I was refering to anyone who posts on these forums as the vocal minority. The vast majority of LFR players will never browse these boards.
As for the fairness factor. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think allowing people who made poor choices free rides is 'unfair'. If a choice you made turns out to be a poor one in the future you should still be held accountable. You can use the retrain options available to you just like everyone else.
I was refering to anyone who posts on these forums as the vocal minority. The vast majority of LFR players will never browse these boards.
As for the fairness factor. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think allowing people who made poor choices free rides is 'unfair'. If a choice you made turns out to be a poor one in the future you should still be held accountable. You can use the retrain options available to you just like everyone else.
And here is the problem, you want to punish someone who made a non-poor choice that was then later changed to a poor choice because of a rules update.
You keep saying they should be "held accountable" but really it's wotc who needs to be "held accountable" when they make changes, and doing so means allowing those whose characters they have changed when they issue updates alter their character to compensate.
You can't hold the player accountable for making valid choices and not hold wotc accountable later for changing those choices.
And it's not like these choices which were strong choices when they were made and become a weak choice simply because it's not as good at later levels and they need to be held accountable for that choice at that time, it becomes weaker instantly because of a change in game design. I can't even begin to understand why you can't see this or choose to punish people for playing the game by the rules but as you say, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this I suppose.
The more harmful effect of not being given a reasonable opportunity to change stuff after an errata isn't that people will cheat.
It's that people will decide it's not worth the effort, and stop playing LFR.
I've already met a number of folks that stopped, at least for the time being, because they are tired of the lack of timely communication from the top after major changes.
-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
Thanks for the reasonable discussion. I didn't figure we'd get a consensus or even much agreement on the issue, but at least we're not cluttering up a different thread hashing out these issues.
I have to say the position I agree most with would be bgibbons:
Consider these statements: * Campaign staff set the rules and you follow them, even if they lead to an unfair result. * The most important thing is that players have fun. Optimally, that's within the rules, but if they conflict, it's okay to break the rules every now and again. * Players are encouraged to use all approved WOTC materials. If we allow material in the campaign, it's because we believe it's fine for you to use. * Players are responsible for creating balanced characters that conform to the core design of the class. If you go beyond the average power level or outside of the core intent of your class, you do so at your own risk.
Which of these statements you consider to be true will play a large part in determining how you think the campaign and the players in it should respond to rules changes. Without knowing what the campaign's philosophy is, players will default to the assumption that their own philosophy is the correct one, and act accordingly.
I actually think the last bullet-pointed issue above is the big one for this discussion.
Elder Basilisk points out that if a DM decided to unilaterally modify the terms of a home game so that a particular class is 'nerfed', and doesn't allow a player to modify his character, the player would rightly feel upset and be unlikely to continue to play. While I agree with that point, I think the situation here is actually a bit different: in this case, the game's creator has changed things because they feel the need to enforce balance between classes.
Let's ignore for the moment whether a change like the avenger AC change or the bloodclaw change should be treated as a 'nerf' or a 'restoration of balance'. The real question is, a DM finds out that one of the rules in his rulebook has changed. What does he do?
In a home game, he can simply choose to ignore the change, particularly if his players are having fun.
LFR DMs, however, are not expected to ignore published errata. So that solution isn't available.
A home DM could allow the player to swap the affected item/feat for any other feat the character qualifies for.
In LFR, the theory is that certain items are only available in certain adventures (with a few exceptions); this seems to be 'baked-in' to the existing LFR structure. Yes, campaign staff made an exception for Veteran's Armor way back when, but the fact that there's discussion going on now suggests that the staff didn't intend for that situation to become a precedent for how every errata-based change should be handled in the future.
Feats are a bit easier to adjudicate, but again there are already existing rules about how many and how often feats can be retrained, as well as how often a character can use a 'global rebuild'.
In each case, it seems as though allowing a 'free respec' whenever errata comes out effectively defeats the purpose of having these rules in place. This is definitely part of what I meant when lamenting that following the rules doesn't seem worthwhile, because people who ignore them, even if only in specific circumstances, aren't restricted by doing so.
I guess the real point is that someone is going to feel that, whatever the answer to this question is, the answer is 'unfair'; either its unfair to those who took the errata-ed stuff and have to live with that decision until they can change the stuff under existing campaign rules, or it's unfair to the people who've been following the rules without complaint but now watch others flaunt them as a means of avoiding the 'nerf bat'.
I guess I'd like a statement of philosophy here as to how the rules should be approached, and preferably one that doesn't make me feel like a sap for treating the rules as binding.
A home DM could allow the player to swap the affected item/feat for any other feat the character qualifies for.
I should point out that this would generally be done outside the normal retraining rules which normally apply in home games that follow the core rules.
In LFR, the theory is that certain items are only available in certain adventures (with a few exceptions); this seems to be 'baked-in' to the existing LFR structure. Yes, campaign staff made an exception for Veteran's Armor way back when, but the fact that there's discussion going on now suggests that the staff didn't intend for that situation to become a precedent for how every errata-based change should be handled in the future.
Feats are a bit easier to adjudicate, but again there are already existing rules about how many and how often feats can be retrained, as well as how often a character can use a 'global rebuild'.
I think you are mistaking the similarity in form between normal retraining and what I will call rebuilding (for lack of a better word--I mean exchanging of feats/class features based on unforseen changes in the rules). Both of them involve swapping one feat or feature for another. However, they exist to address very different functions.
Retraining exists to allow players to experiment, to make mistakes, and to gradually power up their characters after reaching paragon or epic levels. (The last assertion would probably not have been my choice, but the PHB is very explicit that you can retrain heroic feats into paragon and paragon or heroic feats into epic feats, so I can only assume that it is intended for characters to actually do this when it is advantageous to them). Since feats are not locked in permanently, characters can take a feat and see if it works out and turn it into something else if it doesn't. This creates an important safety valve that allows players with less system mastery in the relevant sections of the system to learn how to create characters that can do what they want them to do without feeling like they need to start a new character to apply everything they have learned.
Rebuilding, on the other hand, has a very different function. To the extent that it exists (in home campaigns or under the table in LFR), it exists to allow players to compensate for unforseen changes in the rules that cause feats/class features/items and their interactions to no longer serve their function. Unlike retraining, this is not gradual, nor is it delayed. There is (or should be) no waiting period where your avenger continues to play wearing his magic leather armor which no longer works with armor of faith. The purpose of this is repair, not experimentation.
In each case, it seems as though allowing a 'free respec' whenever errata comes out effectively defeats the purpose of having these rules in place. This is definitely part of what I meant when lamenting that following the rules doesn't seem worthwhile, because people who ignore them, even if only in specific circumstances, aren't restricted by doing so.
I can sympathize with the feeling that following the rules does not seem worthwhile and this is why I argued in the initial thread that time was of the essence and that imperfect rules the week that the change came out would be better than perfect rules a month later. That said, neither hypothetical official rebuild guidelines nor responsibly done under the table rebuilding necessarily defeat the purpose of having item acquisition or retraining rules.
IMO, a responsible approach to item substitutions would not defeat the purpose of item acquisition rules. If, for instance, you can exchange the base item for a weapon or armor enchantment--changing leather armor of psychic resistance to cloth armor of psychic resistance--when rules for either the base item (in the case of double weapons) or interacting class features (again, in the case of many double weapons and avengers with non-cloth armor) changes, that would not fully address the rebuilding issues but would not raise any issues with the item acquisition system. No-one would end up with anything that they could not have obtained under the base system.
Likewise, a sensible approach to class feature/paragon path/feat rebuilding would not endanger the purpose of retraining rules since they serve very different purposes. If an avenger swaps leather armor proficiency for improved armor of faith based on the new rules, that actually preserves the retraining rules to serve their original purpose rather than pressing them into service as a wholly inadequate patch for a lack of rebuilding rules.
I guess the real point is that someone is going to feel that, whatever the answer to this question is, the answer is 'unfair'; either its unfair to those who took the errata-ed stuff and have to live with that decision until they can change the stuff under existing campaign rules, or it's unfair to the people who've been following the rules without complaint but now watch others flaunt them as a means of avoiding the 'nerf bat'.
I guess I'd like a statement of philosophy here as to how the rules should be approached, and preferably one that doesn't make me feel like a sap for treating the rules as binding.
As I said, I definitely sympathize with the dilemma, but the only thing that can address it is official rules for rebuilding, so (apparently) only Chris Tulach can help with that. If you were looking for a sophisticated justification for under the table character rebuilds that would enable you to distinguish between principled under the table actions and mere destructive anarchy, I think there may be some useful analogies to civil government and the natural law principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers--most especially the right of revolution.
Retraining exists to allow players to experiment, to make mistakes, and to gradually power up their characters after reaching paragon or epic levels.
I agree with you in this; the retraining rules are intended to allow a greater degree of flexibility in a character build. I can see an analogue in 3.5 edition characters -- prior to the retraining options in 3.5, if you wanted to take a feat or prestige class with many specific prerequisites, you'd have to take all the prerequisite feats in order, even if those prerequisite feats weren't terribly effective for your character at the time. I always saw this as part of the cost of going for a specific powerful feat or PrC -- an opportunity cost, by requiring a character to take less effective feats earlier in the build to compensate for having access to a more powerful option later. The 3.5 retraining rules didn't completely eliminate this, but they did limit the degree to which you'd have to 'carry' relatively unpowered feats -- instead of having to take feats at lvl 3, 6, and 9 to get your PrC at lvl 10, you'd simply retrain the level 3 feat at 8, take one at 9, and retrain the level 6 feat at 10 prior to entering the PrC. (Or, depending on how your DM interpreted the level-up 'order of operations', retrain at 7 and 8 instead of 8 and 10.)
The other purpose for the retraining rules, which I think you'd agree with, is to allow characters to make use of new feats, powers, etc. from new rules sources with existing characters, thus helping to ensure the value of the new rules sources to current players -- if you had to start a new character to make use of all the cool stuff in Primal Power, for instance, you might not feel as eager to go out and drop $30 US or so on Primal Power. Again, I think this purpose is non-controversial.
(The last assertion would probably not have been my choice, but the PHB is very explicit that you can retrain heroic feats into paragon and paragon or heroic feats into epic feats, so I can only assume that it is intended for characters to actually do this when it is advantageous to them).
Given that the rules direct you to replace your class-based powers rather than gaining brand-new class-based powers starting in Paragon tier, I actually think this is part of the overall design.
Since feats are not locked in permanently, characters can take a feat and see if it works out and turn it into something else if it doesn't. This creates an important safety valve that allows players with less system mastery in the relevant sections of the system to learn how to create characters that can do what they want them to do without feeling like they need to start a new character to apply everything they have learned.
Again, no argument on this.
Rebuilding, on the other hand, has a very different function. To the extent that it exists (in home campaigns or under the table in LFR), it exists to allow players to compensate for unforseen changes in the rules that cause feats/class features/items and their interactions to no longer serve their function. Unlike retraining, this is not gradual, nor is it delayed. There is (or should be) no waiting period where your avenger continues to play wearing his magic leather armor which no longer works with armor of faith. The purpose of this is repair, not experimentation.
Here's where we disagree.
From my perspective, I don't see the distinction between, say:
- taking the Enlarge Spell feat, playing with it for a few adventures, finding out it's not as useful in your build than you expected, and deciding to retrain it, and - taking a bloodclaw weapon, having the designers discover that it's more powerful than intended and issue errata to bring it more into line with other weapon enchantments, and deciding to retrain it
I can appreciate that your argument is that the former situation is one the player brought on herself with her own choice, and thus should abide by the retraining rules, whereas the latter situation is one 'imposed' on the player from an outside authority and thus not one that she should be held responsible for. I just don't see the distinction as being significant; the distinction as I see it is not in the reason for the decision, but with the decision itself -- if you decide a particular feat, weapon ability, etc. is not as useful for your character as some other feat, weapon ability, etc. choice would be, we already have rules to handle how to get rid of the choice you feel is sub-optimal and replace it with something you like better. To try to distinguish between player-initiated dissatisfaction and errata-related dissatisfaction gets -- to borrow your philosophical examples -- a bit too close to trying to figure the morality/ethicality of an action by the actor's intention, which can get messy and imprecise. Why bother with the ostensible reason for the retrain, when what's important and measurable is that something was retrained or swapped?
I will say that, if errata causes some combination of effects to become illegal -- such as a particular armor enchantment no longer applying to a particular type of armor -- then any affected players should modify their characters immediately to correct the problem. Again, though, there's already an existing rule that covers this situation, so there's no need to create a new 'respec' system to cover it.
What I'd prefer to see from the designers, if they wish to explore the possibility of creating a 'respec' rule, is to clarify that they are discussing this, and in the meantime to use the existing rules for retraining if you wish to make changes before the 'official' rules are released. This avoids your 'perfect is the enemy of good enough' problem by making it plain that there are existing ways to modify characters, and those existing ways should be used rather than create ad-hoc 'solutions' which do nothing but muddy the waters and reduce respect for the existing campaign ruleset.
I think there's a pretty notable difference between these two situations: 1) Someone took a bloodclaw weapon. Now it's less effective. 2) Someone is playing an avenger, decided to focus on the defender aspect of the class cause it's neat, took 13 Str and 14 Con at character creation (sacrificing potentially Wisdom, for instance) for Hide, took Leather Armor, Hide Armor, Hide Armor Specialization, managed to obtain some +3 Deathcut Hide, and took War Priest as a paragon path specifically looking forward to the level 16 marking mechanic to assist in tanking (I'm sure there's a better example, but the important part is just the concept of picking a paragon path to be a better defender)
The first loses a bit of DPR, but can cope quite easily. Within a couple levels they'll pick up a different +4 magic weapon anyhow. The second needs three retrains to fix his feats and has armor that cannot be cloth at all. In addition, his ability scores are poorly spent now, and given the option he'd change how 5 points were spent, but unfortunately you can't retrain that at all. Further, the loss of 4 AC (or 5 if he has to sell his armor and just buy a replacement) might now convince the player that he can no longer actually serve function as a defender. On a plus side, he can focus more on being a striker. Of course, his paragon path helps with being a defender so now he's potentially unhappy with his paragon path. Which can't be retrained at all.
I'm personally thankful that I've largely fell in the former camp. But I can't remotely equate the two characters in the same camp.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
From my perspective, I don't see the distinction between, say:
- taking the Enlarge Spell feat, playing with it for a few adventures, finding out it's not as useful in your build than you expected, and deciding to retrain it, and - taking a bloodclaw weapon, having the designers discover that it's more powerful than intended and issue errata to bring it more into line with other weapon enchantments, and deciding to retrain it
I'm not nearly as concerned about bloodclaw as I am about things like the double weapon change, avengers in leather armor, and to a much lesser degree, the healer's sash change (since it is a fundamental change in what the item does and how it does it). But in all cases, I think there are several notable distinctions in addition to the distinction of intention:
A. In case 1, the enlarge spell feat did not change. Its objective utility for the various purposes for which it is used did not change. It is only your perception of it and its relative usefulness compared to the other options that changed. In case 2, the actual rules item--whether bloodclaw weapons, avenger armor of faith feature, or double weapons changed. Whatever the rule item is, its objective utility for whatever purposes it serves changed. The player's perception of its relative value to the character may--and probably will change as a result of that.
B. In case 1, odds are good that you discover that you are not happy with the option before you build too much upon the foundation. If I find that I don't like wielding a greatspear with my warlord, I probably find out within a level of gaining proficiency and beginning to use one. Unless I specifically built the character around a complex mechanical concept involving a combination of greatspear, polearm momentum, opening shove, etc, I can just trade in greatspear proficiency for bastard sword proficiency at my next level and move on. In case 2, on the other hand, there is a good possibility that the changes effect foundational aspects of your character. If I had a level 12 urgrosh wielding eladrin tempest fighter/shock trooper affected by the November errata, I would not simply be able to make one substitution and move on. In order to account for the change, I would have had to either change out eladrin soldier and all of the spear and axe related feats for light blade feats and proficiencies or trade out tempest technique for two-handed weapon talent and Shock Trooper for Kensai or blade dancer.
So, in case 1, it is very likely that the desired change may be effected with a simple one-level swap. In case 2, on the other hand, it is quite possible that the change will be complicated and will require several levels of transition, none of which are stages you will be happy with or would want to play if rules weren't forcing you to do so.
C. The two kinds of changes are very often of differing severity. If a class 1 retraining option doesn't work out the way you want, odds are good that it just means you are slightly less efficient than you would otherwise be. Using your example, let's speculate that I took enlarge spell because I thought it would work with cloud of daggers and, upon finding out that it doesn't work, I don't think its usefulness with stinking cloud and orbmaster's incindiary detonation are enough to make it worth the feat slot. Well, I'm a bit unhappy, but while I'm waiting for the opportunity to fix it, I still have things I can do with it. On the other hand, class 2 (rebuild) options can have much more dramatic implications. The 12th level eladrin tempest fighter from before, for instance, would go from attacking at +18/+18 (+5 str, +3 enh, +6 level, +2 proficiency, +1 expertise, +1 tempest technique) for 2d6+14/1d10+14 (+5 str, +2 tempest technique, +2 feat, +3 enhancement, +2 iron armbands of power) to attacking at +14/+18 for 1d12+10/1d8+14. Against a standard AC of 15+level, he goes from a basic attack DPR of 14.025 to 8.05 with his primary hand and from 13 to 11.8 with his off-hand. (Figures include deadly axe which no longer applies to the off-hand). Depending upon the attack in question, that's a 10-40% damage decrease which effects everything the character can do.
I suppose it is possible that a player could build his character into a corner such that he is not proficient with his weapon and his class features don't work with it (I guess we'd be looking at something like a swordmage picking up axe proficiency and a magic axe). But it's pretty highly unlikely. On the other hand, feat/class feature interactions have now changed for at least three major character types (battleragers, tempest fighter/double weapons, and avengers) and may well change again in the future (my suspicion would be aimed at hide armor expertise and barbarian agility/swarm druid DR stacking). Changes of that magnitude are not something that players should have to play through.
Furthermore, there is a point that I don't think you are addressing: using retraining rules for purpose 2 (rebuilding) prevents you from using them for purpose 1 (retraining). To use an actual example, I have a dwarf TWF ranger character who I was initially going to multiclass fighter through the battle awareness feat. When hide armor expertise came out, it makes hide armor a much better option than the heavy armor proficiency feat tree (which he had been pursuing)--and that, in turn, pushed barbarian multiclassing over the top. So, I started the process of retraining battle awareness to beserker's fury and next level plan to retrain chainmail proficiency to hide armor expertise and use transfer enhancement to get magic hide armor. That seems to be a pretty classic case of retraining serving one of its intended purposes: I wanted the shiny new option so I'm retraining in order to get it. Fortunately, it works fine because I was unaffected by the errata. But, for the moment, let's imagine that things were different and, instead of being a twf ranger, my character were a beastmaster ranger who used dwarven weapon training to be proficient in the urgrosh and had grabbed weapon expertise: spear (because I prefer javalins to handaxes as backup weapons). The errata would prevent the build from functioning in the way that it is supposed to since I would no longer be proficient in the off-hand side of the urgrosh and the primary side is no longer a spear. It still has a fairly easy fix: switch to a waraxe/handaxe combo, but doing so would require changing from expertise: spear to expertise: axe. That's fine, but if I am using my retrain to fix the mess that WotC made of my character (case 2), I cannot use it for its intended purpose (case 1).
I can appreciate that your argument is that the former situation is one the player brought on herself with her own choice, and thus should abide by the retraining rules, whereas the latter situation is one 'imposed' on the player from an outside authority and thus not one that she should be held responsible for. I just don't see the distinction as being significant; the distinction as I see it is not in the reason for the decision, but with the decision itself -- if you decide a particular feat, weapon ability, etc. is not as useful for your character as some other feat, weapon ability, etc. choice would be, we already have rules to handle how to get rid of the choice you feel is sub-optimal and replace it with something you like better. To try to distinguish between player-initiated dissatisfaction and errata-related dissatisfaction gets -- to borrow your philosophical examples -- a bit too close to trying to figure the morality/ethicality of an action by the actor's intention, which can get messy and imprecise.
To continue the philosophical/legal examples, figuring out whether the accused is innocent or guilty can also get messy and imprecise, but it's pretty important if you want your justice system to actually deliver justice.
In the rules case, however, figuring out whether something was changed in errata is neither messy nor imprecise. All of the changed items are clearly printed in the errata. Now, if you want to try and distinguish between various errataed items with some meriting a limited rebuild opportunity (perhaps those effected by the avenger and doubleweapon/tempest changes should have a rebuild but barbarians who had chosen the now (sensibly) nerfed powers should not have any rebuild options) and some not meriting such a rebuild opportunity, you could get messy and imprecise, but you don't have to. You could easily say, "if a feat or class feature was trained, exchange it for another feat or class feature for which you qualify and if the rules for a base armor or weapon type were changed or the rules change for a class feature changes the way that it interacts with your feats or items, you may exchange the applicable feats for feats of your choice and may exchange the relevant armor or weapon for another; if the new item is ineligible for the enhancement on the old item, you may exchange it for a +x magic item of the new type instead." There's nothing imprecise about a statement like that. Was the feat changed? Was the class feature changed? Do you have a weapon or armor that no longer interacts with your feats/class features in the same way? All of those questions have discoverable and verifiable answers.
Why bother with the ostensible reason for the retrain, when what's important and measurable is that something was retrained or swapped?
I don't know if anyone is arguing that we should be bothered about the reason for the rebuild. I think most people who are arguing for rebuild options want to see the opportunity to rebuild in response to rules changes. We don't care if a hypothetical avenger player is swapping his leather armor proficiency for weapon focus because the rules for armor of faith changed or because he decided that he wanted damage more than AC. For most of us, the point would be that he traded an armor proficiency for an armor that no longer functions with armor of faith for another feat. That is plenty measurable regardless of the intention and is easily distinguished from someone who, at the same time swapped his executioner's axe for a fullblade (neither of which were changed in the errata).
I will say that, if errata causes some combination of effects to become illegal -- such as a particular armor enchantment no longer applying to a particular type of armor -- then any affected players should modify their characters immediately to correct the problem. Again, though, there's already an existing rule that covers this situation, so there's no need to create a new 'respec' system to cover it.
Actual illegality is pretty rare and, as you point out, there are rules for addressing it. The problem is that errata is also introducing changes to foundational mechanics for characters that manage to invalidate their character choices (for instance, an avenger who took leather armor proficiency to increase his armor class but found that, post-errata, leather armor actually reduces his AC instead) without rendering them actually "illegal." There is an urgent need for rules to address this situation.
What I'd prefer to see from the designers, if they wish to explore the possibility of creating a 'respec' rule, is to clarify that they are discussing this, and in the meantime to use the existing rules for retraining if you wish to make changes before the 'official' rules are released. This avoids your 'perfect is the enemy of good enough' problem by making it plain that there are existing ways to modify characters, and those existing ways should be used rather than create ad-hoc 'solutions' which do nothing but muddy the waters and reduce respect for the existing campaign ruleset.
Using the existing retrain rules in the meantime may avoid the "perfect being the enemy of the good" problem, but only because it lines the good up against the wall and administers an extrajudicial execution with a 50 caliber machine gun.
Doing so would not address the genuine fairness issues that extensive errata is raising and additionally prevents the retraining rules from serving their intended purpose. Furthermore, it is the failure to address the actual needs of the campaign in a fair manner that is likely to reduce respect for the existing ruleset. It may do so subtly (because players make under the table adjustments and view the PTB as unresponsive to their concerns), but an official "do nothing" approach would have anything but a subtle effect; it would be every bit as much a violation of the unspoken contract between the players and the campaign DM as arbitrary houseruling without allowing for adjustments would be in a home campaign.
