplement, Superior Reflexes/Fortitude/Will were all printed in those same sourcebooks. They provide a +2/3/4 feat bonus to the appropriate NAD and an additional bonus (the best of which is Superior Will's start of turn saving throw vs Dazed/Stunned). Some people take ID + Sup Will, some take Sup Will + one other and let the last NAD out to dry, and some take all 3 or 2 + Great Fortitude or the other NAD boosters depending on stats.

So again: the solution is to just give ID and let people take another one if they want, or maybe to let them pick one for free and then take others if they want.

Epic Will/Fortitude/Reflexes, as printed in PHB2, don't have a feat bonus listed. But they're also Epic only, and there's almost always a better feat up until maybe level 26-28 or so.

WotC screwed up the math at first. They did that in the MMs (which is why most people either convert the math or don't use them), and they did that with level progression, which is why a lot of folks grant free Expertise/Defense feats and why WotC revised/printed better ones later. Also why WotC baked masterwork bonuses into armor in HotFL/HotFK (masterwork was supposed to be baked in from PHB1 onwards- they actually had that math right- but too many DMs treated it as something special that people were asking for, whereas WotC had assumed it would be granted by default).

[ARTHAN]

So this is getting back into the issue where most of us use all the sources and you're limiting yourself to a few early ones when the math was bad.

1) Great Fortitude was reprinted in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and as later sources they supersede the PHB version. The reprinted GF is a +2/3/4 feat bonus by tier.

2) Relatively few people take it, though, because Improved Defenses was printed in the same books, which is a +1/2/3 feat bonus by tier to ALL NADs. Also, since this is a math fix (+5 from stat boosts +6 from enhancement bonus +15 from 1/2 level +3 from ID= +29, which gets you 2 NADs that track with the increase in monster attack stats all the way up), many DMs, including the Guild, which is the largest single play group these days, grant ID or sometimes a different defensive feat of the player's choice for free.

3) As an alternative to ID, or in some cases a supplement, Superior Reflexes/Fortitude/Will were all printed in those same sourcebooks. They provide a +2/3/4 feat bonus to the appropriate NAD and an additional bonus (the best of which is Superior Will's start of turn saving throw vs Dazed/Stunned). Some people take ID + Sup Will, some take Sup Will + one other and let the last NAD out to dry, and some take all 3 or 2 + Great Fortitude or the other NAD boosters depending on stats.

So again: the solution is to just give ID and let people take another one if they want, or maybe to let them pick one for free and then take others if they want.

Epic Will/Fortitude/Reflexes, as printed in PHB2, don't have a feat bonus listed. But they're also Epic only, and there's almost always a better feat up until maybe level 26-28 or so.

WotC screwed up the math at first. They did that in the MMs (which is why most people either convert the math or don't use them), and they did that with level progression, which is why a lot of folks grant free Expertise/Defense feats and why WotC revised/printed better ones later. Also why WotC baked masterwork bonuses into armor in HotFL/HotFK (masterwork was supposed to be baked in from PHB1 onwards- they actually had that math right- but too many DMs treated it as something special that people were asking for, whereas WotC had assumed it would be granted by default).

Please my friend, do not tell me what sources to use. I have the right to play the game the way I like. I like to play 4th edition a way that does not make me throw my PHB1, DMG1 and MM1 to the trash bin. I think I have found a way to do so effectively and with minimal work (by trading X hp with X attack or X damage) and I feel very well because of it. :)

Moreover, aren't the books you mention printed with the Essentials series? Aren't Essentials considered something like 4.5th edition and they, as far as I know, aren't completely compatible with the 4th edition and not very well balanced too (not as well as 4th edition at least)?

Please correct me if I am wrong, my knowledge about Essentials comes from around the web, I have no personal experience.

[Anxe]

Essentials is fully compatible with previous 4E material. It was an errata package, a couple of alternate classes, and a smattering of new material. All of it can be used with the previous 4E rules.

[ARTHAN]

Essentials is fully compatible with previous 4E material. It was an errata package, a couple of alternate classes, and a smattering of new material. All of it can be used with the previous 4E rules.

Well, that is actually against the information I had till today. But, even if I accept that Essentials are fully compatible with previous 4th edition material, for that very same reason, they are not very well balanced because they contradict with the core material way too much. And if we accept that the Essentials are very well balanced, they are not fully compatible with previous 4th edition material for the same reasons.

If everything that everyone here in the 4th edition threads told me is right, then Essentials and the previous 4th edition rulebooks contradict with each other way too much. Essentials do not just try to be "fully compatible", they try to do much more than that; they try to replace the core rulebooks. So, I repeat, I absolutely do not want to throw away my PBH1, DMG1, MM1 and the other rulebooks of the pre-Essentials era. I want to use them by fixing the game with just a simple trade-X-hp-for-X-attack-or-damage rule.

You may say that Essentials just "build" upon the previous books, but that is not the case. Tell me honestly the last time you used a MM1 monster to your Essential-based encounters and I could accept that...

[Dimers]

Please my friend, do not tell me what sources to use. I have the right to play the game the way I like.

And while that's true, it doesn't leave much room for useful communication. If 98% of forum users are playing with later sources and you're not, your suggestions/tips/tweaks are irrelevant to 98% of readers ... and if you refuse later updates, 98% of readers can't make meaningful replies to you, either.

You don't have to play the way everyone else does. Just don't expect everyone else to play the way you do. *shrug*

[dariathalon]

Essentials do change some rules from previous books, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't make them any less compatible. In fact, if you use the errata for books like PHB1, DMG1, and MM1 the rules that were changed in the essentials were basically just printing the rules with errata. Most people were already using the errata anyway, so this wasn't really a change. You may want to look around for the errata document, if you haven't looked into it before. The people who made the system have suggested changes to it, so it's probably best to at least look at what they've done before making tweaks of your own. Most people seem to be pretty happy with the changes they've made.

I don't think anyone is telling you not to use your first books of the edition if you want to do that. Go for it, they are completely compatible. And yes, I'd absolutely use a MM1 monster that I liked with PCs made using essentials books. I can't say the last time I did so, because it's been awhile now since I ran a 4e game, but I'm sure I did so on many occasions. They CAN act as replacements for the core books, but they CAN ALSO be supplements to those core books just as easily. For people that don't have the core books, they could pick up and use essentials because they reprinted the original rules (with some updates and new options). But for people who already had and were using the core books, the essentials just clarified some of the changes that were made to the rules as the edition progressed and gave them a few more options to use. The rules for 4e were always meant to be a living document, that changed constantly as they found things that worked and didn't work. They made changes regularly through the errata document.

Honestly, I don't like a lot of the classes from essentials as much as I like the ones from the earlier books. But I will mix and match some of the feats and powers from essentials books with races, classes, powers, and feats from the main books quite frequently.

[ARTHAN]

And while that's true, it doesn't leave much room for useful communication. If 98% of forum users are playing with later sources and you're not, your suggestions/tips/tweaks are irrelevant to 98% of readers ... and if you refuse later updates, 98% of readers can't make meaningful replies to you, either.

You don't have to play the way everyone else does. Just don't expect everyone else to play the way you do. *shrug*

My rules can even be used in the Essentials IF the table wants to do so. So, they are not irrelevant to 98% of readers, not completely at least. And of course the replies of the people around here are meaningful to me; I just do not agree with many of the things you guys say (that, of course, doesn't mean you have to stop replying). Finally, I don't expect everyone to play the way I do, I have said that everyone can play the game the way he/she wants.

@dariathalon:
Glad you like Essentials and glad you like mixing them with previous 4th edition material. However, I won't do that because of the high imbalance that may caused to the game (and that imbalance is probably the main reason I find Essentials and the previous 4th edition material not really compatible to each other). Having one player with, let's say, 4th edition's Great Fortitude and another one with Essential's Great Fortitude can cause balancing problems, that's at least the way I view it. It is completely different to fix the 4th edition version of the feat and completely different to allow both 4th edition and Essentials versions at the same time. You guys seem to choose the second and that is what I really do not understand (but hey, it is you choice, I am not the one who is going to tell you what to do).

But yeah, everyone can play the game he/she likes the way he/she likes. I just prefer my own way...

[Kurald Galain]

If everything that everyone here in the 4th edition threads told me is right, then Essentials and the previous 4th edition rulebooks contradict with each other way too much.

They do, yes. The most obvious example is that "Original" 4E is meant to let PCs buy or craft whatever items they want, whereas "Essential" 4E is meant to give out only randomized loot and/or "common" items.
A more complex example is that O-classes usually have powers that the equivalent E-class cannot take (the main exception being wizards); and for a number of classes the reverse is also true. It's obviously not "fully compatible" if an E-Fighter and an O-Fighter both have abilities that are not available to the other one.

And if we accept that the Essentials are very well balanced,

The more pressing problem is that Essentials (even if restricted to just the E-books) is very much unbalanced. On the one hand it has some really strong stuff like the E-sorc; on the other hand, out of the ten weakest classes in the game (some of which called useless or unplayable in forums), at least nine of them are from E-books. And it has things like a Wizard school with literally zero good spells in it.

Yes, you're going to get very different results if you have an O-game that allows E-feats and E-powers, than if you have an O-game that allows O-feats and O-powers. That's also the stated designer intent, so it should really not be a surprise. That you can mix them up doesn't make them fully compatible, not by a long shot.

[Waddacku]

Having one player with, let's say, 4th edition's Great Fortitude and another one with Essential's Great Fortitude can cause balancing problems, that's at least the way I view it. It is completely different to fix the 4th edition version of the feat and completely different to allow both 4th edition and Essentials versions at the same time. You guys seem to choose the second and that is what I really do not understand

I don't imagine anyone does this. Frankly, you're mislabeling things and possibly confusing yourself by it. There isn't a second feat called "Great Fortitude", there is only the one that was altered over the lifetime of the game, just like Sneak Attack and Warlock's Curse were changed to be 1/turn instead 1/round. Whether to apply errata and official rules changes or not is of course up to each group to decide for themselves.



I strongly disagree with Kurald Galain's assertion that two subclasses not having access to each other's options is a sign of system incompatibility. They're not the same class, they're just all Fighters, much like even different choices of Weapon Talent in PHB1 give you access to different options and, of course, how Slayer and Knight can't pick freely from each other's stuff either.

[darkdragoon]

If you want to use the same power more than once there are usually several options to recur usage. At the very least in epic you get Demigod and its offshoots. Heck, most of these even work with Essentials.

[ARTHAN]

I don't imagine anyone does this. Frankly, you're mislabeling things and possibly confusing yourself by it. There isn't a second feat called "Great Fortitude", there is only the one that was altered over the lifetime of the game, just like Sneak Attack and Warlock's Curse were changed to be 1/turn instead 1/round. Whether to apply errata and official rules changes or not is of course up to each group to decide for themselves.

I think that, in the end, it indeed comes down to personal choice. Like you said, each group will decide for themselves.
But back on topic.

@Kurald Galain:
Glad you agree with me, to most of the things at least.

@darkdagoon:
My plan is not just to use a power more than once. My plan is to avoid filling my mind and my character sheet with another power instead of having a single power multiple times. Furthermore, I would like to be able to occasionally spam that power (let's say 4 times) in the same encounter instead of using it just 2 times instead of 1.

Just to make it sure, I like your suggestions you guys regardless I agree with them or not. Have fun playing 4E! :)