So...where does retraining fit in?

[Zireael]

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."

Retraining doesn't work this way.

And about D&D Next - I'd be happy to see optional retraining of feats/skills/themes as an optional module.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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.

True, and I also think they were a reaction to the "feat traps" that the system mastery approach for 3.x had. As Monte has explained they put sub optimal feats in the game just so people that understood how to play wouldn't take them. I really think the retraining is a reaction to that.

And the idea of a new player, who doesn't have the help of experienced players, builds a character - then finds out that the mechanical decisions he made didn't support the flavor or abilities of the character. He would want to do adjustments to fix it.

So I don't really mind retraining. I'm all for options.

Although the GM advice thing works for me too.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Personally I'm not fond of retraining, but some people like it and it should be explained as an optional house rule.

What I do hate is class feats/features that are useless or my character sees them useless.

Mostly I'm talking about various armor/shield proficiency's and companion features.

I mean what the hell is elven archer with 18+ dex from level one do with medium and heavy armor proficiency? or tower shield or shield what so ever? Just a huge waste of class resources.

That things I would like to retrain even beforehand

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

The best way they could handle this in 5e is having this section in the PHB or DMG:

RETRAINING

"Your DM decides if retraining is allowed in the game, and decides how to handle it: what abilities can you retrain if any and how frequently. Here are a couple of sample retraining rules arrangements..."

There really shouldn't be any retraining allowed by default, the default should be "no retraining", and then the DM can use the provided suggestion(s) or make up her own rules for retraining.

 

[tlantl]

After giving this a little thought, I have come to the conclusion that since the game is going to assume as a baseline that their themes are going to be the primary way to determine your feats there should be no reason to include retraining rules.

If you decide to ignore the themes as presented to you in the character creation rules then the expectation is that you suffer the consequences of those choices. As a dungeon master, I would not allow anyone to retrain for any reason. If you have screwed up bad enough to truly hate the thing that you have created then I invite you to tear it up and make another one.

I was for a moment leaning in the other direction until another thread reminded me of the way the next D&D is going to work (at least in theory). The cause of this problem is the feats and the overwhelming number of them. The idea that the developers intentionally included feat traps in the game is unconscionable in my opinion.

before 3e there was nothing to retrain. everything your character could do was determined by your class and race. There were no optional fiddly bits to dink around with until non weapon proficiencies showed up. Back then you chose wisely because you were going to be stuck with your choices for the duration.

If the player wants to retrain a feat is because he found a really cool one in a book five months after the character was made then no. I don't think that is a good enough reason to retrain the character.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't have any opinion atm, 4e retraining rules are an integral part of the system, but in older additions I usually ruled that you can't retrain more than one thing per level.

As for a player not having fun playing a certain character, just kill his current one in a fun way and in the next session the party find this naked and shackled character on the side of the road

Warder

 

[Tallifer]

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.

The word retraining actually comes from real life. The government and large corporations even pay for workers to undergo retraining when they need to change their job or to change the focus of their job.

In a fantastic world, a Fighter might begin his career very focused on various physical exercises to increase his toughness. Later on he might decide to stop focusing so much and practicing so much in these exercises: instead he focuses on divine matters (retrains into a multi-class cleric).

(for example, I used to focus very much on learning academic languages like Latin and Greek. I ceased putting effort into those and have thus forgotten most of them. Mostly I focus on English pedagogy now.)

By the way, per the written rules, a player cannot retrain more than one thing in each new level in the Fourth Edition. Not can you change your starting class or race.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

Dusk elves anyone?

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.

The retraining rules just suck. I have no problem with any player who is no longer happy with a character retiring them and creating a replacement.

Plugging in and hotswapping new abilities to an existing character just to experiment and tweak power levels is more immersion breaking than a new character joining the party every few sessions. The retraining rules epitomize the hyper-fixation on self obsession and PC mechanical performance which tends to marginialize focus on actual gameplay and the adventures.

I don't play rpgs to sit around and mentally masturbate over what my pretend elf can do in a round now that splatbook X is out. I play to share in fun adventures with my friends.

 

[Shadeydm]

IMHO if a players says to you I picked power x last time we leveled and after a few sessions I think it stinks or i think power Y would better fit our party or my character concept how hard is it to say go ahead and change it? Do we really need a rule for this? I would further add that if someone is playing a class they figure out isn't fun for them you write that character out and write in the new one when situation best allows for it, I don't see the big deal.

 

[underfoot007ct]

IMHO if a players says to you I picked power x last time we leveled and after a few sessions I think it stinks or i think power Y would better fit our party or my character concept how hard is it to say go ahead and change it? Do we really need a rule for this? I would further add that if someone is playing a class they figure out isn't fun for them you write that character out and write in the new one when situation best allows for it, I don't see the big deal.

If it is no big deal & you agree with concept, then why are you against having a rule for it.