So...where does retraining fit in?

[Oni]

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.

Or, heck if they really like the narrative of their character, but not the mechanics of their class I have zero issue engineering a situation to fix that, or doing a little retconning so they can enjoy themselves properly. This is supposed to be a fun activity after all.

 

[eamon]

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.

Yeah. Of course, some DM's might balk - I think a bit of explanation in the DMG would be better than a hard rule. Essentially, any mechanical character change that doesn't change the essence of what the character is should be OK. On the other hand, they shouldn't be commonly necessary; but that's something to keep in mind while designing rules (ability score minimums for late-game feats, I'm looking at you - but also things like overly narrow expertise feats).

The problem with retraining as in 4e is that because it's a rule it's also somewhat limiting. You messed up an ability score distribution? Not fixable. You picked a two-weapon fighter, but two-weapon ranger turns out to fit your playstyle better? Not fixable. You picked a useless feat tree? Going to take lots of levels to swap out, particularly if a change in powers is subsequently required.

Also, limiting retraining to avoid jumping on the latest splat-book bandwagon is unreasonable if new characters can use those rules. That's basically punishing those that try to get their character invested in a campaign.

The "immersion-breaking" argument isn't convincing to me. I think immersion is really important, but most of these kind of retrainings are usually things other players in the group wouldn't even notice; they're anything but jarring.

 

[Shadeydm]

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

I didn't say I was against it I asked why do we really need it. It almost seems like the need for a rule for something so generally simple and irrelevant is really all about an excuse to limit or deny so I say again why?

 

[Melkor]

Exploder, sometimes I feel as if I am posting through you. Sadly, I must spread experience around before I can give it to you.

Dusk elves anyone?



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.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I didn't say I was against it I asked why do we really need it. It almost seems like the need for a rule for something so generally simple and irrelevant is really all about an excuse to limit or deny so I say again why?

Well until 3.5e/4e, I would have never even considered retraining something, so so as simple as if seems, Yes. I enjoy the ability to pick a power/feat/etc, try it for a level then try something else. I can do this at home, away from the game table, no need to involve the DM. Also, without rule some would abuse the retraining concept, again I this the rule in print is needed.

5eNext id all about inclusion & options, then why omit this rule?

 

[Henry]

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.

So if a player picked power attack, found out it didn't work out well for him, and would rather have expertise instead because he wanted to be more quick and dexterous than "powerful", you'd rather have him retire the character, create a new character, and find a plausible reason for them to know the group well enough to be trusted to come into adventuring with them, than let the player trade one feat for another?

Sounds like a "go to thumb by way of elbow" method of doing it, in my opinion. I have a harder time with figuring out why a mid-or high level group would just accept a new person into their ranks, than just handwaving that they had one feat instead of the other all along.

To me, the 4e retrain rules hit the right amount of balance on retraining -- allow change of feats or power choices, but not race or class choices. It's one thing to say that someone "hit really hard that one time" and really doesn't have the power attack feat but does have this other feat -- OR that they had spent a few months refocusing their combat training from power to precision, or avoidance; but it's much harder to explain away basic changes like race, class, or gender, which to me would necessitate retiring a character. I definitely didn't like the 3E retrain option, because they did give suggestions for ways you could change race or class, but at least they came up with crazy things like that "necrotic cradle."

 

[ExploderWizard]

So if a player picked power attack, found out it didn't work out well for him, and would rather have expertise instead because he wanted to be more quick and dexterous than "powerful", you'd rather have him retire the character, create a new character, and find a plausible reason for them to know the group well enough to be trusted to come into adventuring with them, than let the player trade one feat for another?

Sounds like a "go to thumb by way of elbow" method of doing it, in my opinion. I have a harder time with figuring out why a mid-or high level group would just accept a new person into their ranks, than just handwaving that they had one feat instead of the other all along.

Yes because mechanical wankery is not my bag baby.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

That's interesting, because I think retraining could reduce this. It's lowering the cost of picking a certain feat/power/skill because, if it doesn't work out, you can swap it out. If you can't swap it out you want to... spend more time going over your choices because the cost for choosing the wrong one is higher.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's interesting, because I think retraining could reduce this. It's lowering the cost of picking a certain feat/power/skill because, if it doesn't work out, you can swap it out. If you can't swap it out you want to... spend more time going over your choices because the cost for choosing the wrong one is higher.

You would think so, and logically that is a sound premise. The number one competitor for drawing attention away from in-game events isn't electronic devices, or music, or other stimuli in the background, its the character sheet, and the fixation with the mechanical doo-dads.

 

[Shadeydm]

5eNext id all about inclusion & options, then why omit this rule?

Excellent point call it an option for the folks who feel they need to control and regulate it.