More of an opinion thing, I guess, but with the proliferation of Archetypes, I'm a bit concerned about an unintended consequence that I really don't yet have a name for.
With Prestige classes (the most obvious comparison), when one is published, as a player, you can say to yourself "wow, that's really cool, and I never thought about it, but what a great fit for my PC!" With a bit of retraining, and some storytelling, you can pick up that Prestige class for that PC, and add some desired coolness to your PC.
I do not think that there are yet any "rules" about anything like retraining into an Archetype. For instance, there sounds to be a number of really cool archetypes coming in Ultimate magic, and I daresay in Ultimate Combat, but if you've been slogging your way from first to 12th level, and suddenly there is a Bard archetype that totally fits your concept, you have no "canonical" way to pick it up...
How would you, as a GM, adjudicate this? There are serious retcon issues that could come up with Archetype retraining, for instance a Rogue suddenly forgetting how to find traps seems a bit far-fetched... BUT, we as GM's have "magic" to rely on to explain that away.
for instance, a Magic Item (perhaps created along the lines of a Golem Manual in cost and creation), that would enable the reader to re-spec a class as a new Archetype? To me that seems like a reasonable option, but is that a can of worms, and how would you adjudicate it? Is re-speccing to take on an archetype something that could be allowed more than once for a multiclass PC?
I can predict that there would be a number of issues, mechanically, with this, but it seems to me that the inability to take on an Archetype later in a PC's career is going to frustrate more players than it helps.
Then do the obvious: permit it. I generally allow this kind of thing to occur during "down time" when new books are released.
After all, if the new book has goodies for the PCs ... it also might have goodies for the bad guys. This lets me ret-con them too. ^_^
In super hero games, you can have "radiation accidents" when you spend lots of XP at once to gain new powers, or an excuse to re-work your character. Basically you have an in-game excuse for the rework (included with the GMs permission)
In fantasy, that trope is a lot less common. You can still do it, but it's more of a stretch. Next time you die and are raised from the dead, the gods might send you back changed. You could mis-cast a spell, or have a divine epiphany and be changed by the power. Loosing skills/feats/abilities you used to have but lost in the change can be hard to rationalize, but is not without precedent. Sorcerers and others can swap out spells from new ones right now, fighters can swap feats.
If a new archetype comes out that mechanically fits the character's concept better then what they were using, I don't have a problem with it. If a player wants to abuse it, put your foot down.
How would you, as a GM, adjudicate this? There are serious retcon issues that could come up with Archetype retraining, for instance a Rogue suddenly forgetting how to find traps seems a bit far-fetched... BUT, we as GM's have "magic" to rely on to explain that away.
As a player, I've retconned two of my characters using stuff from the APG (a weapon-using monk switching to the Weapon Adept archetype and a cleric switching the Destruction domain for the Catastrophe subdomain). The GM said "fine by me" and the change was almost seamless.
If there was really a huge change (like a bomb-using alchemist switching to a bombless archetype), I might ask the player to explain it in-character, but even that's not strictly necessary (IMO).
What's gonna be the most fun for everyone involved?
I would just make it a clean change, no muss, no fuss. If you are absolutely bent on dealing with the change in character, you could always go the route of "you are hit very hard, knocked unconscious, and you have lost portions of your memory." Allow them to roleplay the 'discovery' of their new abilities.
I would argue that the mechanics change should not really make that much of a difference as long as the RP char concept doesn't change. In my campaign we just rapped up last week I ret-coned my Cleric/Ranger to an Inquisitor/Ranger because an inquisitor better fit my character concept of being an Undead hunter than just as a Cleric.
As long as the Character is the same person from an RP standpoint you can always just fudge the mechanics issue. If the concept completely changes who the person is and his motivations etc. then I wouldn't allow.
Changing b/c new rules better fit your concept-- Go for it
Changing b/c new options are super powerful and would really optimize my character to destroy everything in sight--- no thanks
Sounds like a resounding *shrug* from the gathered Unconventional Convention... good to know, thanks.
I guess the only time I might object to something would be if a player was trying to swap out an ability their PC had used many, many times. In that case, I'd have to think about it a bit.
I guess the only time I might object to something would be if a player was trying to swap out an ability their PC had used many, many times. In that case, I'd have to think about it a bit.... Why?
I mean, Sorcerors can forget a spell that they've cast 1,000s of times and no-one bats an eye.
What possible, fun-based rationale is there for denying this?
I can't speak for you, but I find it disorienting if there are radical changes going on in the party's composition with little or no explanation. So if a player wanted to radically rebuild his character every few sessions just because a new book came out, I'd find that a turn-off. A one-time radical rebuild might be okay (using a custom magic item or spell, like the original poster suggested). YMMV, of course.