Annual Rebuild option [Archive] - Wizards Community

Annual Rebuild option [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GenghisBob
02-03-06, 12:15 AM Another living campaign system offers the choice of an annual rebuild at the cost of 1/3 of the yearly TU allocation.

This allows characters to take advantage of new material introduced into the campaign or people with characters they have found difficult to play to modify them.

Is this something we could consider for LG ?

GB
Puggle Halfwine
02-03-06, 03:44 AM Personally, I hate rebuilds, and they often destroy whatever shreds of character continuity LG has. A simple change like, for instance, changing Draconic Heratige from Silver to Copper totally changes a character; especially if they have Draconic Skin (I suddenly turned green one day!?). Boo to rebuilds.
paigeoliver
02-03-06, 03:47 AM Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level.

I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well....
Mortepierre
02-03-06, 03:52 AM Boo to rebuilds.

Ditto (unless changes too drastic to ignore are brought into play)
Britt
02-03-06, 03:58 AM Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level.

I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well....

I have a mnk3/wiz2 that is going to be an enlightened fist. Let me tell you, it's difficult surviving with suboptimal builds like that and I don't relish the idea of someone coming in a couple of years during a rebuild and making an enlightened fist build that has all the power but none of the hard-fought leveling to back it up. I see the weird abilities from some classes as rewards for sticking through the hard times.
paigeoliver
02-03-06, 04:01 AM The only real rebuild option I would like to see is the ability to substitute a feat if you later gain that feat from another source. As this seems to be one area where the rules are inconsistant. In some classes and prestiges classes it will say "At level 6 you gain "Exploding cleave" as a bonus feat, if you already have that feat then you may select another." While other classes will say "At level 6 you gain "Exploding Cleave" as a bonus feat. I think most people covertly sneak around this anyway, but I would like to see it officially allowed.

I think this particularly hurts people who don't start off play with a COMPLETE SET of WOTC books. I am sure plenty of poor saps have started off rogues or fighters with "Weapon finesse" only to later find out about the swashbuckler class and start leveling up in that instead.
Lomiat
02-03-06, 11:17 AM I, for one, would like to see a rebuild, but one limited to switching out spells/feats/PRCs that went to more restricted levels and switching in core or less-restricted spells/feats/PRCs.

In other words, when you have to change something, you can change enough to make your character, previously an X specialist, a Y specialist now that X is no longer an option. This may involve more than a one-for-one change, of course, and that's why it would be a "rebuild."

Hopefully this would prevent the "Oh, yeah, I was a monk for 2 levels..." builds. Those were bad enough with the Year 4 rebuilds.
Moryath
02-03-06, 11:27 AM No no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Respecs are evil. Evil evil evil. All they do is encourage Munchkin gaming.

I may argue for things to be Core, but I'll never argue for a Respec. When we had one last year, it was hell, and we got all sorts of crazy rebuilds.

If something you had goes into the Restricted list, fine, allow swap-outs. If it's a PrC, allow reasonable back-swapping to drop the class prereqs and qualify for another PrC. We have to do these things, and they're fine. That's why we have the Dispel Confusion documents.

But a blanket, anytime-you-want-it respec? No, no no no nonono NO. You make your choices when the time comes, and play with what you made, and if you made something suboptimal, roleplay it and make the most of it, or else just retire it and run something new.
rook1138
02-03-06, 12:35 PM I wouldn't mind seeing a respec allowable until the PC is 3rd lvl. I mean, honestly, if a person is new to the system, 3.5 specifically, or just LG, their first PC is most likely not going to be that great, and possibly not that well thought through, especially if they started at a con on a whim because some other game fell through.

If the respec was allowed during lvls 1-2, then stopped once the PC was 3rd, I really don't see how this could be overly abused (slightly abused, yeah, sure, what can't be) and we won't see people as barbs until 5th lvl and then suddenly go straight wizard or whatever.

oh, and btw, someone mentioned not seeing any straight monks (or mostly monks). I know of at least 3 8-11 lvl monks (one has a barb lvl though) that I normally adventure with in the SF Bay Area. They are out there.

Matt Thompson
JohnduBois
02-03-06, 01:11 PM I wouldn't be opposed to a limited rebuild (swap out skill points equal to character level, or one feat, or one spell) to accomodate newly-available material. However, a complete rebuild just further enables the munchkin gaming that far too many LG players engage in (and no, I don't accept the argument that the difficulty of mods encourages powergaming. The 28 point buy marks LG as a "tough" campaign, and I prefer modules/DM's who create situations where character death is possible. It adds challenge to the game.)
Loremistress
02-03-06, 02:50 PM oh, and btw, someone mentioned not seeing any straight monks (or mostly monks). I know of at least 3 8-11 lvl monks (one has a barb lvl though) that I normally adventure with in the SF Bay Area. They are out there.

Matt Thompson

There's at least two in the area surrounding Toronto as well - myself (Monk6/Drunken Master 2) and a friend of mine who has a 15th level monk. He's never been anything else and has steadfastly refused to even consider any prestige class.
solbergb
02-03-06, 04:36 PM Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level.

I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well....

You don't play in my region then (which had two monks retire who were monks since year 1, my monk is 11, monk since late year 2, and there are at least two level 8 monks running that have always been monks and started year 3). I've also run into a L9 monk while visiting Nyrond, and I assume he was always a monk.

There's nothing wrong with monks, if you know how to play to their strengths.

Back on topic, I'm against rebuilds, except in cases where the rules shift in a major way (as in the last two conversions). I prefer the more usual thing, where if something you can do/have is banned, you can choose another one that is legal, but otherwise do the bare minimum change required.
quenyaistar
02-03-06, 04:40 PM There's at least two in the area surrounding Toronto as well - myself (Monk6/Drunken Master 2) and a friend of mine who has a 15th level monk. He's never been anything else and has steadfastly refused to even consider any prestige class.

My son is a 15th level monk in the Duchy, he has not died yet; been close many times. I believe he is 2 for 3 with Quivering Palm so far.

Mike :)
Iswald
02-04-06, 12:12 AM I wouldn't mind allowing one rebuild/year if it was the same as the last conversion. Keep your stats, alignment, deity, etc. Sell anything (that you could normally sell) for half price. Buy items that you can normally buy at that time.

While I sympathize with players who have toiled to reach a particular class/level combination, I also can sympathize with players who builds just don't work. It doesn't matter if it was their first character or one they've came up later, only to find out at level 8 or so that it isn't viable in the long run.

Just because you put a lot of effort into making your character survive, doesn't mean other people didn't too. It's pretty selfish to say they should just retire their character just so you don't think your effort was pointless.

Undoubtedly, there would be a few players who can make builds to exploit a yearly rebuild. However, remember how much gold they would lose in the process and how difficult it is to replace that gold.

For example, I had a monk/cleric/sacred fist that I converted to a fighter/cleric. Since I couldn't use much equipment as a sacred fist, there were only two items I sold back, a monk's belt for full price and a bracer of armor +4 for half price. I'd only used the bracer for one mod before converting. I lost 8,000 gold and it took 7 mods to replace. If characters routinely change between classes when they are rebuilt, they're going to be spending a large amount of gold.

Even if a player decides to make a character with the intention of rebuilding it later, it is quite likely that they'll find their starting build to be suboptimal. Even if they multiclass to gain xp penalties and increase their gold, they are going to have to spend a lot of time playing to gain any real benefit. Overall, I don't see allowing rebuilds/year as a major problem.
bertman4
02-04-06, 08:41 PM I would support a Level 1 ONLY rebuild. As soon as you hit second level, everything is set in stone. This way new players with new characters have a few adventures to correct their critical build mistakes before it becomes permanent.

Bertman
Puggle Halfwine
02-04-06, 10:31 PM I would support a Level 1 ONLY rebuild. As soon as you hit second level, everything is set in stone. This way new players with new characters have a few adventures to correct their critical build mistakes before it becomes permanent.

Bertman

In hindsight I would support this also as in my experience it happens a lot under the table anyway, especially with new players.
Swiftbrook
02-05-06, 02:22 PM I do not support the rebuild idea, with one exception. I believe character continuity is one stength of LG. A rebuild option destroys character continuity IMO.

My exception, when the Circle releases the new LGCS each year and destroys or greatly changes your character, then you should be allowed some type of rebuild. The new LGCS uses the new spells from Spell Compendium, this has a direct affect on Sorcerers and Bards. They should get some type of rebuild option to 'fix' their character. The LGCS contains new rules for training animals. If this affects your character, then you should get some type of limited rebuild as well.

I can see allowing one rebuild when a character reaches 2nd level to 'fix' problems not seen during creation. You might want to include some limitations in the rebuild as well (no armored barbarian half-orc rebuilt as a wand wielding wizard elf).

-Swiftbrook
Arvagor
02-05-06, 02:33 PM The new LGCS uses the new spells from Spell Compendium, this has a direct affect on Sorcerers and Bards. They should get some type of rebuild option to 'fix' their character.
There are no new spells introduced as "Core" spells with the inclusion of the Spell Compendium, and the Circle has already laid out the rules for swapping spells if a particular spell's level changed, so there's nothing there that needs to be "fixed"
JohnduBois
02-05-06, 02:39 PM I'm going to clarify my thoughts on the rebuild by discussing how I feel about various aspects.
1. I think that a rebuild of races and ability scores is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. There are always options for characters with any stat progression.
2. Rebuilds of classes should only occur if a significant rules change, sourcebook change, or access change occurs. The conversion last year was an example of this, although I felt it was a little too generous. Allowing a rebuild of, say, half your character levels would have been sufficient.
3. Rebuilds of feats and skills should be limited, but allowable when a significant amount of new source material becomes available or when appropriate to address rules changes (for example, allowing PC's to reallocate skill points spent on Jump when Leap Attack became restricted).
4. Rebuilds of spells should be a little looser for spontaneous casters. Prepared divine casters don't need a rebuild, and wizards already have a massive amount of flexibility when it comes to learning spells in Living Greyhawk. I like the policy presented with the Spell Compendium, with one exception. I would prefer to have the ability to swap out my PHB spells for core access SpC spells, as well as replace SpC spells with other spells.
TheBecklee
02-06-06, 02:34 PM I made my first PC (now Gray Elf rogue 6/spymaster 3, wizard 1), and when the conversion came last year, I still didn't know how to preplan for my character. Essentially, a better build would have granted me 2 extra feats to play with.

The problem is munchkinism, by that I mean you have to plan your entire character out from level 1 to 16, or you may "miss out" on extra feats/skills and so forth.

If there are a lot of new books/classes/rules/spells/feats, as we saw last year, there -should- be a chance to make minor changes... but this goes into game mechanics and a ton of extra work.

So, even though I personally could gain from rebuilds, I vote no. My character isn't totally tweaked out, regardless, I'm having tons of fun playing him.
Takei
02-08-06, 10:17 AM I wouldn't mind allowing one rebuild/year if it was the same as the last conversion. Keep your stats, alignment, deity, etc. Sell anything (that you could normally sell) for half price. Buy items that you can normally buy at that time.
<snip>
Overall, I don't see allowing rebuilds/year as a major problem.

I'd go further and be happy with annual rebuilds like in Living Arcanis (stats included). Having the flexibilty to rebuild your character to take into account new books would be a good thing, and I'm pretty sure a 15 TU cost would keep most munchkins away with it's subsequent loss of xp and gold.
Medicelious-Melharmonac
02-08-06, 12:23 PM Rebuilds are a two edged sword.

You find that either the players abuse the changes allowed to make really crazy characters or they try and remain as they were.

My cleric is still straight cleric and would always be that way. However, my best friend had to drop his devoted defender levels (and subsequent fantastic roleplay) with the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. This destroyed his character concept and ruined LG for him. When he did decide to convert he took route number 2. This is exactly what the "rebuilding" process can do.

Personally I would love a rebuild every time they futz with my cleric concept but if its not best for LG as a whole then I can live with it.

If they did allow annual rebuilds I would allow removal of only the last 2 level you gained and associated feat/skill point/ etc.
UMiskatonic
02-08-06, 03:58 PM Generally, I'm against rebuilds, but I think they need to be tied to the errata/FAQ/campaign changes.

I play with a guy who was working hard to be a TWF invisible blade. Tons of sneak attacks a round, lots of flavor. Then, they rule that IB's can only feint once a round, destroying his character idea.

Now, he's a rogue who wasted a ton of gold on an adamantine dagger. Not at all fun to play.
redgamer
02-08-06, 07:24 PM Even sneaking once per round is better than the standard rogue not sneaking at all. An adamantine dagger is not wasted. Adamantine weapons are rare and useful. You also should have had warning that this might happen as it was a reasonable and not uncommon interpretation ever since the book came out.
thorinXXX
02-09-06, 12:11 PM Chalk me up on the rebuilds are evil side.
I see no benefit to rebuliding a character every year.

I am still undecided on the level 1-2 rebuild idea, but it would be very hard to abuse.

Thorin
Simpi
02-09-06, 01:07 PM Rebuilds are not good, I saw my share of abuse when it came around. Heck, I even had a player asking me if I could do him a new conversion sheet after a module was played when he realised he had not actually optimised his character as far as he could have.

Naturally I declined.

S.H, the guy from Naerie
Man_Overboard
02-09-06, 01:13 PM Perhaps rather than a huge annual rebuild a small amount of change when a character levels up could be allowed. On leveling, allow one feat to be swapped out for another and/or the levels worth of skill points to be moved. A logical time when characters are learning new skills and abilitys anyway. This way means no major changes but gives time for a bad choice of feat to be realised. You also have to work for the change, a character who is played a couple of time a year won't get to radically change after two adventures. I personally have a character with the Extra Smiting feat but has lost the ability to smite so its a wasted feat which could be better used. Im sure there are high level wizards out there with the tougness feat they would like to swap for something more useful now.
Timlagor
02-09-06, 04:25 PM Chalk me up on the rebuilds are evil side.
I see no benefit to rebuliding a character every year.

I am still undecided on the level 1-2 rebuild idea, but it would be very hard to abuse.

Thorin

I'm absolutely against reuibuilds for mature characters except where necessary due to rules changes (I would rahter not have major rules changes but not much we can do about that). When they do have to come they shoudl be generous in their conditions though.

I'm entirely in favour of free rebuilds for 1st level characters and don't think 2nd level rebuilds would be a major problem. It does disrupt continuity but I would not expect many people to make major changes of concept.
GenghisBob
02-09-06, 08:14 PM Hmmm, there has been some emotional responses as well as some good arguments I had not considered for both sides of the argument.

What I thought was so good about the concept was that if a player did want to take up the option of a rebuild they paid for it. In our case it would come to about 18 Time units, not insignificant, that can be anywhere from 2 to 4 levels based on current level and type of module played. When I saw the mechanism in two other living campaign systems I thought that TU cost basically would weed out the �uber gamers� and that only the truly needy in need of a rebuild would be willing to pay the price. In those systems the rebuild is similar to our Complete book rebuild where, alignment, stats and race can not be changed.

One thing I like about LG, is the persistent world, the persistent characters and the continuity. As Brad has pointed out, rebuilds may allow poor continuity for Characters. I have thought about this and well one way to allow mods for the needy is to constrain it to feats and skills, but then I thought well, that can still change a character dramatically.

But when faced with preserving PC continuity and people dropping out because they become dissatisfied with their character, either through their own choices or rule amendments (even if it is to do with one of those silly campaign cards) I would rather see the people stay in the game through a compromise like a costly re build.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GenghisBob 02-03-06, 12:15 AM	Another living campaign system offers the choice of an annual rebuild at the cost of 1/3 of the yearly TU allocation. This allows characters to take advantage of new material introduced into the campaign or people with characters they have found difficult to play to modify them. Is this something we could consider for LG ? GB
Puggle Halfwine 02-03-06, 03:44 AM	Personally, I hate rebuilds, and they often destroy whatever shreds of character continuity LG has. A simple change like, for instance, changing Draconic Heratige from Silver to Copper totally changes a character; especially if they have Draconic Skin (I suddenly turned green one day!?). Boo to rebuilds.
paigeoliver 02-03-06, 03:47 AM	Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level. I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well....
Mortepierre 02-03-06, 03:52 AM	Boo to rebuilds. Ditto (unless changes too drastic to ignore are brought into play)
Britt 02-03-06, 03:58 AM	Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level. I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well.... I have a mnk3/wiz2 that is going to be an enlightened fist. Let me tell you, it's difficult surviving with suboptimal builds like that and I don't relish the idea of someone coming in a couple of years during a rebuild and making an enlightened fist build that has all the power but none of the hard-fought leveling to back it up. I see the weird abilities from some classes as rewards for sticking through the hard times.
paigeoliver 02-03-06, 04:01 AM	The only real rebuild option I would like to see is the ability to substitute a feat if you later gain that feat from another source. As this seems to be one area where the rules are inconsistant. In some classes and prestiges classes it will say "At level 6 you gain "Exploding cleave" as a bonus feat, if you already have that feat then you may select another." While other classes will say "At level 6 you gain "Exploding Cleave" as a bonus feat. I think most people covertly sneak around this anyway, but I would like to see it officially allowed. I think this particularly hurts people who don't start off play with a COMPLETE SET of WOTC books. I am sure plenty of poor saps have started off rogues or fighters with "Weapon finesse" only to later find out about the swashbuckler class and start leveling up in that instead.
Lomiat 02-03-06, 11:17 AM	I, for one, would like to see a rebuild, but one limited to switching out spells/feats/PRCs that went to more restricted levels and switching in core or less-restricted spells/feats/PRCs. In other words, when you have to change something, you can change enough to make your character, previously an X specialist, a Y specialist now that X is no longer an option. This may involve more than a one-for-one change, of course, and that's why it would be a "rebuild." Hopefully this would prevent the "Oh, yeah, I was a monk for 2 levels..." builds. Those were bad enough with the Year 4 rebuilds.
Moryath 02-03-06, 11:27 AM	No no no no no no no no no no no no no. Respecs are evil. Evil evil evil. All they do is encourage Munchkin gaming. I may argue for things to be Core, but I'll never argue for a Respec. When we had one last year, it was hell, and we got all sorts of crazy rebuilds. If something you had goes into the Restricted list, fine, allow swap-outs. If it's a PrC, allow reasonable back-swapping to drop the class prereqs and qualify for another PrC. We have to do these things, and they're fine. That's why we have the Dispel Confusion documents. But a blanket, anytime-you-want-it respec? No, no no no nonono NO. You make your choices when the time comes, and play with what you made, and if you made something suboptimal, roleplay it and make the most of it, or else just retire it and run something new.
rook1138 02-03-06, 12:35 PM	I wouldn't mind seeing a respec allowable until the PC is 3rd lvl. I mean, honestly, if a person is new to the system, 3.5 specifically, or just LG, their first PC is most likely not going to be that great, and possibly not that well thought through, especially if they started at a con on a whim because some other game fell through. If the respec was allowed during lvls 1-2, then stopped once the PC was 3rd, I really don't see how this could be overly abused (slightly abused, yeah, sure, what can't be) and we won't see people as barbs until 5th lvl and then suddenly go straight wizard or whatever. oh, and btw, someone mentioned not seeing any straight monks (or mostly monks). I know of at least 3 8-11 lvl monks (one has a barb lvl though) that I normally adventure with in the SF Bay Area. They are out there. Matt Thompson
JohnduBois 02-03-06, 01:11 PM	I wouldn't be opposed to a limited rebuild (swap out skill points equal to character level, or one feat, or one spell) to accomodate newly-available material. However, a complete rebuild just further enables the munchkin gaming that far too many LG players engage in (and no, I don't accept the argument that the difficulty of mods encourages powergaming. The 28 point buy marks LG as a "tough" campaign, and I prefer modules/DM's who create situations where character death is possible. It adds challenge to the game.)
Loremistress 02-03-06, 02:50 PM	oh, and btw, someone mentioned not seeing any straight monks (or mostly monks). I know of at least 3 8-11 lvl monks (one has a barb lvl though) that I normally adventure with in the SF Bay Area. They are out there. Matt Thompson There's at least two in the area surrounding Toronto as well - myself (Monk6/Drunken Master 2) and a friend of mine who has a 15th level monk. He's never been anything else and has steadfastly refused to even consider any prestige class.
solbergb 02-03-06, 04:36 PM	Plus, a lot of people would probably use rebuilds in order to come up with powerful high level builds of the type that don't come together at all until higher level. I bet you would see a lot more monks then. I have still never played at a table that has had a monk past 1st level. But if you could make your character a FIGHTER, then get to level 7 and do a rebuild and come out as a monk, well.... You don't play in my region then (which had two monks retire who were monks since year 1, my monk is 11, monk since late year 2, and there are at least two level 8 monks running that have always been monks and started year 3). I've also run into a L9 monk while visiting Nyrond, and I assume he was always a monk. There's nothing wrong with monks, if you know how to play to their strengths. Back on topic, I'm against rebuilds, except in cases where the rules shift in a major way (as in the last two conversions). I prefer the more usual thing, where if something you can do/have is banned, you can choose another one that is legal, but otherwise do the bare minimum change required.
quenyaistar 02-03-06, 04:40 PM	There's at least two in the area surrounding Toronto as well - myself (Monk6/Drunken Master 2) and a friend of mine who has a 15th level monk. He's never been anything else and has steadfastly refused to even consider any prestige class. My son is a 15th level monk in the Duchy, he has not died yet; been close many times. I believe he is 2 for 3 with Quivering Palm so far. Mike :)
Iswald 02-04-06, 12:12 AM	I wouldn't mind allowing one rebuild/year if it was the same as the last conversion. Keep your stats, alignment, deity, etc. Sell anything (that you could normally sell) for half price. Buy items that you can normally buy at that time. While I sympathize with players who have toiled to reach a particular class/level combination, I also can sympathize with players who builds just don't work. It doesn't matter if it was their first character or one they've came up later, only to find out at level 8 or so that it isn't viable in the long run. Just because you put a lot of effort into making your character survive, doesn't mean other people didn't too. It's pretty selfish to say they should just retire their character just so you don't think your effort was pointless. Undoubtedly, there would be a few players who can make builds to exploit a yearly rebuild. However, remember how much gold they would lose in the process and how difficult it is to replace that gold. For example, I had a monk/cleric/sacred fist that I converted to a fighter/cleric. Since I couldn't use much equipment as a sacred fist, there were only two items I sold back, a monk's belt for full price and a bracer of armor +4 for half price. I'd only used the bracer for one mod before converting. I lost 8,000 gold and it took 7 mods to replace. If characters routinely change between classes when they are rebuilt, they're going to be spending a large amount of gold. Even if a player decides to make a character with the intention of rebuilding it later, it is quite likely that they'll find their starting build to be suboptimal. Even if they multiclass to gain xp penalties and increase their gold, they are going to have to spend a lot of time playing to gain any real benefit. Overall, I don't see allowing rebuilds/year as a major problem.
bertman4 02-04-06, 08:41 PM	I would support a Level 1 ONLY rebuild. As soon as you hit second level, everything is set in stone. This way new players with new characters have a few adventures to correct their critical build mistakes before it becomes permanent. Bertman
Puggle Halfwine 02-04-06, 10:31 PM	I would support a Level 1 ONLY rebuild. As soon as you hit second level, everything is set in stone. This way new players with new characters have a few adventures to correct their critical build mistakes before it becomes permanent. Bertman In hindsight I would support this also as in my experience it happens a lot under the table anyway, especially with new players.
Swiftbrook 02-05-06, 02:22 PM	I do not support the rebuild idea, with one exception. I believe character continuity is one stength of LG. A rebuild option destroys character continuity IMO. My exception, when the Circle releases the new LGCS each year and destroys or greatly changes your character, then you should be allowed some type of rebuild. The new LGCS uses the new spells from Spell Compendium, this has a direct affect on Sorcerers and Bards. They should get some type of rebuild option to 'fix' their character. The LGCS contains new rules for training animals. If this affects your character, then you should get some type of limited rebuild as well. I can see allowing one rebuild when a character reaches 2nd level to 'fix' problems not seen during creation. You might want to include some limitations in the rebuild as well (no armored barbarian half-orc rebuilt as a wand wielding wizard elf). -Swiftbrook
Arvagor 02-05-06, 02:33 PM	The new LGCS uses the new spells from Spell Compendium, this has a direct affect on Sorcerers and Bards. They should get some type of rebuild option to 'fix' their character. There are no new spells introduced as "Core" spells with the inclusion of the Spell Compendium, and the Circle has already laid out the rules for swapping spells if a particular spell's level changed, so there's nothing there that needs to be "fixed"
JohnduBois 02-05-06, 02:39 PM	I'm going to clarify my thoughts on the rebuild by discussing how I feel about various aspects. 1. I think that a rebuild of races and ability scores is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. There are always options for characters with any stat progression. 2. Rebuilds of classes should only occur if a significant rules change, sourcebook change, or access change occurs. The conversion last year was an example of this, although I felt it was a little too generous. Allowing a rebuild of, say, half your character levels would have been sufficient. 3. Rebuilds of feats and skills should be limited, but allowable when a significant amount of new source material becomes available or when appropriate to address rules changes (for example, allowing PC's to reallocate skill points spent on Jump when Leap Attack became restricted). 4. Rebuilds of spells should be a little looser for spontaneous casters. Prepared divine casters don't need a rebuild, and wizards already have a massive amount of flexibility when it comes to learning spells in Living Greyhawk. I like the policy presented with the Spell Compendium, with one exception. I would prefer to have the ability to swap out my PHB spells for core access SpC spells, as well as replace SpC spells with other spells.
TheBecklee 02-06-06, 02:34 PM	I made my first PC (now Gray Elf rogue 6/spymaster 3, wizard 1), and when the conversion came last year, I still didn't know how to preplan for my character. Essentially, a better build would have granted me 2 extra feats to play with. The problem is munchkinism, by that I mean you have to plan your entire character out from level 1 to 16, or you may "miss out" on extra feats/skills and so forth. If there are a lot of new books/classes/rules/spells/feats, as we saw last year, there -should- be a chance to make minor changes... but this goes into game mechanics and a ton of extra work. So, even though I personally could gain from rebuilds, I vote no. My character isn't totally tweaked out, regardless, I'm having tons of fun playing him.
Takei 02-08-06, 10:17 AM	I wouldn't mind allowing one rebuild/year if it was the same as the last conversion. Keep your stats, alignment, deity, etc. Sell anything (that you could normally sell) for half price. Buy items that you can normally buy at that time. <snip> Overall, I don't see allowing rebuilds/year as a major problem. I'd go further and be happy with annual rebuilds like in Living Arcanis (stats included). Having the flexibilty to rebuild your character to take into account new books would be a good thing, and I'm pretty sure a 15 TU cost would keep most munchkins away with it's subsequent loss of xp and gold.
Medicelious-Melharmonac 02-08-06, 12:23 PM	Rebuilds are a two edged sword. You find that either the players abuse the changes allowed to make really crazy characters or they try and remain as they were. My cleric is still straight cleric and would always be that way. However, my best friend had to drop his devoted defender levels (and subsequent fantastic roleplay) with the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. This destroyed his character concept and ruined LG for him. When he did decide to convert he took route number 2. This is exactly what the "rebuilding" process can do. Personally I would love a rebuild every time they futz with my cleric concept but if its not best for LG as a whole then I can live with it. If they did allow annual rebuilds I would allow removal of only the last 2 level you gained and associated feat/skill point/ etc.
UMiskatonic 02-08-06, 03:58 PM	Generally, I'm against rebuilds, but I think they need to be tied to the errata/FAQ/campaign changes. I play with a guy who was working hard to be a TWF invisible blade. Tons of sneak attacks a round, lots of flavor. Then, they rule that IB's can only feint once a round, destroying his character idea. Now, he's a rogue who wasted a ton of gold on an adamantine dagger. Not at all fun to play.
redgamer 02-08-06, 07:24 PM	Even sneaking once per round is better than the standard rogue not sneaking at all. An adamantine dagger is not wasted. Adamantine weapons are rare and useful. You also should have had warning that this might happen as it was a reasonable and not uncommon interpretation ever since the book came out.
thorinXXX 02-09-06, 12:11 PM	Chalk me up on the rebuilds are evil side. I see no benefit to rebuliding a character every year. I am still undecided on the level 1-2 rebuild idea, but it would be very hard to abuse. Thorin
Simpi 02-09-06, 01:07 PM	Rebuilds are not good, I saw my share of abuse when it came around. Heck, I even had a player asking me if I could do him a new conversion sheet after a module was played when he realised he had not actually optimised his character as far as he could have. Naturally I declined. S.H, the guy from Naerie
Man_Overboard 02-09-06, 01:13 PM	Perhaps rather than a huge annual rebuild a small amount of change when a character levels up could be allowed. On leveling, allow one feat to be swapped out for another and/or the levels worth of skill points to be moved. A logical time when characters are learning new skills and abilitys anyway. This way means no major changes but gives time for a bad choice of feat to be realised. You also have to work for the change, a character who is played a couple of time a year won't get to radically change after two adventures. I personally have a character with the Extra Smiting feat but has lost the ability to smite so its a wasted feat which could be better used. Im sure there are high level wizards out there with the tougness feat they would like to swap for something more useful now.
Timlagor 02-09-06, 04:25 PM	Chalk me up on the rebuilds are evil side. I see no benefit to rebuliding a character every year. I am still undecided on the level 1-2 rebuild idea, but it would be very hard to abuse. Thorin I'm absolutely against reuibuilds for mature characters except where necessary due to rules changes (I would rahter not have major rules changes but not much we can do about that). When they do have to come they shoudl be generous in their conditions though. I'm entirely in favour of free rebuilds for 1st level characters and don't think 2nd level rebuilds would be a major problem. It does disrupt continuity but I would not expect many people to make major changes of concept.
GenghisBob 02-09-06, 08:14 PM	Hmmm, there has been some emotional responses as well as some good arguments I had not considered for both sides of the argument. What I thought was so good about the concept was that if a player did want to take up the option of a rebuild they paid for it. In our case it would come to about 18 Time units, not insignificant, that can be anywhere from 2 to 4 levels based on current level and type of module played. When I saw the mechanism in two other living campaign systems I thought that TU cost basically would weed out the �uber gamers� and that only the truly needy in need of a rebuild would be willing to pay the price. In those systems the rebuild is similar to our Complete book rebuild where, alignment, stats and race can not be changed. One thing I like about LG, is the persistent world, the persistent characters and the continuity. As Brad has pointed out, rebuilds may allow poor continuity for Characters. I have thought about this and well one way to allow mods for the needy is to constrain it to feats and skills, but then I thought well, that can still change a character dramatically. But when faced with preserving PC continuity and people dropping out because they become dissatisfied with their character, either through their own choices or rule amendments (even if it is to do with one of those silly campaign cards) I would rather see the people stay in the game through a compromise like a costly re build.