Re: Pathfinder - Retraining a class level
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think the HP gained is the only thing that needs to be replaced. The rule says “When you retrain a class level, you lose all the benefits of the highest level you have in that class. You immediately select a different class, add a level in that class, and gain all the benefits of that new class level.”
Character level ability bonuses and bonus feats are specific excluded from this process. You keep whatever you had before you retrained.
The odd thing is that skill point are mutable. So if you replace a class level you lose X skill ranks. Not necessarily the specific skill ranks you chose when you took that level in the first place. Then you gain skill ranks for the new added class level and assign them as you see fit. The “new” class level then effectively becomes the last level gained. Pen and paper players would not keep the skill ranks history so it would be nearly impossible to resolve it by level anyway. The pen and paper world is why skill ranks are mutable and shouldn’t be tracked as to which skill rank is chosen at which level.
It could be argued also that HP aren’t supposed to be tracked by level either for the same reason (pen and paper players would not necessarily know how many were gained on each specific level). So the way it would be done is to lose the average HP for that level, plus any potential favored class bonus. PCGen, fortunately, tracks HP per level. So it’s easy to know how many HP are gained on each specific level.
I can edit a pcg file and changed a Barbarian class level to a Rogue class level (a total of two lines need to be edited). PCGen then showed “too many X choices” for some abilities and a net difference in the number of skills I had to resolve.
Should be simple enough for the UI, and I see your point on how difficult it would be to do in DATA. A small disadvantage of a UI solution to replace a class level is that there is no history of what was done to the character. But there is no history on what equipment you buy or sell either. A bigger disadvantage is the need for CODE work and lack of CODE team member spare time to do it, especially when it’s mostly useful for Pathfinder. Though I could argue that any GM might want that ability when building any NPC as they are playing around with the fleshing out the particulars of the character.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Maitland via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [pcgenexperimental] Pathfinder - Retraining a class level
Ah, the Code CDOM monster...
So, first of all, we need to actually track what was gained per level, something we don't currently do (Except stats boosts oddly enough).
We quasi track points gained at what level, but not where those points are spent.
Anything with level based pools, again, nadda.
In short, we'd have to remaster how Leveling works, track each gain and Level increase, feat purchased at the exact level - meaning either
A) A ton more pop up dialogs (Choose Skills for Level x), Choose your General Feat for Level x, Choose your Stat Increase, Choose your Weapon Training Choice, etc.
B) Or we redesign both the code and data to force know about the above, and restricted items at the level they should be taken.
Option A is easier on Data, but the code team would still need to code a method to track those choices.
Then assemble a table of all gains for a particular level slot and then a method to swap the Class or gains for said level... Ideally, we should have a method to enforce the restrictions at the level (Fake the Levels tracker to the level you are working on, so you can't make a 20th level character, and choose an 'epic' feat as your 1st feat choice).
A - Data can implement today, and go back to the days of incessant pop up dialogs. But won't fix the retraining issue, nor will it remember any specific level up/down information.
B - Make the program more intelligent. Better long term strategy, and less annoying for the end user I think. Requires a major overhaul and solid code commitment.
On 1/2/2019 4:58 PM, markjmeans wrote: