D&D 5E Tweaking PCs/Respeccing

[Shiroiken]

The only time I've allowed a PC respec was when 5E EE Companion came out and our human barbarian felt the goliath was a better fit for what he wanted his character to be. I had no issues with it, because I had already decided to reskin the goliath as half-giant in my campaign. Ergo, his already tall human became a shortish half-giant (and obviously changed some mechanics).

I also allowed players to switch out spells and cantrips when EE Companion and VGtM came out, but in both instances the players decided not to until they were normally allowed to do so in game.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I allow it anytime the player isn't having fun..

This is how I feel as well. Though I don't have any power gamers in my group (That would require reading the Players Hand book)

 

[Iry]

Respect to the other players at the table. I feel that XP is the character reward for making it through the challenge or adventure. I don't award XP to characters that didn't participate in the adventure, and because of that there are people at the table who do not all have the same XP value. If a player wants to change their character, I don't feel its fair to the table to bump that new character to the same XP value as their previous one. And a 1 level difference doesn't make a big deal power-wise.

While there are different strokes for different folks, make sure that your players are actually happy with this arrangement. XP is one of the rewards PLAYERS get for cooperation and overcoming challenges, in addition to the simple pleasure of getting to play D&D in general. Punishing the player because they were not having fun is pretty dastardly, unless the players are the ones who voted for that rule.

If you have a player that keeps swapping characters to the point that it disrupts your narrative, you can sit down and talk with that player instead of punishing them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I too am a DM whose policy on changes to characters can be summed up by a single statement: The point of your character is to be fun to play. If it isn't, change it.

It doesn't come up very often, though, since my players are pretty accurate in reading material how it will play for them. Recently there has only been changes to characters because of new material becoming available which fit the character's concept better (an eldritch knight switched to an artificer, a necromancer wizard switched to an undying patron warlock, and a monk switching to the way of the sun soul). But an edition ago the first campaign we were playing involved one player switching through about 4 characters in pretty rapid succession (over 2 or 3 months of weekly sessions) to finally find one that "fit".

 

[Oofta]

I let people redo their character, or even swap out for a brand new character any time they want. It's no fun to be playing a character you don't like or that you find doesn't fit with the group.

If you reskin an existing character, I do expect you to keep the visuals/type of character similar but I just had a guy switch from Eldritch Knight to SwordMage/Wizard. We did a little bit of RP story to justify it (it made sense based on the current story) and had the classic "retrain montage" explanation.

 

[cbwjm]

We started at level 3 and when we hit level 4 I gave everyone the option of changing their characters or rolling new ones. Turns out that I also am happy for players to completely drop a character and create something new at any time that doesn't interfere with the game. If my monk player said he wanted to play a wizard instead, no problem, they just bring a wizard to the next game. Even if it's in the middle of a quest, it just becomes a case of "Hey, weren't you a monk before?", "No, I've always been a wizard, why do you ask?"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

While there are different strokes for different folks, make sure that your players are actually happy with this arrangement. XP is one of the rewards PLAYERS get for cooperation and overcoming challenges, in addition to the simple pleasure of getting to play D&D in general. Punishing the player because they were not having fun is pretty dastardly, unless the players are the ones who voted for that rule.

If you have a player that keeps swapping characters to the point that it disrupts your narrative, you can sit down and talk with that player instead of punishing them.

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself assuming in light of no evidence that the players might not be happy with the rule, and referring to it as "punishment". I start new characters lower too, and unlike [MENTION=6819400]WarpedAcorn[/MENTION], I actually do start them at level 1 (with some bonus hit points so they don't die instantly). But I also give them double XP until they catch up. And if you stop being judgmental long enough to sit down and try this for yourself, or even just open the PHB and look at the math, you will find that they catch up really fast.

 

[Xeviat]

If the player wants to change their character a bit, I let them as long as it's keeping to the same concept. I don't allow changing of race without an in game explanation. I may allow changing of classes if it's to better represent a concept. I've allowed changing subclasses when one more fitting showed up (or when the lore bard kept getting into melee combat; we switched to valor).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iry]

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself assuming in light of no evidence that the players might not be happy with the rule, and referring to it as "punishment". I start new characters lower too, and unlike [MENTION=6819400]WarpedAcorn[/MENTION], I actually do start them at level 1 (with some bonus hit points so they don't die instantly). But I also give them double XP until they catch up. And if you stop being judgmental long enough to sit down and try this for yourself, or even just open the PHB and look at the math, you will find that they catch up really fast.

I tried to make it very clear in my post that if the players were genuinely happy with it, that everything was fine. The problem sometimes happens when the players feel like they have to go along with something they are unhappy with, or they will not be allowed to play in the game. But if you actually sit down and have a vote (or something similar), and everyone seems genuinely happy with it? Awesome!

But my anecdotal experiences tell me that is not often the case. Many players have gone along with it, despite being unhappy with it, just because they don't want to cause any waves. And those are the ones who are getting 'punished'.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is something else I want to try next campaign I run.

Typically I roll it as there is a "backup" group following along, or possibly a competing group of adventurers made up of the alternate characters, which is how i logic out that the other group always seems to be close by. In case of a TPK, the second group simply comes across your corpses, and for individual replacements someone defects or is sent in as a replacement. It also saves a lot of time waiting for Bob or Sue to make up a new character. Its pretty easy as long as players are willing to do the legwork of maintaining characters theyre not actively playing. My "punishment" for players who fail to do the work is a level penalty. I let them catch up in time, but the penalty gets larger each time they slack off and hold up the game.