So...where does retraining fit in?

[Ratinyourwalls]

It was a pretty big part of 4E, and was an option in 3.5 as well. Not sure about it's role in editions prior to 3.5, but I feel that's it is an essential part of the game. People shouldn't be locked into the character they want to play just because they picked a class two years a go, eh?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I hate retraining rules - I think they ruin verisimilitude. I think DMs should be able to come up with "under the table" options for modifiying characters to suit unhappy players instead of allowing players to say "I'm tired of my elven fighter - I'm going to become a dragonborn shadow mage."

I think that WotC figured out that players who are intending to play the same class for a year or two were less likely to buy new class handbooks the instant they came out, and decided to encourage character switching.

This has been your contrarian viewpoint. Next up on NPR - Car Guys.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I hate retraining rules - I think they ruin verisimilitude. I think DMs should be able to come up with "under the table" options for modifiying characters to suit unhappy players instead of allowing players to say "I'm tired of my elven fighter - I'm going to become a dragonborn shadow mage."

Either that's a pretty tremendous hyperbole, or you actually don't know what 4e's retraining rules are.

Personally I like the retraining rules just as they are in 4e. They should probably exist as an option in the DMG, though.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Either that's a pretty tremendous hyperbole, or you actually don't know what 4e's retraining rules are.

Personally I like the retraining rules just as they are in 4e. They should probably exist as an option in the DMG, though.

No, I never suggested I know what "the" retraining rules are. I was going off of what I've seen of such rules - for example, in some later 3.5 splatbooks, that worked exactly as I described.

And I repeat - anything minor, like "I wish I hadn't taken that feat" could easily be handled by the DM without specific rules cases.

 

[Raith5]

I hate retraining rules - I think they ruin verisimilitude. I think DMs should be able to come up with "under the table" options for modifiying characters to suit unhappy players instead of allowing players to say "I'm tired of my elven fighter - I'm going to become a dragonborn shadow mage."

I think that WotC figured out that players who are intending to play the same class for a year or two were less likely to buy new class handbooks the instant they came out, and decided to encourage character switching.

This has been your contrarian viewpoint. Next up on NPR - Car Guys.

What? The 4th ed retraining rules do not encompass gender, race or class!

I like rules than enable characters to learn and experiment with abilities and legitimately correct mistakes in the design of their PCs. We do want people to play the characters they want and have fun after all, and not shackle them to something that is not working.

 

[Oni]

I hate, hate, hate retraining rules. If I'm not happy playing my character as is, why should I have to suffer through an extended period of playing like that while I slowly make incremental changes. If I'm not having fun I'll say to the DM, "Hey DM, old buddy, I'm not really enjoying this character as is, it's not working out like I had hoped, can I change it around so I can enjoy my gaming experience a little more?" And if the DM isn't a complete jerk he'll probably say, "Sure, no problem." I would hope that the next edition contains advice to do just that, to let DM's know they're not breaking any "rules" to make that kind of call.

The only thing incremental retraining rules are good for is power gamers looking to have a rules legitimized way to take the new awesome or swap things around for optimization that has somehow been officially approved by the rule book, "You can't complain about this, see it says so here in the book!"

 

[Oni]

I hate retraining rules - I think they ruin verisimilitude. I think DMs should be able to come up with "under the table" options for modifiying characters to suit unhappy players instead of allowing players to say "I'm tired of my elven fighter - I'm going to become a dragonborn shadow mage."

I think that WotC figured out that players who are intending to play the same class for a year or two were less likely to buy new class handbooks the instant they came out, and decided to encourage character switching.

This has been your contrarian viewpoint. Next up on NPR - Car Guys.

If a player wanted to play a new character I'd just let them, why would you force someone to play something that enjoying as much anymore. Okay, you fighter retires or goes off and does something else or just generally slips into the background of the world and your Dragonborn (I do hate that name) shadow mage steps into the story. Bam, done.

 

[Savage Wombat]

There's another one. Look, the OP didn't say "what do you think of 4e retraining rules", and I didn't mention them. OP even mentioned "picked a class two years ago".

Not everything is an attack on 4e.

 

[frankthedm]

You make your choices, you stick with them. IMHO Retraining rules are a scheme to sell splatbooks so one can routinely upgrade their current character on the Splatbook power creep treadmill.

 

[trancejeremy]

Verisimilitude shouldn't even remotely be an issue in D&D, because we're talking about a game where gods and the wish spell exist, both of which should be able to accomplish that easily.

Not to mention cursed items that change someone's gender or personality/alignment.

With that said, I don't think it's something that should be done lightly, because it can be abused.

And indeed, a better option possibly would be to simply play another character. That happens a lot in TV - one character gets written out because the actor leaves, another one gets written in to replace him.