The Arguments for Character Respec

[Angelus_dead]

But really what would the long term, effect be? Can we say for sure what the unintended consequinces be? Reallky are that many people leaving simply because of a nerf to their build? Or because they have a bunch of toons that aren't the latest greatest because of addtions to the game? Or do people most often leave simpyl out of over all boredom witht eh game, which happens no mattter what Turbine does,e ven with new content.

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the reasons to add a respec feature, so that before someone comes to argue against it, he'd at least know what those reasons are.

I'm OK with it either way.... I just THINK that at least some who offer such long winded reasons why, really could shorten it all down a bit to one sentence..... "Some other build is more uber than my build, and I want to change my long worked on toon to that build"

Then they might respond to the actual reasons, instead of saying stuff like that.

[smatt]

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the reasons to add a respec feature, so that before someone comes to argue against it, he'd at least know what those reasons are.


Then they might respond to the actual reasons, instead of saying stuff like that.

I think I can comprehend what was intended, AD.... Maybe

And I agree that many of the original statements by Borro are in fact true. I'm just not so sure that this grand fix of a complete or near complete Repsec would fix them, and if it did fix those problems, that it might also create more and even worse situations..... I'm not trying to group all the for peeps, and against peeps into 2 groups.... Clearly there sre some that are on each side for differing reasons. I think a lot of the time as as read the ideas put forth on the DDO forum, mostly by intelligent, well meaning people, they often don't see past the face of their ideas. Often times it's hard to do, infact I think most times it's near impossible to do, when considering a dynamic situational game like DDO. That is why many of the changes the Dev team does implement come about, because even they the grand designers don't have the ability to see the future and how people will react and use the tools they're given.

[Angelus_dead]

I think I can comprehend what was intended, AD.... Maybe

But instead of stating that you comprehend, could you you write something to demonstrate that you've seen it? Like 3-4 words to say what the benefit is supposed to be?

[Monkey_Archer]

Well this started out as a valid argument thread....
until the 2nd post...

No offence Borror... but this is classic polictics, not debate..
You start out with a clear well thought out argument for something.... then tell people in a disjointed manner what your opponents arguments supposebly are.
Anyone who actually responds with a valid counter-point automatically gets lumped in with the rest of the "arguments" in your second post. Anyone who tries to defend themselves in this kind of situation gets drowned out and crushed... (think Stephane Dion here )

To be clear, i am neither for, nor against this whole respec mumbo jumbo...

Yes I have builds that could benefit from it, and i have no intention of rerolling.
No, this is definatly not near the top of my list on things i would like to see added to the game. If it were added i probably would use it though.

The truth here:
-The strongest arugments for this are from people that would use it to optimise an already powerful build.
-The strongest arguments against this are from people that dont want to see powerful builds optimised even further (or people who already have optimised builds that dont want others to copy them)
-Most casual gamers, by definition, likely dont know or care about this.


So.. Since i dont completely disagree with post #1... i will refute your refutles... (if that makes any sense...)

1 - Grind - Part of the game... for the most of us, this is called fun or questing... just one of the many parts of the game that keep people playing. If you didnt have to "quest" you wouldnt be playing the game in the first place... If a respec causes you to not have to run quests, you would no longer be playing the game on that character would you?
1.1 - Other MMOs are not ddo and have no place in this argument. That goes for both sides.

2 - Clones - Repec will likely cause cloning... and will likely encourage more experimentation with less then optimal builds... Will probably even out eventually.

3 - Cost vs gain - This IS the best argument against respec... Ask anyone what they are looking forward to in the new mod. Some might say a capstone, or one of the PrEs.... but the majority will say content. (Where else would you test out that great new capstone or PrE?)
EVERYTHING they add to the game takes TIME. TIME = MONEY. Even something as simple as first person view could be boiled down to a dollar amount for turbine. Implementing a respec option is easily as if not more complicated then the various arguments for or against it. Think about it. If none of these threads about respec can come to some sort of consensus on IF it should be implemented, when do you think we could agree on HOW it is implemented? and what rules an limitations apply.

4 - People leaving - People leave for lots of reasons. Tubine should not listen to or accomodate any such threats, whether its from people who think thier build was nerfed, or from people who think respec would completly break the game.

5 - You asked for it - I have no sympathy for people who took advantage of a powerful build only to discover that something new might be a bit better. This is the nature of... well... everything. This is as much an argument for respec as it is against respec. Turbine's Priority should be attracting new players, not trying to keep the ones it already has. Playing defence usually means your in trouble...


Conclusion:
Respec or no respec i dont care... as long as it doesnt reduce the amount of new content. I just think its too complicated to be implemented properly. Say, you want to get rid of your 1 fighter level on a 15ranger/1fighter build... you took it at level 2 and chose dodge as your bonus feat... you now have 2 other feats that depend on dodge... and an enhancement that depends on those feats... So now you need to reset your enhancements and feats? you also have skill points spent that depend on that fighter level....
If this is every to happen, i will most likely come in small steps starting with skill respec.

[maddmatt70]

I personally feel that this upcoming mod is the best opportunity for them to add a respec. The level cap going up four levels, unpredictable capstones, prestige enhancements that follow 6/12/18, etc. will lead to the most disgruntled people that Turbine has had in regards to character building. This mod would be the best bang for the buck if they were to add a respec to alleviate disgruntled people. If they don't add it this mod my guess is they will never add it. Every single mod prior to this one and every mod in the future will probably nerf and/or have an effect on less builds and characters.

[Mhykke]

Well Mhykke, I could go into agueing all day long about all the pro's and con's peopel ahve put forth. Kind of like politcal discussion I used to have on of all places a band/music board.... Many 1,000's of posts latter it got rather boring. I understand that some are of the opinion that a repc feature would on it's face create more of a chance of player retention. But really what would the long term, effect be? Can we say for sure what the unintended consequinces be? Reallky are that many people leaving simply because of a nerf to their build? Or because they have a bunch of toons that aren't the latest greatest because of addtions to the game? Or do people most often leave simpyl out of over all boredom witht eh game, which happens no mattter what Turbine does,e ven with new content .

No, you're correct, we can't say what the long term unintended consequences would be. But that's not an argument against respec. Nobody can ever predict what the long term unintended consequences will be, about anything. Stating the obvious, that we are incapable of predicting the future, isn't an argument in itself not to do something.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that the only reason people are leaving is b/c of changes that are negatively affecting their characters. That would be foolish. Of course people are leaving because of boredom. But does that make irrelevant that some players might be leaving b/c they don't like changes to their efforts? Months, and maybe years, of building a character a certain way, only for it to be changed in one update, might upset a decent number of people, don't you think? Is it smart for Turbine, as a business, to simply look the other way while saying "tough"? Does it mean we shouldn't try to remove reasons people leave if those reasons happen to be something other than boredom?

I'm not attacking anybody at all..... But I think what I said in my posts in this thread IMO is very true.... Far more would use the repsec to go to classes that became BETTER than their current class, not because their class was nerfed directly. I'm simply offering that opinion, no matter if others see it as more or less correct than their own. I love this game, and of course want it to prosper, even if that would require them to do thigns I don't like or agree with personally. In the end I think my point is that just because a few dozen forum people who for the most part are very loyal DDO people who do in fact care aobut the game and offer a lot of good ideas up to improve it THINK and feranvtly argue a particular issue, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to run lock step with them. Or simply to go OK the few forum commons want it so it sahll be in other words.

Let's assume that people would switch to classes that are "better" than their own (although that's very subjective, what one person believes is better will change with the next person). So? I mean, honestly, so what? Why is it a problem to allow people to change their characters in a way that they'll enjoy more? If people can change things around, and enjoy the game in a way that's better than how they previously enjoyed it, isn't that a positive thing? Isn't that good that a business is providing a way for its consumers to enjoy its product even more? Or do we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and think to ourselves "nobody's changing their character, you rolled a character, now play him!", even though some people may simply leave instead of rerolling or continue playing that character? We all know that DDO doesn't have the subscriber base to be so callous as to ignore player flight.

And nobody is saying that the game should follow "lock step" with anyone. But it is funny, that not many can really put forward a logical rebuttal to arguments in favor of respec. All we get are arguments from emotion, that address none of the pro respec arguments. We just get canned, lazy phrases like "easy button", or "multicassers want this" etc. etc. Attacks to motivations, not attacks of arguments. The attacks to motivation are personally frustrating to me, b/c none of them apply. I love when someone responds that it's simply b/c pro respec people exploited the game through multiclassing, and now those people are just jealous b/c they can't get capstones, as the "real" motivation for respec, when they could simply look at the characters in my signature and see how utterly foolish their argument is. In fact, some of the people making some of those accusations (easy button) are guilty of their own allegations.

I'm OK with it either way.... I just THINK that at least some who offer such long winded reasons why, really could shorten it all down a bit to one sentence..... "Some other build is more uber than my build, and I want to change my long worked on toon to that build" .

Sure, that may be the motivation for some. It's not in my case. The anti respeccers usually don't have a response, so they'll bring up what you mentioned, maybe in terms of "flavor of the month", or "easy button", etc., even though that has nothing to do with what the person they're responding to actually mentioned. It's much easier to simply reply with a canned phrase in order to attack motivations, instead of actually thinking about a person's post individually, and what he or she is arguing.

For example, I've argued, many times, that a reason could be "it's unfair to change rules in the middle of a game, and to reduce some of the hard feelings caused by that unfairness, give people a way to respond to those rule changes." Why, in your opinion, is a response of "some other build is more uber than my build, and I want to change my toon" a good response to my reason? Furthermore, why is your sentence a good summation of my reason?

That's my arguement... Im not going to get into long winded arguements with people who think they know how to run an MMO.... I have no idea personally, I won't ever spend millions to create, code, or market one..... I can only guess...... My lack of arguing every single point that say Borro brings up has nothing to do with me not being able to..... I could go on for days if I really cared to.... But I see it as a pointless endevour, I will continue to simply point out some things I'm observing just as you have.

It's not about arguing on how to run an MMO. It's about arguing what player's would benefit from. An opinion that's only logical for a player of that MMO to have.

Sure, if you don't want to argue Borr's points, for example, don't. You don't have to argue them, or argue them all. The point is, also don't make up arguments and put them in Borr's mouth, only so you can take them apart. If one wants to disagree with a post by Borr, then disagree with it. Don't make up reasons, like Borr's real motivation is so he can have an "easy button" to get a "FOTM" build, or that he really wants this b/c he exploited the game by multiclassing and now he's jealous of capstones. It helps if people address what someone actual said, rather than making up reasons in order to argue against those reasons (which is the easy, lazy way out).

[Quanefel]

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the reasons to add a respec feature, so that before someone comes to argue against it, he'd at least know what those reasons are.


Then they might respond to the actual reasons, instead of saying stuff like that.

Oh, that is the reason for this post? I thought the debate was over and we are to simply talk about how to make it happen. As far as our arguements, those have been written out beforehand, for us. I guess to save us the trouble in responding to anything. Like a normal debate is handled. BorrorO has already kindly provided our answers/reasons for us. Isn't that nice of him?

[caution]

Like politics, not everyone agrees, so I will simply agree to disagree rather than get involved deeply in some argument.

Just put me down as one of those dissenters who really think that existing functionality is fine, and the need for further respects are crazy.

To simplify my response to the original arguments:
1. Perfection is unattainable, so quit now while you can!
2. If you got it so wrong to begin with, maybe you should start again!

So I believe that there is no concensus that respecs are important.

If you actually care about some of my viewpoints in this area...

Re-specs exist
* You can already respec feats, enhancements, and spell selections which are already too powerful, and exploitable. You need more?
* Race, class/alignment/skills are significant changes related to the fundamental character makeup. What is more important, your character or your loot?
* If you are really committed to character onwership, then take up permadeath play!

Not seeing the game from the grind
* If the 'grind' as you see it is not part of the game, then maybe Turbine should cut to the chase and allow new characters to be created at lvl 20.
* I believe the best quests are not VoD/Hound/Shroud/SoS, and running through WW with my level 16 barely equates to a 'game' IMO.

Quitters never win
* If you are going to quit because something changes, then please do! The drama queen vs. enthusiast ratio can always do with improvement.
* Change brings more to the game than none. Would you be happier if you could respec your old level 10 capped toon?

PS: Some of these points may be wrong, and I'm ok with that as they are there to just highlight that there are people who see sense in no respecs!

[Mhykke]

If you actually care about some of my viewpoints in this area...

Honest question:

Why should a person care about your viewpoints in this area, considering you don't consider the viewpoints of people on the other side?

[Tanka]

* You can already respec feats, enhancements, and spell selections which are already too powerful, and exploitable. You need more?

Care to explain how they're exploitable?

[smatt]

Sure, if you don't want to argue Borr's points, for example, don't. You don't have to argue them, or argue them all. The point is, also don't make up arguments and put them in Borr's mouth, only so you can take them apart. If one wants to disagree with a post by Borr, then disagree with it. Don't make up reasons, like Borr's real motivation is so he can have an "easy button" to get a "FOTM" build, or that he really wants this b/c he exploited the game by multiclassing and now he's jealous of capstones. It helps if people address what someone actual said, rather than making up reasons in order to argue against those reasons (which is the easy, lazy way out).

Hmm, now wait a moment.... Where did I say it was Borro that was putting forth all these reasons simply to hide the fact that HE wanted to be uber and really just was being greedy or whatever so many are calling it. I never said that.... I simply said that a good number of people who're FOR a full re spec, IMO are of that nature. If that's what you thought I was saying.... Oops... That's not what I was saying at all.

Read what I said again and again Mhykke, I think you took it all wrong. I also said that it's OK to want to be uber, and to not lose all that hard work on an out of date build. And it's far easier to make up what someone means than to actually reply to what someone means......

Never-the-less.... I'm not really for or against.... You see I would admit freely that I am not super-uber perfect toon builder... Not even close.... I don't care... My opinion of myself or my opinion of others play, build, or whatever doesn't really matter. I freely admit that I personally WOULD use the rep sec and am honest about why I would use it. BUT I will also freely admit that even though I would benefit from it in the short run, I may not int he long run. I was simply pointing out that things aren't always what the appear to be... That's all.... I wasn't attacking anybody.... Not even the great Borro Who I know loves this game, works hard to change this game for what he sees as the better, and I would also add that a good majority of the people that go into lengthy discussion here are valuable assets to the game. I'm sorry that you might have mis-interpreted what I said and or meant.... And edit.. I'm glad you have such high opinion of yourself

OK, here's an arguement...

That by adding a full re spec mechanism in the game, it may make it too easy to reach clear superiority and therefore would cause many to play out the game at a much faster rate therefore causing less player retention........

[Angelus_dead]

Where did I say it was Borro that was putting forth all these reasons simply to hide the fact that HE wanted to be uber and really just was being greedy or whatever so many are calling it. I never said that.... I simply said that a good number of people who're FOR a full re spec, IMO are of that nature. If that's what you thought I was saying.... Oops... That's not what I was saying at all.

That is not true.

Here's you:

Well Borro you offer up a nice summary of what i see as the spin for respec.... But what oyu left out is that the majority of the people who're really in on thsi disscusion IMO, are longtime players who have known for a long time that DDO isn't a static game. That changes will come, some will benefit a build, some will turn a build into trash. BUT the real arguement FOR a respec seems to come mostly from people who want to keep the bound gear and stats, they worked hard for on a toon, and apply it to the uber toon of the Mod...... That's what it's really about, isn't it? All this talk of player retention, it's not fair, etc, add nausiam is an end run around what it's really all about...... It simply is too much like a particular politcal parties propaganda lines, saying this when every knows it's a load....

In case you still deny the content of your own words, here they are again: "That's what it's really about, isn't it? All this talk of player retention, it's not fair, etc, add nausiam is an end run around what it's really all about...... It simply is too much like a particular politcal parties propaganda lines, saying this when every knows it's a load.... "

In case you continue to deny it, what you were doing is claiming that Borror0 was lying about what the reasons for a respec are.

[Mhykke]

Hmm, now wait a moment.... Where did I say it was Borro that was putting forth all these reasons simply to hide the fact that HE wanted to be uber and really just was being greedy or whatever so many are calling it. I never said that.... I simply said that a good number of people who're FOR a full re spec, IMO are of that nature. If that's what you thought I was saying.... Oops... That's not what I was saying at all. ..

Sorry for the confusion. My post didn't say you "were" doing anything. I was addressing this exchange:

My lack of arguing every single point that say Borro brings up has nothing to do with me not being able to....

I replied with:

Sure, if you don't want to argue Borr's points, for example, don't. You don't have to argue them, or argue them all. The point is, also don't make up arguments and put them in Borr's mouth, only so one can take them apart. If one wants to disagree with a post by Borr, then disagree with it. Don't make up reasons, like Borr's real motivation is so he can have an "easy button" to get a "FOTM" build, or that he really wants this b/c he exploited the game by multiclassing and now he's jealous of capstones. It helps if people address what someone actual said, rather than making up reasons in order to argue against those reasons (which is the easy, lazy way out).

We were discussing an example where you are responding to Bor. I was agreeing that if you don't want to argue a certain person's posts, or all of the points he makes in them, then don't. That's the first 2 sentences of the above quote.

But my next statement isn't saying that you are guilty of adding words in Borr's mouth. It simply says that the main point is one shouldn't add words simply to argue with those words. I used the word "you" b/c I was still sticking w/ the example of an exchange b/w you and Bor. I changed the "you" to "one" to be a bit clearer.

Edit:
And I had forgotten about your original post in this thread. While my response above wasn't directed at you personally, now that I go back to your original response, it can most definitely be applied to you. Your original response is exactly what I've been talking about. You accused Bor of "spinning" the argument. In the same post, you wished for a more honest argument. So yes, in fact, my request can directly be applied to "you." If you disagree with Bor, then disagree with what he's saying. Don't put words in his mouth, and say what the respec is "really" about. It's very easy if someone makes an argument, to simply say "your argument's really about X", and then proceed to argue against X. You're not arguing the person's points. You're simply arguing against your made up reasons. It is very tempting to do this though.

Read what I said again and again Mhykke, I think you took it all wrong. I also said that it's OK to want to be uber, and to not lose all that hard work on an out of date build. And it's far easier to make up what someone means than to actually reply to what someone means......

Hey, that's great that it's "ok to want to be uber." This doesn't address anything, b/c not many (none that I remember) argue that a reason behind a respec is in order for people to be uber.

You're distorting the argument of "one wants the ability to change his character b/c a game change/addition has altered that character in a way that the player did not expect and/or does not enjoy" to "one wants to be uber". Hardly. Is it difficult to imagine someone building their character not to be uber, but rather for flavor, and a change to the game alters a person's view of that character?

That by adding a full re spec mechanism in the game, it may make it too easy to reach clear superiority and therefore would cause many to play out the game at a much faster rate therefore causing less player retention........

Yes, you might be correct, if there was a way to reach "clear superiority" in game. But in reality, that doesn't exist. People build new characters all the time. If there was a "clearly superior" DPS build, for example, then those building a new character for DPS would all be doing the same thing. But in reality, they're not. Some are building rangers, some barbs, some fighters now with the fighter capstone, some paladins w/ knight of the chalice and the other additions to paladins. This isn't even considering multiclass options available. The game is varied, and there's rarely a "clearly superior" way of doing something.

[FluffyCalico]

Once again, character respec discussions have taken over the forums, to the point of derailing an important thread for feedback.

It these discussions, it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions about the pro-respec arguments. For the proponents of character respec, it is quite irritating as it feels as if words were being put into our mouth. As for those against the implementation of a character respec, it weakens their positions because they are not addressing our arguments.

Hopefully, this thread will clarify our position and lead to more productive conversation.

Before I start explaining our argument, I think it may be worthwhile to define what is meant by "character respec".

Character respec is an expression used to simplify to gather multiple requests into one. The purpose of this word is to avoid making too heavy sentences each time one has to talk about all the request being made. Usually, in the context of DDO, it includes alignment respec, class respec, skill point respec and often race respec as well.

Whether or not these respec are offered all at once or if they are separated is unimportant (although the 'all at once' option seems to be less hard for turbine to code).

Aesthetic respecs are often included because the arguments from them are different than the ones for respec of things directly affecting gameplay but no one would complain if Turbine decided to kill two birds with one stone.

Please note that a request for respec makes no mention of the cost that will be used. Consensus is that we have to agree that really there is a problem before being able to discuss what is the best way to solve it. Possible costs are in-game money, XP and collectibles (Ã* la dragonshard). Respec as a Premium Service is often an excluded possibility because it does not address the problems that lead to requesting character respec in the first place.

Now that I have taken the time to explain what the request is, exactly, I'll proceed into explaining the two main reasons to ask for a character respec. The first argument being that character respec would increase character retention and the second argument being that character respec would allow game developers to change the game data more freely, thus leading to a better game.

The first argument can be summarized by the following syllogism:

1. Various errors were made during DDO's design.
2. To fix those errors, DDO developers have to change feats, spells, enhancements, etc. in a way that may harm characters, directly or indirectly.
3. Players value the continuous improvement of their characters and may quit if their characters are harmed.
4. If respecs were possible, then characters could change to follow changed game rules.
5. Players would not feel their character was harmed and not cancel their subscription.
6. Therefore, respecs would increase player retention.

As for the second argument, it can be described as follow:

1. Various errors were made during DDO's design.
2. Due to those errors, the game is not as good as it could be.
3. The developers are inhibited from fixing errors because some characters would be harmed, either directly or indirectly.
4. If respecs were possible, then characters could change to follow changed game rules.
5. The developers would have fewer worries when making a change, so more improvements would happen.
6. Therefore, respecs would make DDO better for everyone.

Both of these arguments illustrate that character respec requests have more to them than being a mere "I want it because I like it": there are benefits to their implementation other than just pleasing the players. And, to discredit the respec request one has to be able to refute both arguments.

Hopefully, that clarifies most misunderstandings.

Now, discuss!

My answer for repecs is simple.
1) DDO makes more people mad the further it gets from PnP
2) In PnP the closest thing you got to a respec was begging the GM to let you go on a quest to replace that feat of uselessness you took
3) DnD has never been about respecing to the single best build it has been about seeing your character grow and have its choices actually make differences in the game and how the character turns out. Respec completely destroys this. Having regrets about a choice is not only part of life, but part of the DnD emersion and always has been.

[caution]

Care to explain how they're exploitable?

Certain re-specable characteristics are valuable at different levels. For example, skill focuses, life/mana bonuses have larger impact at low levels due to the percentage benefit offered by them.

Some examples:
* At lvl 1 or 3, mobility is kind of lame, so take something handy like toughness and then just swap it in a level 6 when you need it for tempest.
* Charm person, web, sleep are not very effective without heighten, but awesome at low levels. Have your sorc or bard take it early, and swap it out later for grown up spells.
* Skip class +2 stat boost enhancement by re-specing to +3 when you make pre-reqs at lvl 10, utilising points on other handy things in meantime.
* ...and many more!

The only protection here is the 3 day limit (and cost) to prevent you doing it for each quest, point being that you manipulate your build to optimise your character in opposition to the intent of having limited/critical choices.

Whether this is a tactic or an exploit is up to you. Maybe I have used too harsh words for the description of these tricks, but it acknowledges some of the power in the current respec mechanisms.

[Mhykke]

Some examples:
* At lvl 1 or 3, mobility is kind of lame, so take something handy like toughness and then just swap it in a level 6 when you need it for tempest.
* Charm person, web, sleep are not very effective without heighten, but awesome at low levels. Have your sorc or bard take it early, and swap it out later for grown up spells.
* Skip class +2 stat boost enhancement by re-specing to +3 when you make pre-reqs at lvl 10, utilising points on other handy things in meantime.
* ...and many more!

All of these are specifically within the game rules, and working as intended. Sorry, not close to be exploits.

[Angelus_dead]

1) DDO makes more people mad the further it gets from PnP

True, but misleading, because people also get mad when they make bad choices. Following PnP D&D closely would be a bad choice. In fact, better online gameplay is mroe important than fidelity to some book rules that don't even work well in their intended environment.

2) In PnP the closest thing you got to a respec was begging the GM to let you go on a quest to replace that feat of uselessness you took

False.
1. By the rules as written in the core books, D&D characters can drop their levels and re-learn them as another class.
2. In D&D when a Dungeon Master changes the rules about how character features work, he is highly likely to allow the players to adjust character choices based on the old rules.
3. In D&D when a player incorrectly understood the rules, it is highly common for the Dungeon Master to allow erroneous choices to be revised. That is especially true if the mistakes were caused by the Dungeon Master himself, if he had told the players incorrect things about how the rules work.
4. The D&D PHB2 contains numerous and liberal rules for respeccing essentially everything.

3) DnD has never been about respecing to the single best build it has been about seeing your character grow and have its choices actually make differences in the game

Yes, if the choices are actually made by you, and not changed later because the DM alters the rules in the middle. "Hey guess what guys! You're all level 16 now, and I've decided to add new features to level 20 of every class, which might be good or bad... you'll see once you reach the level!"

[caution]

Honest question:

Why should a person care about your viewpoints in this area, considering you don't consider the viewpoints of people on the other side?

Because my point was to simply disagree, and not to influence others. So I didn't really care if people considered them, and I am cool if people skipped them.

It also does not mean I that hadn't been watching the discussion so far, and that I haven't been missing things either.

My viewpoints were probably unecessary, but added for potential benefit to anyone who is interested in understanding why some people actually do not think respecs are such a good idea. Such feedback helps in quantifying the assumption that people are unhappy or hurt by a world without full respecs.

[Tanka]

Certain re-specable characteristics are valuable at different levels. For example, skill focuses, life/mana bonuses have larger impact at low levels due to the percentage benefit offered by them.

Some examples:
* At lvl 1 or 3, mobility is kind of lame, so take something handy like toughness and then just swap it in a level 6 when you need it for tempest.
* Charm person, web, sleep are not very effective without heighten, but awesome at low levels. Have your sorc or bard take it early, and swap it out later for grown up spells.
* Skip class +2 stat boost enhancement by re-specing to +3 when you make pre-reqs at lvl 10, utilising points on other handy things in meantime.
* ...and many more!

The only protection here is the 3 day limit (and cost) to prevent you doing it for each quest, point being that you manipulate your build to optimise your character in opposition to the intent of having limited/critical choices.

Whether this is a tactic or an exploit is up to you. Maybe I have used too harsh words for the description of these tricks, but it acknowledges some of the power in the current respec mechanisms.

Working as intended, it seems. The Devs have never said that wasn't their intent.

[Quanefel]

True, but misleading, because people also get mad when they make bad choices. Following PnP D&D closely would be a bad choice. In fact, better online gameplay is mroe important than fidelity to some book rules that don't even work well in their intended environment.


False.
1. By the rules as written in the core books, D&D characters can drop their levels and re-learn them as another class.
2. In D&D when a Dungeon Master changes the rules about how character features work, he is highly likely to allow the players to adjust character choices based on the old rules.
3. In D&D when a player incorrectly understood the rules, it is highly common for the Dungeon Master to allow erroneous choices to be revised. That is especially true if the mistakes were caused by the Dungeon Master himself, if he had told the players incorrect things about how the rules work.
4. The D&D PHB2 contains numerous and liberal rules for respeccing essentially everything.


Yes, if the choices are actually made by you, and not changed later because the DM alters the rules in the middle. "Hey guess what guys! You're all level 16 now, and I've decided to add new features to level 20 of every class, which might be good or bad... you'll see once you reach the level!"

Let me see here, you come down on FluffyCalico for following P&P rules too closely in this respec debate then right after start listing of things about the rules to help support your positive position of a full respecc in game. Interesting to say the least.

Also interesting are these rules you claim are written in the core rule books, I for one would love to read them better. I have a curious mind. Links, page numbers, direct quotes of these rules you claim? I am not saying you are lying or making things up. I am sure all 4 things you listed are 100% correct in every detail.