"Banking" retraining - Rules clarification needed

[666Sinner666]

RAW and RAI be damned you just need to make a decision based on how you feel about it and how your decision will impact the "fun factor" of your game.

Personally, I love seeing new builds, classes, and races used in game so I have no problem with people switching classes, races, powers, feats, paragon paths, or epic destinies. But I'm more of a rules lite kinda guy and am apt to "make" things happen that are not supported at all, or well, by the 4e rules in the spirit of fun and/or thematics so take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

[lyon812]

I have been a fan of fairly lax retraining rules in any game I play just because I know the frustration of making a poor decision and being stuck with it for the entire life of the character. Sure, it's more "realistic" to preclude retraining as much as possible since that kind of stuff doesn't happen in real life. but this is a game. Personally, if I were to run 4th edition, I would probably allow retraining of at least one power every level. I might charge the players some gold for it, but it would be available..

In our games (same group, but two DMs/campaigns), we're pretty lenient on rebuilds. In one campaign, a character swapped classes at level 5 (from warlock to invoker) because they were just not having fun as a warlock; we were able to reasonably fluff it while maintaining continuity. Also, when a new rulebook comes out, you're allowed to rebuild if you're incorporating new powers/feats--why punish a person by holding these new things in front of them and saying "sorry, you're locked in"? That's just cruel. =p

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

My group has also allowed spontaneous retrains as well. My first character, a feylock, retrained her feats several times during the course of the 3 levels I played her as new, better (read: character appropriate) options came out.

I continue to allow this as a DM. Sometimes things look great on paper, but aren't as much fun at the table. New material is coming out all the time. Sometimes you just get bored of what you have. Sometimes RP takes a character in an unexpected direction.

 

[AngryJack]

Thanks for all the feedback folks!

Seems like there is a pretty clear consensus on what the RAW say (and arguably what RAI is for that matter). At the same time, most DMs seem inclined to allow more leniency on this point if that makes the game more fun. Never had an issue with the latter per se. Our group has always houseruled and tweaked rules as we saw fit.

The question that was raised between my players and I was as to the RAW themselves. Still, your points regarding tailoring the game to the players are well taken.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Add one more to the "use it or lose it" interpretation.

That aside, have you asked the player you're discussing the question why they want to bank them? That's what would guide my response.

If this is purely a rules discussion (And I do like a civil rules debate.), I'd cite my case, listen to their case, and leave it at that. It's not worth debating too much if it'll never come up in play.

If they see an issue with their character that is making playing the character not fun to play and multiple retrains will improve it, I'd let them retrain until they're happy.

If they're using the multiple banked retrains to pull some twist on you so their character is a crazy optimized headache, I'd ask ask them not to so we can all enjoy the game more.

 

[Dausuul]

You are right and your players are wrong. Once per level, you get to retrain one feat or power. There is no mechanic for saving them up. Any rules lawyer who claims otherwise should be disbarred.

The CB is a glorified character sheet. It correctly (well, mostly) judges whether a character's present state is legal under the rules, including whether you could have gotten to that state legitimately... but it has no way to know whether you actually did get there legitimately. You can give yourself a +6 weapon and a million gold pieces at level 1, and the CB will just smile and nod. You can change an established character's stats, race, and class without raising a "house ruled" flag. Do your players think that entitles them to do so? Then why do they think they're entitled to go back and give themselves retraining after the fact?

Myself, I'm pretty generous with "respecs," perhaps a little too much so... but I'd rather have a player totally revamp a PC's stats while keeping the character's persona and background, than go through the hassle of bringing in a new PC with no connection to the existing storyline.

 

[Ryujin]

Use it or lose it, with situationally appropriate exceptions.

When my group first starts a campaign we generally permit some pretty large changes, for the first two or three sessions, well beyond what might be written off as retraining. If there's a major change to someone's character, that is enforced by something like a major nerfing of an ability/item/power, then we allow an immediate retrain. If a supplement like one of the Power books comes out, that could fundamentally change a way that a player sees his character, then we allow a revamp.

Other than that it's once per level, when you gain your next level.