Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 5898331" data-attributes="member: 158">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 &quot;powerful&quot;, 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 &quot;go to thumb by way of elbow&quot; 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 &quot;hit really hard that one time&quot; 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 &quot;necrotic cradle.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 5898331, member: 158"] 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." [/QUOTE]

Verification