|
I've got a character who would like to completely rebuild his character... he would maintain class and race selections, but he's wanting to reassign abilities, feats, etc.
In an effort to always "say yes," I'm trying to put together a reasonable in-character cost for the extremely generous grant.
If you had a 6th level character who wanted to completely rebuild, would you allow it? And what would you make the character pay?
What level is he? If he plans on changing his combat style, let him do that gradually. As in, if he wants to become an archer, have him use a bow for a while before he can change stuff.
Note many classes have retrain abilities built in.
Me, I'd just have him create a new character to preserve continuity. If he wants to retrain the old one, have that one join your next campaign, or keep him around as an NPC. People retire from hazardous occupations all the time, it's no big thing.
Being to make up a completely viable higher level character does bypass a lot of the organic process of character growth. Suboptimal choices are often made in a build because they were optimal at a certain place and time.
===Aelryinth
Right. Nothing. Why would you "charge" a dissatisfied player to bring in a new character?
I recently helped a player turn an old 3.5 druid/sorcerer into a Pathfinder alchemist, using the same name and partial backstory, and choosing feats and abilities that pretty much replicate a lot of what he was doing before, but in all new and different ways. Kept the essence and personality, but created an all-new shell around it. Sort of like a BSG reboot.
I had a blast doing it.
Aelryinth, you imply that completely rebuilding a high level cleric is a bad idea, but then also suggest them make a completely new character?
Not sure how those things are reconciled.
Discourage frivolous rebuilds, but charge nothing.
I would insist that anything really memorable he did with the old PC have some kind of explanation. No going from Wizard to frontline fighter, for example, but from Conjurer to Summoner is nothing. Unless there's some really fitting in-game trauma to explain it. Time travel? I dunno.
If we're talking about same class, or swapping out a multiclass, or re-speccing feats, that isn't even really worth policing. As long as the build is valid, why enforce a rigid continuity on characters? Sure it can get out of hand, so offer a caveat to players: "Don't let this get out of hand, or I will take it away."
Make him buy the pizza for the next few sessions. XP
In seriousness though, I'm with most people here. So long as he isn't going overboard with it, and he doesn't lose anything that has become "iconic" for his character I say just go for it.
Aelryinth, you imply that completely rebuilding a high level cleric is a bad idea, but then also suggest them make a completely new character?
Not sure how those things are reconciled.
It's called story continuity. You're redacting the character (mm, not the right word..). If you don't care about the past and only about going forwards, then no, it doesn't matter.
If you care that character x did this and this in your campaign, but now you're completely changing him so he does that and these instead, you might as well retire him and make a new character that doesn't offend continuity. Keep the old one intact and pristine, acknowledge you want to play something different, and go from there. Easier to introduce a new hero then turn Captain America into Wolverine, right?
Basically, are you telling a story, or letting comic book continuity dominate? The latter allows reboots all the time, but it also invalidates a lot that has gone before.
==Aelryinth
If the character is keeping the same Class... and the same race... What needs to be explained? he's only level 6.
Unless he's a priest changing gods or something... I don't understand what continuity is being destroyed?
If the character originally had 6 ranks in diplomacy... and fast talked his way out of an enounter... Then the NEW continuity says that he rolled a 20 on that now untrained skill and 'got lucky.' New continutiy says don't hope for it again....
If he used to trip people with impunity and never got AoOs... And he wants to get rid of his 'trip'feats.. So what? New story is that A) They got their attack and missed... or B) chose not to take the attack...
Theres enough play room in the dice rolls to justify anything that happened in the first 6 levels of game play.
CASTERS a bit different... if they are going to lose the spells that saved the day... I don't know, say it was on a scroll... These are such minor retcons that I don't see them worth dealing with.
There are a LOT of Feats out there that look awesome on paper, only to find out in game it doesn't WORK that way... If the player is new enough, I don't see a reason to force him to play someone that didn't match up with what's in his head.
That said... I wouldn't just offer it to THAT player... I'd offer a one time re-spec for the whole table.
MOST people wouldn't want to switch out what they've already worked to get... Some may not be happy with a feat that sucked and feel a bit bitter if new guy got a free pass...
Again, it's nothing worth fretting about. It's not like they are level 15-20 and it will alter MASSIVE things... It's level 6!
|
usually i will just retire a character...have them walk off into the sunset so to speak...and build a new one...there was an eberron campaign way back when where i went through at least 6 characters before the halfway point...each time for a completely different reason...
the other option if you want to keep the same character but radically change all aspects of them is to provide some in-game direct deity intervention...in our legacy of fire campaign i was playing a barbarian who over the course of the game was slowly being converted to Sarenrae by the cleric in the party (i think at the beginning of the campaign i worshiped Erastil or something)...as the character was becoming more lawful good i started to become disillusioned by the barbarian's rage ability but i wanted to stay the same character for the conversion arc...
so the dm set up where after doing a side quest assisting the priests at a shrine of Sarenrae they performed a ritual whereby i tested my new faith by volunteering to walk into a raging bonfire...and when i emerged i had transformed into a paladin of Sarenrae of equal level to the barbarian (around level 7 or 8 i think)...all the players at the table really enjoyed the rp aspect and it influenced my character's actions for the rest of the campaign...definitely one of my favourite characters of all time...
edit: oh yeah as a side note...the barbarian's earthbreaker was transformed into a large-sized (i was playing a goliath from races of stone) falchion holy avenger that started out as only a +2 but slowly grew into a fully powered one as i lvl'd...
There are a LOT of Feats out there that look awesome on paper, only to find out in game it doesn't WORK that way... If the player is new enough, I don't see a reason to force him to play someone that didn't match up with what's in his head.
I'd offer a one time re-spec for the whole table.
MOST people wouldn't want to switch out what they've already worked to get... Some may not be happy with a feat that sucked and feel a bit bitter if new guy got a free pass...
This, let it be known that should anyone wish to retrain something about their character, while keeping the same race and class, they would have one chance to do so.
Let it be known as well that this is not to be taken lightly, this is something you are allowing on the virtue of keeping the fun, but should this privilege be abused in any way, it will be removed immediately.
Our GM just had us invest time to learn the new tricks and things, up to a maximum of 2 weeks/character level.
This made for a funny moment where an oracle who wanted to retrain to get the Words of Power due to Ultimate Magus coming out walking into her office (We're playing kingmaker) and not coming out for three months. Her paperwork got shoved under the door, but mostly all anyone heard was back and forth yelling between her and what can only be assumed to be a divine agent.
|
|
This, let it be known that should anyone wish to retrain something about their character, while keeping the same race and class, they would have one chance to do so.
Let it be known as well that this is not to be taken lightly, this is something you are allowing on the virtue of keeping the fun, but should this privilege be abused in any way, it will be removed immediately.
if i were gm'ing (which i've never done) i think i would offer an opportunity to re-tune characters once each time a new book is released...the reasoning for this is that it is assumed that newly-introduced information has always been a part of the world...so it would make sense that the pcs be given a chance to represent these abilities in the game world...rather than saying "yeah these things exist in the world but you cant have them because we didn't tell you they existed at the time"...
in kingmaker i played a stryx rogue with a few levels of fighter thrown in for bab and bonus feats...but the ninja would have fit my character concept way better (i was practically rp-ing a ninja anyway)...if it had been out at the time i would have wanted to rebuild my character as a ninja in a heartbeat...still might build it even though it's over just to see how he would've come out...
Have some magical fountain that works once every millenia or so that alters abilities, feats, etc.
Have the character die then get reincarnated under unusual circumstances that somehow only alters abilities, feats, etc.
My groups is generally not too harsh on things like this, we often allow swapping single feats here and there. We've never had to deal with a full overhaul, though. I'd probably allow a single overhaul per character.
Yes, do it. Have nice day it game, than is ment to be fun. We let rebuld after every part of Adventure Path or every odd level in free form game for new stuff that comes out.
Discourage frivolous rebuilds, but charge nothing.
+1.
In my experience, there are two good arguments for a partial rebuild:
- A new splatbook came out with the perfect feat/archetype/whatever for that particular character.
- The player picked a certain feat/ability/whatever, but he hasn't used it at all since he learned it.
I'm not sure what the best way is to discourage adding new characters, but I hate revolving door adventuring parties.
I'd agree with the general sentiment here. I see no reason why tweaking, slightly rebuilding or the rare overhaul can't happen to a character as long as the core of the character stays the same.
Stuff happens, people get disenchanted, new options are created, feats look better than they play... the reasons go on and on. As long as it's not a constant character-in-flux, i see no reason to penalize people... they just want to enjoy their character.
Especially with some of the books they've made recently O.o
My all time favorite character was a 'martial artist' that I hand made the kit in 2E... If I was bringing him into Pathfinder... It would have been a monk.
and it wouldn't have been NEAR as cool...
The Martial artist Archtype they JUST released is EXACTLY what I would have wanted... If I was half-way through an AP, I'd petition to make some changes so the mechanics actually FIT with the idea in my head now...
Same with Detectives, Archeologists, GLADIATORS... AWESOME Archtypes that you may be ALREADY playing... but the tweaking helps fit your idea better.
There should be no "charge." This is a game. Do what is fun. If this will make the game more fun, then allow it. We had a PC who was a swashbuckler/ranger, and was kind of disatisfied with that build. She rebuilt it as a pure ranger, and has much more fun.
Don't be over concerned about story. The past is the past, and can't be changed, but going forward, you can have more and more fun. So try to maximize fun!
Stuff happens, people get disenchanted, new options are created, feats look better than they play... the reasons go on and on.
Personally, I've had a couple of bad experiences with games falling apart after rebuilding, but character dissatisfaction was probably just a symptom of a bigger problem in those cases.