The Arguments for Character Respec

[Mhykke]

I wouldn't even be against base stats... although I'll admit I even have pause at race. In the end... I'd rather do some different things with my fighter this time around, and I'd totally switch him from dwarf to human... but that being said... I could just reroll him too.

In a list from least to most controversial, I'd go...

alignment
skills
class levels
race/gender/appearance

Race etc, makes a lot more sense under some sort of retiring or reincarnation than it does a respecialization.

I'd probably separate appearance and bump it close to the top of your list, depending on what we mean by appearance. I don't think a different haircut will make people go nuts. Or maybe a character has a tan now, or became paler from being in dungeons all the time......

[bobbryan2]

I'd probably separate appearance and bump it close to the top of your list, depending on what we mean by appearance. I don't think a different haircut will make people go nuts. Or maybe a character has a tan now, or became paler from being in dungeons all the time......

Fair enough.. barbers should be way above alignment in its own category...

I just meant going back to the race and appearance part of the chargen... not the haircut on an elf.

[Steiner-Davion]

What sane or good GM would give into a player wanting to change his character because that player wanted more "enjoyment"? Is it the player or the GM in charge at that point? Why even have rules or a GM if it is the players deciding what they can change about their character whenever they wanted? Who is talking about the GM being 100% right? That is the extreme, not the rule. Stick to the reality of the situatution.

Obviously you missed the point so completely, that you'll never be able to understand it.

Replace rules with....fun? Let fun decide everything here? And who's idea of fun is the standard now for all of us to follow or do we each get to have anything we want simply because we decided it was fun? Rules be damned?

I'll just ask you five very simple YES or NO questions here, and you'll honest answers would help in understanding where it is you are coming from.

1) Is the purpose of a game to have fun or otherwise be entertained?
2) Do you enjoy or have fun playing games?
3) Would you DM or run a game is your players were not having fun?
4) Would you continue to play a game that you did not have fun playing a game?
5) Do you have fun playing DDO?


Now in your own words can you please tell me what RULE #0 of pen and paper D&D is?


To me it means: Fun and enjoyment by everyone involved is greater than (more important than the rules). If a Rule would interfere with the story or the fun and enjoyment, feel free to change or ignore it. Remeber the rules are just a guideline and are not set in stone.

[Steiner-Davion]

A players fun trumps rules? Is the GM running the game or the player's with their own individual ideas on what rules they wish to follow for the "fun" of it?

In a word, YES! see rule #0. I mean seriously why waste your time DMing a game or playing a game, that you do not enjoy?

[Steiner-Davion]

Some players might want to just change out skills. You are saying it is less sufficient for him than if he was to change out his levels instead? What if someone wanted to change out their alignment? Now we are to respec back fully just for one small change? Seems a bit insufficient to me.

Ok Quanefel, I'm strting to kind of see your point, but your argument is flawed by one simple fact, Turbine messd up big time, when they failed to think ahead and code for the long term when they programmed the character Creation Screen, the Level Up process and the usage of tomes.

If Turbine had programmed these three processes and the cracter database file to record, ALL major changes, like Alignment, Attribute (Stat) distributation, Class choices, skill point distribution, Attribute adjustments from level up and Tome usage, to indicate when those changes happened by level, than smaller "revisions" to the character would not only be possible, they would be so much more simpler to implement.

As far as the game is concern right now, it makes absolutely no difference what levels you took previously when you level up when it comes to distributing your skill points. Further more it does not care one way or the other when you used an Intelligence Tome, when you level up. It simply references your "new" character class that you are taking when you level up, determines how many base Skill Points you get from that class and adds in your current Intelligence Modifier based upon all permanent (base stat plus level up adjustments plus tome uasage) modifiers to your intelligence score.

This was all very extremely shortsighted for Turbine. Why they chose to do it this way with the initial launch, I have no idea, and I doubt we will ever know. But as a result, it has but us in a difficult position.

[Steiner-Davion]

It removes the casual gamer argument? Really? In order for that to be true, we'd have to assume that casuals have absolutely no gear whatsoever. I'm assuming by casual we mean a guy that might have eaten 1 tome at some point, or who has won maybe 1 or 2 pieces of raid gear, maybe even taken a shroud weapon or item to the 2nd altar (heck, or just even created a blank for it). Why does it remove the casual gamer argument? Wouldn't it be as painful, or maybe in some cases, even more painful, for the casual gamer to erase raid loot considering he probably doesn't grind raids 5 or 6+ times a night? Let's say a casual gets lucky and pulls or wins a pretty decent piece of raid loot, let's say the madstone boots. Wouldn't it be pretty painful for that casual to delete and reroll that character, considering he might not be on every 3 days specifically to grind and run the reaver? A powergamer, on the other hand, would think nothing of it, he'll just take 20 min. and run the reaver over and over every 3 days, no big deal.

As for the equipment you "couldn't possibly have at your level"...you do realize that all equipment besides those tomes has a minimum level on it, correct? So one would not be running through waterworks on their level 2 with a mineral 2 greataxe, as the greataxe has a minimum level on it.

As for tomes, yes, you're correct, people would be keeping their tomes. But this is hardly game unbalancing. These people have run this content with their low levels already. An extra point or 2 or 3 to one or more stats isn't going to drastically alter the game. Let's go extreme, and say someone has eaten a +3 str and con tome, and respecced, and now is level 1. Let's also say that the tome took their stats from an odd stat to an even, so they get 2 mod points. So, let's say a con of 13 was turned into a 16. That's 2 hit points per level. At level 2, that's an extra 4 hit points. At level 5, it's an extra 10 hit points. Let's say str went from 17-20. An extra 2 to hit and damage. Nice? Sure. Game unblancing? Hardly. These people are going to go through these low levels anyway, an extra couple of points here and there isn't going to drastically alter the game balance.




I think I know what you're getting at, but would appreciate you explaining just to be clear.

As a casual gamer, I don't have time reroll all the time. In fact I really only have time to play 1 or 2 characters at a time to the exclusion of all others, so the idea of a respec has a lot of appeal to help mitigate some of the grind. I would love to experience more of the high level content with the characters I love to play, if it could help mitagate having to re-run content I've already done to death, and help get me to newer content that I have not experienced yet.

There is a ton of content in this game, but if you are "stuck" at the same content, because of decisions that were made outside of your control, you will get frustrated and bored. I have 1 capped character, 1 who jst made 14th(and is in a static group) and rest are either 2nd or 3rd level or in the 5-8 range. I would love to experience the higher level content with new and different character, not just my capped character.

[Steiner-Davion]

Just for the record, I thought I throw out there one easy way to deal with the tome Issue. as it stand right now, you can only eat a tome afterthe character is created, and this makes 100% perfect sense. You have to use it after the character reaches level 1. So and INT tome cannot grant extra skill points at level 1 and character creation. The make extra skill points you can get from a +3 tome right now is 2 per level. Not that big a deal or game breaking if you "retroactively got them at level 2 vice when ever you used it.

So my vision looks like this. You used a tome at some point great, no biggie. You decide to respec. Character goes bac kto creation screen, Stats are redistributed (if those are being allowed), level 1 redone or whatever, and then the Tome is applied.

[Cinwulf]

Just for the record, I thought I throw out there one easy way to deal with the tome Issue. as it stand right now, you can only eat a tome afterthe character is created, and this makes 100% perfect sense. You have to use it after the character reaches level 1. So and INT tome cannot grant extra skill points at level 1 and character creation. The make extra skill points you can get from a +3 tome right now is 2 per level. Not that big a deal or game breaking if you "retroactively got them at level 2 vice when ever you used it.

So my vision looks like this. You used a tome at some point great, no biggie. You decide to respec. Character goes bac kto creation screen, Stats are redistributed (if those are being allowed), level 1 redone or whatever, and then the Tome is applied.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, but you have not suffered enough! /sarcasm

[Quanefel]

Obviously you missed the point so completely, that you'll never be able to understand it.



I'll just ask you five very simple YES or NO questions here, and you'll honest answers would help in understanding where it is you are coming from.

1) Is the purpose of a game to have fun or otherwise be entertained?
2) Do you enjoy or have fun playing games?
3) Would you DM or run a game is your players were not having fun?
4) Would you continue to play a game that you did not have fun playing a game?
5) Do you have fun playing DDO?


Now in your own words can you please tell me what RULE #0 of pen and paper D&D is?


To me it means: Fun and enjoyment by everyone involved is greater than (more important than the rules). If a Rule would interfere with the story or the fun and enjoyment, feel free to change or ignore it. Remeber the rules are just a guideline and are not set in stone.

Your are missing a big point. Not one person's idea of what is "fun" is a deciding factor for everyone involved. We each have our own idea of what is fun in our minds, yet your idea of fun does not become the default idea of fun for everyone else. I think it would be fun to strip all the wealth from your character to possess it all for myself. Does that mean it should happen because I thought it would be my idea of "fun"? Of course not.

In this game or a full P&P version, any rule is not set in stone. They are ALL option and can be added or removed, by the GM(Dev's). We as players do not decide what those rules should be or what rules we wish to follow. It all falls back on the GM. IF you wish for a change, want something more, want something repaired then ask. If a GM does give in, he has to weigh the fun it would be for you with the fun of ALL the players around you and make sure it does not imbalance his campaign. If you ran an all halfling campaign and one player decided he would have more fun playing a half-orc and demanded to play one, should a GM just give him it even though the others are all playing halflings? Or does he bargain with that player to find out what he can do to address the issue? Just because his idea of fun is more entertaining for him, it is not fun for the GM and other players. His fun is not everyone else's fun.

And think about this. If we have a problem in game, is it better to ask for an all encompassing "fix" that address every concivable problem that could exist OR do you ask for a fix to address the problem? For example, say you were driving home from work and get a flat tire along the way. Do you:

1) Call the dealership and demand they give you a new car?
2) Call the dealership to demand they send someone out to fix your tire for you?
3) Pull out your donut tire, lug nut wrench and jack to fix the flat yourself and then later take it too the dealership to have them fix the problem with a new tire?

#1+2 are unreasonable, time consuming, unrealistic, insufficient, and does not address the issue.
#3 is more reasonable, less time consuming, realistic, sufficent and does address the issue.

Does that help?

[feynman]

Your are missing a big point. Not one person's idea of what is "fun" is a deciding factor for everyone involved. We each have our own idea of what is fun in our minds, yet your idea of fun does not become the default idea of fun for everyone else. I think it would be fun to strip all the wealth from your character to possess it all for myself. Does that mean it should happen because I thought it would be my idea of "fun"? Of course not.

In this game or a full P&P version, any rule is not set in stone. They are ALL option and can be added or removed, by the GM(Dev's). We as players do not decide what those rules should be or what rules we wish to follow. It all falls back on the GM. IF you wish for a change, want something more, want something repaired then ask. If a GM does give in, he has to weigh the fun it would be for you with the fun of ALL the players around you and make sure it does not imbalance his campaign. If you ran an all halfling campaign and one player decided he would have more fun playing a half-orc and demanded to play one, should a GM just give him it even though the others are all playing halflings? Or does he bargain with that player to find out what he can do to address the issue? Just because his idea of fun is more entertaining for him, it is not fun for the GM and other players. His fun is not everyone else's fun.

And think about this. If we have a problem in game, is it better to ask for an all encompassing "fix" that address every concivable problem that could exist OR do you ask for a fix to address the problem? For example, say you were driving home from work and get a flat tire along the way. Do you:

1) Call the dealership and demand they give you a new car?
2) Call the dealership to demand they send someone out to fix your tire for you?
3) Pull out your donut tire, lug nut wrench and jack to fix the flat yourself and then later take it too the dealership to have them fix the problem with a new tire?

#1+2 are unreasonable, time consuming, unrealistic, insufficient, and does not address the issue.
#3 is more reasonable, less time consuming, realistic, sufficent and does address the issue.

Does that help?

Leaving aside that you didn't answer the questions, your analogy is misleading; this is more of a case of you buying a car, and then the laws changing so that you're not allowed to drive it because you didn't buy some particular feature that you had no idea would be required.

Better yet: What happens when your PnP group goes from one edition to another? You get to change things around, even retroactively, to suit the new rules. Your point of view seems to be that, since Turbine can't hire 1000 people to act as GMs, we can't do it. What you don't seem to realize is that that is not an argument against respec, just your opinion of its feasibility; need I tell you that no one takes your opinion, or mine or anyone but the devs', on technical issues seriously?

The argument is about whether it is desirable or not, in a general way, not whether it can be done. Let Turbine worry about that.

[Quanefel]

Leaving aside that you didn't answer the questions, your analogy is misleading; this is more of a case of you buying a car, and then the laws changing so that you're not allowed to drive it because you didn't buy some particular feature that you had no idea would be required.

Better yet: What happens when your PnP group goes from one edition to another? You get to change things around, even retroactively, to suit the new rules. Your point of view seems to be that, since Turbine can't hire 1000 people to act as GMs, we can't do it. What you don't seem to realize is that that is not an argument against respec, just your opinion of its feasibility; need I tell you that no one takes your opinion, or mine or anyone but the devs', on technical issues seriously?

The argument is about whether it is desirable or not, in a general way, not whether it can be done. Let Turbine worry about that.

Well it is understandable to not wish for anyone to talk about details on any idea for whether or not it can be done. Let's have everyone just argue on ideas on whether it is desireable or not. Let's not argue if any idea is even reasonable to code, easy to code, cost effective to code, or can be pushed out along with new content without it pushing content to the side if it requires it. Lets not talk about any detail that might make the idea itself look like a horrible idea. Yes, I can see why it would be in the best interest of some to only talk about whether it is desireable or not.

[Korvek]

Well it is understandable to not wish for anyone to talk about details on any idea for whether or not it can be done. Let's have everyone just argue on ideas on whether it is desireable or not. Let's not argue if any idea is even reasonable to code, easy to code, cost effective to code, or can be pushed out along with new content without it pushing content to the side if it requires it. Lets not talk about any detail that might make the idea itself look like a horrible idea. Yes, I can see why it would be in the best interest of some to only talk about whether it is desireable or not.

It's generally a better idea to decide if a feature is even wanted before figuring out what the costs of it would be, as figuring out the costs would probably be somewhat time-consuming itself, and players (us) are entirely incapable of determining them.

[Quanefel]

It's generally a better idea to decide if a feature is even wanted before figuring out what the costs of it would be, as figuring out the costs would probably be somewhat time-consuming itself, and players (us) are entirely incapable of determining them.

People should not be hindered from speaking their mind from every aspect of an idea. You won't know if an idea is flawed if you do not have proper feedback. All it takes is for one person to jump into a discussion of an idea that makes both sides step back and go...."Oh, pooh! We never thought about that!" Yet it people only want the idea focused on whether they want it, no one can point at the flaws on either side of the arguement.


You might as well write it on a wall and stare at the idea. No need to worry about people finding the flaws ever in that idea.

[xberto]

I'm not going to read through this whole thread as I have had enough of this topic but I was curious to your arguments Borro. You have put a lot of thought into this respec business and you case is well laid out, I just think your arguments here make assumptions and don't seem genuine. The truth is, nobody wants to reroll. That is the real argument. It's not about the dev being inhibited or having fewer worries or canceled subscriptions. It's about you, me and all the others moving forward with our characters and not back wards. I sympathize with those out their who have put so much time into their characters and have been deeply affected by this evolving game.

For these people, I have conceded, in another thread, the need for some kind of respec, so long as it's not an easy button. Some kind of quest themed respec, perhaps something like an end reward or dropped shard from a warded chest could allow certain changes to be made to your character. Maybe some kind of D&D themed magic to allow us to move forward in character evolution rather than a reroll.

[feynman]

People should not be hindered from speaking their mind from every aspect of an idea. You won't know if an idea is flawed if you do not have proper feedback. All it takes is for one person to jump into a discussion of an idea that makes both sides step back and go...."Oh, pooh! We never thought about that!" Yet it people only want the idea focused on whether they want it, no one can point at the flaws on either side of the arguement.


You might as well write it on a wall and stare at the idea. No need to worry about people finding the flaws ever in that idea.

You're being obtuse; the point is that we cannot discuss its feasibility because we don't know anything about it. Now, if by some strange chance you happen to be perusing the source code for the game and are fully versed in game programming, you should say so and your opinion will carry some weight. Short of that, however, any discussion of whether or not it can be done is moot.

[feynman]

...I have conceded, in another thread, the need for some kind of respec, so long as it's not an easy button...

I don't think that's fair. So turbine changes some rules that gimps your character, and you then have to take your now-gimped character on some sort of mission to fix it? I'll grant that it is somewhat similar to how a GM might start a campaign, but for that to make sense, they would first have to break everyone's characters. Beyond that, it is diametrically opposed to the demands of most of the anti-respec crowd, whose main objection is that it would take programmers' time away from other things, and this would take some time to program. It will also be exacerbated for those of us who have more than one character in this situation; I myself have 3 characters who have been sort of left behind by some of the rules changes, so I would have to go through this process 3 times?

So now we have a third faction...

[smatt]

I don't think that's fair. So turbine changes some rules that gimps your character, and you then have to take your now-gimped character on some sort of mission to fix it? I'll grant that it is somewhat similar to how a GM might start a campaign, but for that to make sense, they would first have to break everyone's characters. Beyond that, it is diametrically opposed to the demands of most of the anti-respec crowd, whose main objection is that it would take programmers' time away from other things, and this would take some time to program. It will also be exacerbated for those of us who have more than one character in this situation; I myself have 3 characters who have been sort of left behind by some of the rules changes, so I would have to go through this process 3 times?

So now we have a third faction...

I've asked repeatedly, what are all these changes that they've implented that have gimped this vast amount of people so drastically?

[feynman]

I've asked repeatedly, what are all these horrible changes that they've implented that have gimped this vast amount of people so drastically? Oh ya that's right... How dare they change the Minos to what it was suppossed to be all along

One word: Monks.

[Steiner-Davion]

Your are missing a big point. Not one person's idea of what is "fun" is a deciding factor for everyone involved. We each have our own idea of what is fun in our minds, yet your idea of fun does not become the default idea of fun for everyone else. I think it would be fun to strip all the wealth from your character to possess it all for myself. Does that mean it should happen because I thought it would be my idea of "fun"? Of course not.

In this game or a full P&P version, any rule is not set in stone. They are ALL option and can be added or removed, by the GM(Dev's). We as players do not decide what those rules should be or what rules we wish to follow. It all falls back on the GM. IF you wish for a change, want something more, want something repaired then ask. If a GM does give in, he has to weigh the fun it would be for you with the fun of ALL the players around you and make sure it does not imbalance his campaign. If you ran an all halfling campaign and one player decided he would have more fun playing a half-orc and demanded to play one, should a GM just give him it even though the others are all playing halflings? Or does he bargain with that player to find out what he can do to address the issue? Just because his idea of fun is more entertaining for him, it is not fun for the GM and other players. His fun is not everyone else's fun.

And think about this. If we have a problem in game, is it better to ask for an all encompassing "fix" that address every concivable problem that could exist OR do you ask for a fix to address the problem? For example, say you were driving home from work and get a flat tire along the way. Do you:

1) Call the dealership and demand they give you a new car?
2) Call the dealership to demand they send someone out to fix your tire for you?
3) Pull out your donut tire, lug nut wrench and jack to fix the flat yourself and then later take it too the dealership to have them fix the problem with a new tire?

#1+2 are unreasonable, time consuming, unrealistic, insufficient, and does not address the issue.
#3 is more reasonable, less time consuming, realistic, sufficent and does address the issue.

Does that help?

Yes it does.
1) In this case the manufacturer forget to place the donut, lug nut wrench and the jack in the car when they built it.
2) It shows that you are trying to force your idea of fun upon me.

[Scriplin]

Determining when free respec tokens are given out should be pretty easy. Any time major class abilities are changed would probably do it, at the devs discretion.

The evasion change of '06 would qualify (or was it 07?). Changing monk wisdom bonus ac to centered-only, or limiting it to 2x monk level would be another good example.

The upcoming mod with their capstones would also qualify, though any free respec tokens should expire 4 weeks after the change is made.

I know everyone hates WoW, but in WoW, whenever a patch is done that affects game balance, usually certain talents of every class are tweaked. When this is done, each character upon logging in will discover their talent tree points have all been refunded, and they spend their talent points again in light of the changes made, which are all evident upon mousing over each talent.