Here is the dilemma I have: Retraining.
Since 4th edition is so new to all of us (none knew it before 2 months ago and haven't played DnD in 4+ years each) I find it challenging that we get 1 retraining per level. Especially when new books come out which is very frequent during this time. In my mind it is not game changing to alter a character with a new goal without drastically changing his role. This would be things like changing more than 1 thing (feats, skills, abilities) or even stats. If I role a character who initially needs 13 str to qualify for a feat and then later decide that I don't want that feat I have no reason to still have 13 str, and since my character is charisma based changing the stats away from strength makes little overall change to the character. He still fills the same role, is the same class, and is the same race.
My concern is DnD is played for fun and making characters so static can prevent players from having a good concept once they initially made a poor concept.
As a DM how much do you let your players retrain?
As a player how should I approach my DM and friend with my concerns? If I were to make the changes he wouldn't even notice, but that would be deceitful because I know his rules and I want to approach the topic with him in the best way.
Thanks.
As for the ability score switching, not as normal retraining you wouldn't be. That's not the way it works. If you really want to switch your stats around, you could try asking your DM about a rebuild quest, like the ones in the 3.5 PHB2, but I doubt that you could get away with switching around your stats any other way. And you definitely should not go behind his back like you were describing. That would be an extremely bad thing, whether or not he found out.
Anyways, I want opinions, not simply stating the rules. And yes I want to talk to him about it, not go behind his back.
As a player how should I approach my DM in the best way.
Of course, many DMs don't share my views, but of I were to approach a DM about it, I would point out that it probably wouldn't even be noticed by anyone at the table.
This is a group concern though so should also be discussed with the whole group. Some players and DMs are very reluctant to allow large changes to characters for whatever reason.
Now, I do think you should keep such things relatively "small" such as changes within your own class and feat swaps, or at least not to change many things at once.
Most DMs take into account at least somewhat their PCs' abilities while making encounters. For this reason, it is still good not to change characters every session, because it just becomes too confusing for the DM to keep track of what the party is capable of. Your fellow party members as well implicitly depend on some constancy from their teammates in forming tactics.
You can suggest more thorough retraining based on availability of new options, and things just not working as you had hoped, perhaps at every level up.
To make it go easier, you should also enter into the agreement with the provision that should a new feature become problematic for the DM, you will replace it with something else willingly.
Say I make a character that has 10 strength and 14 con. A new sourcebook comes out with a great new option for my class. Say a feat or PP or ED. If I need 14 strength for that item my character would have to spend 2-3 ability points into a now essential stat. That would essentially gimp my character in some fashion, which doesn't sound fun to me.
Currently the situation I'm in my bard would switch from 13/11/10/18/8/18 to 10/11/10/16/8/20. I've decided I didn't want to MC Paladin. That change in my mind is minor as retraining already gives a reason for characters to lose feats, so it wouldn't break my character's role play ability.
But it isn't unique to this situation. I see this coming up every time a character wants to make a change that requires more than 1 feat or skill change.
I think I'll approach him about the topic when he gets back in about a week with the topics I outlined in the first post.
If they don't like the character, roll up a new one.
If they don't like the character, roll up a new one.
That is one of his pet peeves - Players wanting to kill their characters or wanting to ditch ones they have. I fully understand that and agree mostly. (To an extent, I wouldn't mind the ability to switch out a character that I didn't enjoy, but definitely not on a regular basis).
If I need 14 strength for that item my character would have to spend 2-3 ability points into a now essential stat. That would essentially gimp my character in some fashion, which doesn't sound fun to me.
Personally, I think you're taking that too far. Loosing HP isn't fun either, but you can't really change that rule.
Currently the situation I'm in my bard would switch from 13/11/10/18/8/18 to 10/11/10/16/8/20. I've decided I didn't want to MC Paladin. That change in my mind is minor as retraining already gives a reason for characters to lose feats, so it wouldn't break my character's role play ability.
Changing ability scores is not retraining. At some point, you've got to make up your mind as to what sort of character you'd like to play and stick with it.
Asking the DM to switch out a power every now and then isn't such a big deal. But it seems like you're trying to complety overhaul your PC. If this is the case, then maybe you should just make a new PC. Or, you could wait until the next campaign.
I can see making such a change once, after you started playing your char and realizing that the build choices you made just aren't working for you, or a book comes out that has a new build option that you need the change to qualify for, or something like that, but these things should only happen ONCE, with maybe a one session opportunity to switch them back to the precious incarnation (not a third build option).
Beyond that, you really should be talking about making a new/different character with a different background and flavor altogether.
Personally, I think you're taking that too far. Loosing HP isn't fun either, but you can't really change that rule.
Personally, I think you're taking that too far. I enjoy creating a plan and some form of synergy so my character can perform it's role well. That is a motivation I have as a player coming to this game. If you think there is no room for player optimization in a game then that should be shared on a different thread.
these things should only happen ONCE.
Why? What justification?
I understand not making them a common occurrence, but I definitely feel like if a new book comes out if I were a DM I would let my players change minor stuff to qualify for a feat that matches their character that they had no knowledge of when they created their character.
You are responding as if I'm changing classes or something. I don't understand how minor stat changes make my character that different. I guarantee the other players wouldn't even notice the change. How does it effect the game?
As I said before, completely remaking the character is not what he or I would want.
So much depends on the stats you chose on lvl1.
BUT
I as a player would just ask your DM "Hey DM, i made a mistake when i build my char, he isn't optimized, i don't like the MC anymore and i want todo something SLIGHTLY else, may i change stat A to B and C to D?"
Nothing more, nothing lese, don't come up with this BS about "not having fun" and bringing your best friend into an almost moral dilemma as you describe it.
If I were DM i would look over your character and why you don't want to become X, but i'm a RP-DM not a CharOP-DM (Optimized is ok but it should be from lvl1 not somewhere between it and with quests to see the determination of you and your char to reach a new goal)
1) After the first play session with a new character, the player may retrain anything they like appropriate to the character's level, or they may change the character completely, one time, to another race/class combo, and keep their rewards to date.
2) After a new rule book comes out, I determine a window of time during which each player may retrain ONLY in order to exchange a current ability for abilities from THAT book. So for example, for arcane power, the bard in the group can swap out for anything they want from Arcane power until before the start of the 2nd game session after the release of the book.
If a new book comes out, any current selections can be swapped out for the ones in the book. If ability scores are a factor, they can be modified to allow the character to use the new content (so long as this is still keeping in line with the original vision of the character). I might even allow rebuilding the character as a whole new class if the new one fits the original concept better (like if a character wanted to be a sorcerer-type, and used the warlock class to simulate it, and then we later got PHB2).
If the character is still level 1 or if its a new player, I pretty much allow them to tweak them however they want so that they can have a character they're happy with.
If a character wants a major overhaul later in "life" then he can undertake a rebuild quest (PHB2 3.5e).
Why? What justification?
How can you explain your character getting weaker, not as tough, and having a more powerful force of personality over night? Not to mention no longer remembering certain abilities (feats) yet knowing new something new over night? Did you character just go to bed, wake up and be like, "Hey guys, look at how much I've changed. I think changing one thing every time you level is fair. If you don't like the character, play a new one.
Also, how can you change a character from a X level Warlock and then just have him wake up and be an X level Sorcerer. If that were the case, I as a DM would have to say just roll a new character. I won't make anyone play something they don't want to, but I WILL NOT suspend belief of the story. And yes we have a player in our group who likes to change his character fairly frequently (ADHD) and he knows and agrees with the fact that if it is a change aside from one feat, or skill, and he doesn't want to take on a quest to do this, then he has to roll up a new character.
If you have gained a level between sessions you get your one retraining as normal.
If between sessions a new book comes out, everyone can retrain whatever they want (except class and race, but including class features like orb wizard for tomb) for as many things as they want from this book as many times as they want.
Additionally, if someone is totally unhappy with their character because A-They built a totally uneffective one, or B- They decided they hate this class/race combo, they can make a new character who i will intoduce as soon as the plot allows.
I also allow retraining of stats on a case by case basis.
Why am I this lax? Well I don't see how character A having the improved initiative feat is vital to the plot of the game. Instead why do i care if he swaps it for a familiar feat from the new book? The plot and chaacters are the same, but now he has a mechanical benefit to carrying that frog around.
How can you explain your character getting weaker, not as tough, and having a more powerful force of personality over night? Not to mention no longer remembering certain abilities (feats) yet knowing new something new over night? Did you character just go to bed, wake up and be like, "Hey guys, look at how much I've changed. I think changing one thing every time you level is fair. If you don't like the character, play a new one.
Your own logic prevents a character from using the current retraining. How can you currently explain retraining a feat such as a Multi-class overnight? "Oh you can no longer cast that wizard spell, what happened?" Or something along the lines of no longer able being able to wear an armor type or no longer having the cheesy wintertouched/lasting frost combo: "Where did your cold hands go?" There are hundreds of feats that retraining would drastically change the character. More so than being a bit more charismatic.
Thank you everyone for the replies. I might even have my DM read this thread when we talk.
Did we mention it's a somewhat divisive issue that many people feel strongly about one way or the other?
Hehe. I understand that. I'm just trying to understand the mindset behind the other side.
Certain players enjoy the mechanics above (or equal to) the rest of the game, and constantly want to rebuild their characters. Usually that's not most players in the group.
If one player repeatedly brings ostensibly mechanically new PCs to the group, it starts to encroach on the atmosphere of the game, and reduces connections between the characters in terms of tactics and treasure division. It also subconsciously affects roleplaying, because if the other players don't recognize your character anymore, then it's harder for their characters to act like they know yours the same way.
If I quit jobs and had a new one every single week you met me, or I constantly dyed my hair different colors, you'd think there was something "off" even though I'm the same person.
Another HUGE issue about frequent new characters is that the players have not memorized the new character as well as the players with the same ones since level 1, so a lot of game time is put over to that one player looking up how those great new features work exactly, or thinking about tactics, and/or other players and DMs being surprised by what's going on in the encounter because of the new element.
If used infrequently I find that near total or total rebuilding is fine, but not major overhauls every other game session. If you change a couple of things a level, that's OK though, and everyone keeps their sanity.
Why? What justification?
I understand not making them a common occurrence, but I definitely feel like if a new book comes out if I were a DM I would let my players change minor stuff to qualify for a feat that matches their character that they had no knowledge of when they created their character.
You are responding as if I'm changing classes or something. I don't understand how minor stat changes make my character that different. I guarantee the other players wouldn't even notice the change. How does it effect the game?
As I said before, completely remaking the character is not what he or I would want.
I don't buy the argument "there's new stuff coming out all the time." There's not a lot of new stuff coming out for a given char class. Each year they come out with one PHB, and there's only a single Power book for each power type. That means that there are basically only 2 books a year that will affect your char at most - unless your DM allows stuff from other campaign settings.
The justification is that stat changes are remaking the char - it's retconning, plain and simple. Now, that's fine if your DM is good with it, but letting it keep happening to change the entire concept of your char each time there's new material at all is ridiculous. Mostly, that's because of Dragon Magazine really being the only source of new player material on a consistent and regular short-term basis. Personally, I've not seen anything in the DragMags that would warrant such a change, and even if there was, if you allow for it you're basically saying that you want the option to change the base design of your char once a month.
Point is there's got to be a limit. Like one of the other guys said, there's a point where you gotta just go with what you got.
Kouk summed it up best.
I could take your same argument and use it against the current retraining system. Changing a feat in 3.0 required remaking of a character too. You're now forcing the same "Must remake attitude" into the new system.
Characters change as your play them. The idea you start out with as a lvl 1 noob fighting Kobolds is going to be drastically different than the character you have at say 25. Even without retraining or changing a few scores the character is going to look completely different. Beyond that new books will come out, abilities strength and cohesiveness will be discovered etc. If my character is going to last say a year I want to be able to have some flexibility for sake of creating the character I enjoy playing. As I have said many times in this thread not simply willy nilly every week.
It seems many people have the idea of "This is how it was, how it should be, and to think otherwise is heresy." If that is your opinion please do not bother responding. Those who have not taken that stance I appreciate your responses.
I'm not saying what your request is wrong. There are a lot of ways to play D&D, and this only means that if you and me were to end up at the same table one of us would have to compromise if this particular point came up. Your DM might allow this. Just ask him: it's not rocket science. I generally accept 'this is a one time retraining' as a solid argument, so keep it ready ;) Good luck.
For instance, let's say you made a Wizard - a military type, former member of the Cormyrian special forces. As such, he has lots of large area spells related for use against enemy formations. Now since you were going the blasting route, not lockdown, you picked wand as the implement. Now Arcane Power comes out, and hey, check out Enlarge Spell - that's perfect for the character. But it requires Wisdom 13, and since nothing in the PHB hinted that Wisdom was at all necessary for a blasting Wizard, and he seemed more like a charismatic, foolhardy type anyway, you only have Wisdom 8. Basically, you're screwed - and retraining, as written, isn't going to help.
In cases like this, there are three solutions:
1) Let the player rebuild the character as much as necessary.
2) The player brings in a new character.
3) The player is stuck with a character that doesn't do what they want, until they manage to "accidentally" get killed.
While extensive retraining may slightly strain verisimilitude, it does so a lot less characters leaving and joining the party whenever people need to make character changes. And really, if that level of realism-fudging spoils your day, why are you even playing this system?
I generally accept 'this is a one time retraining' as a solid argument.
Here is the thing: I'm not arguing for a 1 time fix to a character. The problem is going to be presented a few times in the character's lifetime depending on the stat pre-reqs presented by WoTC.
IceFractal has eloquently presented the case. I also believe it is less impactful on the game to change behind the scene stats than it is to kill a character and bring in a new one, or having the person "accidentally" get killed.
Here is the thing: I'm not arguing for a 1 time fix to a character. The problem is going to be presented a few times in the character's lifetime depending on the stat pre-reqs presented by WoTC.
IceFractal has eloquently presented the case. I also believe it is less impactful on the game to change behind the scene stats than it is to kill a character and bring in a new one, or having the person "accidentally" get killed.
In that case I can't help you out. At my table, the answer would be 'once' at most. If the player made a strong case for himself.
However, I would like to point out something for the argument that retraining strains the consistency of the game. How do you justify it when people level up? Does a new spell magically appear in the wizard's spellbook? Do the fighter's muscles suddenly bulge a little more when he reaches level 4 in the middle of the dungeon?
Generally, I assume that the characters have been practicing such and such on their off time for a while, and they finally reached a point where they can actually apply it. Some things (like picking up a new language they've had no exposure to) might be roleplayed by them having to go and study it from a book or tutor. But these same concepts could be applied to retraining. The character could have to go and train, or he could have been working on it for a while behind the scenes. And people do change all the time. I've lost some knowledge over the course of my life, and picked up more in other areas.
Besides, I fail to see how retraining a single feat or power seriously strains the continuity of the story, especially as compared to "well so and so just left the party for no apparent reason, but it's ok because this random stranger just walked up to you and offered to join up." Even when it comes to classes, if the character was a battlerage fighter, but he wanted to be a barbarian, and he styled himself as a barbarian, and then PHB2 comes out, so he wants to recreate his character as a barbarian, is this really a huge leap? If that's been his concept all along, it shouldn't affect the story too much, even if the mechanics have changed.
Again, do what fits your campaign best. This is really intended for people that are considering it, but haven't made a final decision one way or the other. Just food for thought.
You could say it breaks game flavour, but as many have already pointed out, the present rules already do that. Wizards forget completely how to cast one spell then learn how to cast another at the same time via retraining. It doesn't make any more or less sense than a character arbitrarily getting slightly wimpier but more charismatic.
I could see how it would be potentially abusive, if someone were rebuilding their character every session or something, but if someone just rolled up a level 1 and by level 2 or three spotted a large mistake, I'd say it'd be pretty cruel to tell them that they're stuck with their subpar character for the rest of the campaign.
Hell, I had one player change from Ranger to Avenger when PHB2 came out, but since he came up with a good reason for his character to change, it wasn't a big deal.
Really though, talk to your DM and your group and try to come to a consensus.
As a DM how much do you let your players retrain?
It depends on the situation: Does the player want to effectively rebuild his PC every time a new splatbook comes out? Is the campaign silly or consistency-focussed? Is the player annoying? Does he make several math "mistakes" every time he restats his character sheet? Does the player know the rules well enough that I don't have to hold his hand through the retraining process? Do I trust him to be honest?
In your case, I'd probably let you retrain all you like. Assuming you're my trustworthy buddy who knows the game rules, I think it'd be cool. My games are usually somewhat silly because D&D doesn't do serious games well anyway, so that's not an issue.
As a DM how much do you let your players retrain?
My players can retrain as early and as often as they'd like. I'd prefer it if the character concept is still recognizable, but even then I'm likely to be flexible.
Let me outline what I mean by small things:
Say I make a character that has 10 strength and 14 con. A new sourcebook comes out with a great new option for my class. Say a feat or PP or ED. If I need 14 strength for that item my character would have to spend 2-3 ability points into a now essential stat. That would essentially gimp my character in some fashion, which doesn't sound fun to me.
Currently the situation I'm in my bard would switch from 13/11/10/18/8/18 to 10/11/10/16/8/20. I've decided I didn't want to MC Paladin. That change in my mind is minor as retraining already gives a reason for characters to lose feats, so it wouldn't break my character's role play ability.
But it isn't unique to this situation. I see this coming up every time a character wants to make a change that requires more than 1 feat or skill change.
I think I'll approach him about the topic when he gets back in about a week with the topics I outlined in the first post.
I think there are two separate issues here.
The situation as you outlined it in the OP is a group of relatively new 4e players. You all rolled up characters and probably at the time had fairly basic knowledge of the rules and hadn't got a handle on exactly what the various trade offs were. In this situation I allow players to rework their characters to some extent after they play them a few times and have a chance to figure out what they want. After all it is more fun if the player has the character they want, and it isn't as if the character is somehow superior to any other character, maybe just slightly better built the second time around. If possible I may work it into the story to explain any visible changes.
Later on in the game if a player comes to me and says "you know, I wanted to do X with my character, but due to rule A I can't quite pull it off and I didn't realize that when I made the character" I may allow a SMALL change, like adjusting a stat by one or some similar thing. Again it is a matter of familiarity with the game and the player's intent. Penalizing the player for the rest of the campaign because of a minor oversight probably reduces their fun, and if they aren't trying to take advantage of me, then it is usually OK.
The other issue is retraining.
Retraining is just the normal stuff you can do in 4e to allow you to adjust the character's powers and feats. It is either used to indicate that the character has adopted a bit different tactics or is focusing on some particular facet of their training, etc. This should follow the retraining rules. The players know what these rules are and they should stick to them.
Rebuilding a character simply because it was more advantageous than running it by the rules, no. The player knew the rules from the start and knew there would be some disadvantage to the way they wanted their character to develop. They shouldn't be able to be highly effective at heroic tier and then suddenly get to change their build around at 11th level so they can now pursue a PP they wouldn't qualify for, for example.
My concern is DnD is played for fun and making characters so static can prevent players from having a good concept once they initially made a poor concept.
As a DM how much do you let your players retrain?
I am very lax on the retraining rules. The reason is that my group is new to 4E and have only played a handful of sessions. When we started, I was the only one who have read through the core books. When selecting their character options, I helped them out and make some suggestions. Also, my players are not that into heavy optimising and tend to take character options that sound cool or fit their character.
As we play and I see how the players play their character, I have on occasion made some suggestions on other character options that I think they will like more. Also, new material becomes available in books or online periodically. Sometimes I present these options to a player if I think he will like it. This may involve changing their character more so than via the standard retraining rules.
In my game, here are some examples on how some PC's have changed over and above what is normally allowed in retraining:
Dragonborn Warlord -- Changed from a Tactical Warlord to a Bravura Warlord when MP came out. Also, change an at-will power.
Human Ranger/Rogue multiclass -- Changed to a hybrid Ranger-Wizard/Rogue multiclass when the Hybrid Character playtest was released. Changed a bunch of powers and tweaked ability scores to bump up his Intelligence and changed some feats.
Overall, both players were happier after the changes. The Warlord player liked the changes because the new options and powers in MP fit the way he plays his character (high risk, high reward). The Ranger liked the changes because this character fit his concept (and resembled an old 3.5 character) much better than pre-hybrid rules. Also, it is early in the campaign and everyone is still level 2.
An overall guideline that I would adhere to would be that after the rebuild, your character should fit your character concept more so than before the rebuild. I'm not going to penalise a player for overlooking a character option or not having the foresight of knowing what is going to appear in a new book or DDI article. So far, no one has really abused the rules or anything and everyone, including me, is happy with the changes.
My former DM when we played 2E had this same attitude. You're free to rebuild your character as long as the rebuild makes your character resemble your concept more. I see the value in allowing this flexibility from both sides of the screen.
As a player how should I approach my DM and friend with my concerns? If I were to make the changes he wouldn't even notice, but that would be deceitful because I know his rules and I want to approach the topic with him in the best way.
I'd tell the DM that if you rebuild your character a certain way, it would fit your concept better. If it is something in a new book or even a character option you overlooked or if you're simply unhappy with the performance or make up of your character, let him know. Try not to abuse any flexibility that your DM will give you. If your DM does not allow any additional flexibility in rebuilding then, just do what you can within the rules.