Gromnir

oddly enough, many o' the ranger 3.5 improvements were available much earlier. sure, they weren't official wotc, but given that d20 were ogl that were kinda irrelevant. monte cook, a guy who had worked on d&d 3e, came up with a ranger alternative. 3.0 were 2000. monte cook' released revised ranger earlyish (maybe) in 2001. 3.5 weren't released til 2003. yeah, crpgs is different. am understanding that it takes more for obsidian to make wholesale changes to a poe class than it does for a pnp gm to do something similar. given all the re-balancing and bug fixing that will inevitably require obsidian attention in the coming months, one realizes that there will be a need to allocate resources efficiently, and a substantial re-tool o' the ranger seems unlikely given what one must assume is gonna be an otherwise full workload for the developer. even so, the ranger is currently the one class we got 0 interest in playing, and that is unfortunate. it is the one class we feel is bordering on being broken. we would hope that improvements to the ranger would be a high priority, even if we can't get a monte cook kinda fix in the near future. ... monte cook's ranger may actual be a verboten subject on these boards given the iwd2 issues. HA! Good Fun!

Annnd, there it is again, that strawman. Just can't bear to let it go, can you? You really have lost this debate, haven't you? Weren't you quite supportive of Josh's attempts at eliminating most broken game mechanics resulting in easy but dull exploits? You do realize that "don't use it" is the lazy (and invalid) counter-"argument" against that too. Rest-spamming? "Don't use it." Etc. As to the "but the bugs!" argument, we already addressed that. Bugs should be addressed by patches, and, as an ultimate last resort, the console, not by adding features that make the game worse. Thing is, those choices and consequences are every bit as central to my experience as role-playing choices and consequences. It's the other side of the coin: the impact I've had on the world, and the character I've become. Weak, Gromz. Weak. 1) you clear don't know what strawman is. 2)huh? first, there is no strawman in pointing out that if an OPTIONAL feature destroys your notion o' choice and consequences, you need not use that feature. am not sure what previous non-existent argument Gromnir created and then destroyed as is contained in your quoted material. regardless, it is axiomatic that an optional feature need not be used. duh. as for the second bit o nonsense, we say again, "huh?" you make no sense. respec would not alter any o' the ways in which you impacted the world before the respec. none o' your choices is changed. one motivation for folks to restart a new character instead o' respec is to actual go back to square one and play the game more in-line with how they imagined their character would impact the game world. a shortcoming o' respec, for some folks, is that in spite o' developer error, a player is stuck with all the consequences o' his choices before the respec. nevertheless, is a balancing decision. with respec in the game, a player gotta decide if fixing her character and moving forward is better than restarting-- such a choice is necessitated by the fact that respec does Not alter the choices and consequences o' choices made Before the respec. again, duh. so, pj has now learned that respec is an optional feature, and hopefully that his understanding o' strawman is flawed. hopefully he has also learned that choices and consequences from before the respec is unaltered, in spite o' the fact that many such choices and consequences are not what the player reasonably envisioned when he created his character. because o' bugs, ambiguous feature descriptions and changes to the game after patches, a player may discover after only many hours o' gameplay that their choices were perverted, albeit unintentionally, by developer error. stun's doozies o' the day: "And yet, you have advocated that the mere presence of bugs is reason enough to not even buy this game until a year from now." yes. precisely because bugs is inevitable, it is in a person's best interest to wait six months to a year before playing new software. we has also noted price drops as a reason for waiting. near the end o' one o' josh's recent streaming videos, he noted that his recent play o' the game on hard showed him that many things in the game is still not working correct. he also noted that balancing efforts would be continuing for the foreseeable future. josh knows that stuff will need fixing. for folks who have not bought the game through kickstarter, wait is the best plan. but again, your slippery-slope nonsense has u adding no features to the game 'cause o' fear o' bugs, and that is ridiculous. any feature can be bugged, and is naive and myopic to believe that poe will be bug-free. can respec be bugged? sure, but as an optional feature, the absolute worst that can happen is that it don't work and the player is in the same situation as they woulda' been without respec... so they needs start-over, wait for the next patch, or endure. is actual kinda a no-brainer. "I'm truly sorry for trying to rain on your optimism, but I have bad news for you. A respec feature will not fix broken talent descriptions - painlessly or otherwise. It might, however, allow you to replace one broken talent with another. So rejoice in that! " yeah. that is precisely the point. again, duh. what is with you and pj? *shrug* respec will not fix the broken talent. however, if the player knew the talent were broken, would they have chosen it? a significant % o' folks woulda' chosen different. respec fixes a wrong and returns meaning to the player choice. a choice that would never have been made save for unforeseen developer error can be corrected without needing wait for a patch, restart the game or endure. am baffled by you two. you say ridiculous, and Gromnir is then forced to do nothing save repeat. however, we do note that pj echoes silent winter's observations about the cost v. benefit o' adding such a feature. is nothing insightful seeing as how silent already addressed the issue. 'course Gromnir already replied... so once again we would be repeating self. *shrug* there can be considerable frustration from playing a broke character, from having your character development choices subverted by misleading feature descriptions and hidden aspects o' the mechanics and from simple bugs. am not genuine knowing what is the cost o' adding such a feature, but am certain that the cost to players who suffer frustration is high. pj pointed out to us just how vital choice and consequences is to him, and many folks feel similar-- user error should not invalidate player choice. respec is an imperfect fix for what even josh seems to recognize is the inevitable incomplete nature o' poe at release. HA! Good Fun!

You really love this strawman, don't you? Just can't bear to let it go. So much easier to address than the actual argument. Which is, if I may remind you: "The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." Nothing to do with "upright and pure role-players o' justice," or caring the least bit how somebody else plays the game. Keep going though, you're quite entertaining, especially with the memes and the videos. I guess they work in the courtroom too, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Chewbacca defense and all. am thinking you don't know strawman any better than stun believes he does. but if that is the actual rock upon which you wish to reject a possible respec, that the mere presence o' respec, whether used or not offends, we is happy to oblige. fine. the dangers obsidian needs concern themselves regarding respec is not as has been mentioned in this and other threads that respec can be used to game the game , but rather that, "The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." *chuckle* don't use it. can your game be trivialized by the fact that Gromnir or fenwick or any other player used respec? you are speaking utter nonsense. and we already addressed this point regardless: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71211-can-you-respec/?p=1586759 you have the problem reversed. developer errors in the form o' bugs and ambiguities is what, "detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." when factors complete out of our control, such as poor written talent descriptions and bugs, invalidate our choices, there should be a way relative painless way to fix the wrong that otherwise made mockery o' those choices. so, stand up for CRPG Justice and demand that developer error should never be an excuse for robbing you o' the meaning o' your crucial choices. HA! you and stun, what a pair? "I'll ask again. How are you coming to the conclusion that a game with broken build mechanics won't also have an equally broken respec mechanic?" nominee for dumbest response o' the day? the mere possibility that a fix or feature could be buggy is hardly a reason to avoid adding a feature. am certain if you genuine reflect for even a few seconds you will realize the utter ridiculousness o' the slippery-slope bound suggestion. HA! Good Fun! ps pj we also forgot to mention pj's obvious naughty. respec, by its very nature, leaves most choices and consequences resulting from player actions and dialogue untouched. skip the fight with Bert the Bucolic, but got labeled as a coward in Kustak Village? respec don't change that. is only the future consequences and choices resulting from altered character-building choices that is gonna be impacted... which is kinda the point.

sure it were insulting. it were a joke. bestiary and exploration and lock and trap xp as implemented is little more than a kinda laugh at the folks demanding such. is the minimum somebody at obsidian thought would be enough to quiet the kill xp folks. the extraordinary thing is, it kinda worked. woody walked out o' ms. howe's office with a smile on his face? is no wonder that new folks to the board and beta is still starting combat xp threads. the folks who didn't buy-in to bestiary recognize that it ain't kill xp, not by a long shot. HA! Good Fun!

... you honestly consider the bestiary to be developer implementation o' what folks were demanding when they asked for combat xp? HA! HAAHHHAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA! you are more amusing or dumber than we thought. ok, that were funny. HA! Good Fun! ps surprised we got to use again... woody. pps since you misunderstood, the imagined dangers we reference is the potential exploitation issues caused by respec. yes, the level o' frustration from playing a broken character is disturbingly likely. what is not significant is the damage a player could do to balance o' the game with a single respec. am not certain why you thought that an unsatisfying respec would amount to a danger, but we apologize for the ambiguity regardless.

we were gonna argue, but you is at least mostly correct. particularly in the last few decades, college basketball has become increasing poor. am suspecting that for most players, college basketball is little more than an extension o' aau/summer leagues. coaches need cater to the players. can watch similar quality o' basketball in gyms and in parks in nyc and chicago and la and all throughout the atlantic coast region. however, we haven't been a particular dedicated basketball fan since the mid 90s. the game don't appeal to us as it once did. HA! Good Fun!

You forgot one. For players who won't be happy until PoE resembles Diablo 3 or Dragon Age inquisition, there's the door -----> funny. for some reason we were just reminded o' some your combat xp protests and other appeals. wonder why, eh? and yes, we suspect that more than a few folks will discover that a single respec is insufficient. even so, the imagined dangers o' a single respec is very slight and the benefits to the inevitably frustrated players, players frustrated through no fault o' their own in many cases, are significant. it's a sp game, so why folks care if others respec is beyond us, but we do understand developer concerns that excessive respec could be exploited to ruin game balance. Gromnir were not pretending a perfect solution that would make everybody happy... is not some kinda modern fairy tale or cheesy anime scenario. a world where nobody has to cry? *snort* folks will be disappointed regardless. however, respec would significantly alleviate frustration and would decrease some o' the inevitable displeasure folks will vent at the developers while they needs wait for obsidian's next patch, or the patch after that, or the one after that. HA! Good Fun!

stun enjoys proving our point. Gromnir: a stun: "after reading (Gromnir's) incessant blatherings, that PoE wasn't a game, so much as a giant mass of broken code trying to pass for a game. Gromnir: A am not certain what is the motivation for being so transparent obtuse. you insisting on telling us what we said and purposeful doing wrong is not nearly as amusing or efficacious as you seem to believe. also, what we will do in absence o' respec is proving our point. we already said what were our options, many times now. is where we pointed out that you have no idea what is false dilemma fallacy, recall? we also noted that depending on the severity o' brokenness o' a character, we would choose different options and that our notion o' broken would be different from many other folks. regardless, we assume that if we genuine is faced with a broken character, a disturbingly likely eventuality, we will need deal with some degree o' wholly unnecessary frustration. but again, here we is repeating self. "eat rude brains." "I just don't really see a large negative to restarting to create a new character and having no respec." is perfectly acceptable. everybody likes different. some folks don't mind restarting after dozens o' hours o' time invested. other folks, understandably, feel frustrated that rules mechanics ambiguities or bugs invalidated a character concept. is perfectly fine to have different pov. respec is completely unnecessary for amentep, yes? no problem. amentep wouldn't ever need use such a feature, so no harm done. HA! Good Fun!

poe is a game. just an observation in case it went unnoticed. HA! Good Fun!

agreed. in point o' fact, we see much merit in the profeshnul reviewers doing at least some minimum testing on an approximate minimum spec machine to see how games perform on such rigs. ... 'course, we don't actual bother to read game reviews, so perhaps we is not the ideal commentator. that being said, likely the only aspects o' reviews that would interest us is whether game X can run on Y rig and other pure technical and objective observations. HA! Good Fun!

change settings and reload is hardly the same as having a live gm... ain't even similar. thank goodness. and am not sure what you think "from a relevance standpoint" actual means, unless you is trying to say that pj were claiming that his tailoring o' encounters and house rules were genuine equivalent to settings and reload... which would be ridiculous. *shrug* discuss with pj and stun invariably becomes a vaudeville act. Gromnir: a pj and stun: Gromnir said, "b." Gromnir: a pj and stun: Gromnir meant c. Gromnir: A pj and stun: ... is a dead end. and yes, we get the irony o' Gromnir playing the straight man in this little comedy bit. even so, all we gets to do is repeat self. HA! Good Fun! ps "Not a big fan of respecing (I usually just restart the game if not happy with my choices and create a new character from scratch)." that, in our estimation, is exact why a single respec is warranted. particularly in the case where is developer errors that ruin a character concept (e.g. dragon age :origin archers) the expedient o' starting from scratch, after potential dozens o' hours o' invested gameplay, is not a solution we embrace cheerfully. weren't Gromnir's mistake, but if we wanna fix we gotta replay potential dozens o' hours, wait for a patch (weeks or months) which might fix the problem, or endure. additional, we look at bb and the confusion 'bout rules mechanics from people who has posted here daily for months and we cannot help but think that more than a few folks who is less invested in poe is gonna be mighty confused by how poorly their character concept actual performs. they read descriptions and invested points reasonable and their character still sux? what possible harm? is a single respec. for folks who believes their character is genuine broken, a respec would, we suspect, be quite welcome. for the folks who somehow manage to find a way to abuse a single respec in a game that is s'posed to be balanced, so what? is a sp game, no? if some joker, who likely needs meta knowledge, finds a way to game the game with a single respec, why should we care? for the upright and pure role-players o' justice who would never use such a filthy feature, respec should be no concern at all, yes?

pj and reply/bs pnp is not irrelevant. your 30 years never respecing players in pnp is irrelevant precisely 'cause you got a live gm to tailor encounters and create house rules. is a reading comprehension issue we s'pose. can't get any further if that is how you start. "Wait... Ok, let me see if I can sum up your argument here." you are as predictable as pj... and as hypocritical. don't sum up. you did that in the romance thread too. didn't turn out well for you then either. HA! Good Fun!

bg combat was horrible. ps:t weren't noticeably better in our estimation. however, as much as we is loathe to admit it, there were a few bg encounters (typical the party v. party battles) that were genuine engaging. ps:t didn't have anything similar. the cranium rats coulda' been fantastic, but they were kinda a let down. coulda had interesting tactics dealing with an enemy that gains/loses power with numbers. have rats seeming flooding into a room as you is trying to keep numbers below threshold where they could incinerate your party? oh well. 'course is ultimately subjective. HA! Good Fun!

Good god. What a presumptuous load of wash. For one, Speak for yourself. Bad/broken builds don't frustrate me, they do the opposite. They challenge me. In PoE, if my fighter isn't 'tanky' enough because I managed to build him wrong or whatever, I'll *will* him to be more tanky...with actual gameplay. I'll scour the game for better armor. I'll pick 'tanky' talents on my next 6 level ups. I'll enchant my gear with 'tanky' enchantments. I'll recruit spell casters who can cast 'tanky buffs" on me. etc. I'm not a weak-minded ADD suffering casual. I don't need a reset button on my RPGs, like you do. what is your problem. we specific addressed this already by noting how subjective brokenness is. it ain't for Gromnir or stun to decide. "our definition o' broken is necessarily subjective. is many character builds we would be content to play even though the rules descriptions don't match the actual gameplay resulting in a disconnect between our role-play choices and the actual character we end up with in poe. our level o' tolerance for such will be different than many other folks. why should we get to decide what is the threshold for broken? why should stun? poe is a single-player game. the goal is for the player to have fun. if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution?" am freaking stuck repeating self to stun... what a waste. "@Gromnir, I wasn't ranting against you, and I agree with you, that a bad experience as a result of bugs, which cannot simply be adjusted is a serious problem. I do find respec a fix for that. But if they release a game, where they feel it's necessary to put a mechanic in like that, just to deal with buggy content, then the game got bigger problems than bad builds in my opinion." dunno. it seems to be par for the course in our experience. am not able to recall the last crpg we played that didn't have a few major mechanical bugs that were only fixed after a patch that came at least weeks (and more likely months) following the release. wasteland 2 is a recent example. all one needs do is look at the patch notes to see the extent o'' the mechanics blunders that were still being fixed months following release o' wasteland 2. and let's be honest for a sec, obsidian/bis has a rather unfortunate reputation when it comes to stability and bugs in their game releases. that being said, am not seeing a buggy release as a particular problem-- is simply a given. we expect that in a few months, poe will be relatively stable and most major rules mechanics bugs will be eliminated. that doesn't bother us, but we ain't pretending that this release will be different from all other obsidian/bis releases. HA! Good Fun! ps and one need not look very hard in the bb section o' the board to see the numerous folks who is confused about the current rules mechanics in poe. descriptions frequent don't match actual performance or is outdated or is seeming plain wrong. some people who follow these boards daily and have beta experience are unsure about how various mechanics actual work. near as bad as bugs is the seeming impenetrable nature o' poe mechanics. is tough to reasonably punish players for their $#@% choices if those players is not having genuine knowledge o' what they is choosing.

it is, in some ways, an amazingly poor game. combat encounters is having little variation or complexity. many folks familiar with the other ie games would no doubt be shocked by just how poorly the ps:t engaged the player. the game is woeful unbalanced in favor o' mages and a handful o' abilities-- we won't spoil as to which abilities is seeming vital. more than a few women players complained about having to play as a male quasi-corpse, and while we don't/didn't share those sentiments we get that the choice o' protagonist unduly disenfranchised a significant number o' players. as much as we liked the game and the writing, there were a bit o' excessive navel gazing (even for the setting) and the philosophy-for-dummies approach were frequently annoying to us. the game were extreme buggy, even by bis standards. the memory-leak issues were requiring complete restarts after multi-hour gaming sessions. there were more broken quests than we could count. also, and we know many will disagree, but we thought ps:t were the start o' a long succession o' games that ended poorly and/or abruptly. not wanna spoil, but the actual final confrontation were meh. is actual our favorite pc crpg. however, we recognize that ps:t had many amazing flaws. HA! Good Fun!

They're not forced to do any such thing. Hell, forget False Dilemma, this is a straw man. you should stick with false dilemma. honest. you clear don't know straw man. we has observed that the frustrated and disgruntled player has option o' waiting for patches (weeks and months o' waiting) that frequently break the game in new ways, OR they can finish game with the character that they find frustrating OR they can start over. we asked for alternatives. is not a false dilemma unless we offer disingenuous alternatives and force a choice. so, come up with the alternatives we missed. respec is an alternative. as for da:i endless respec... ... thought we made clear that we were suggesting a single respec. am admitting we ain't played da:i, but "endless" sounds like more than one. "Players should be forced to live with their ****ty choices or start the whole game over. Games should not be discouraging, but respec and all the other hand holding features in games are unhealthy for the player. If you want to build a character and just choose ****ty stuff, because you won't bother to research what you're doing, you need to be punished for it. You feel no satisfaction, if you get it easy" am not wholly in agreement, but for the most part, we ain't actual arguing with you. we keep mentioning bugs and poor written talent descriptions as prime reasons for respec. even if you believe that the player should be given the wonderfully stark alternative between restart and endurance, that don't change the fact that frequent what makes the player choice $% is developer error. am not seeing why players need be punished, but if they do, surely they should not be punished for developer mistakes. that strikes us as more than just a bit unfair. HA! Good Fun!

is not a false dilemma. do you know what is false dilemma? we said respec gives players an option to fix broken characters... characters broken through no fault of their own. we did not offer a choice between respec and a false range o' alternatives. for chrissakes, what is kids learning in schools these days? and pj is being willful obtuse... again. stating your experience to bolster (and in your case, to replace) an argument is a poor argument, since you had no actual argument. you have 30 years experience and never had to respec? HA! we addressed that. so what? so what you got 30 years and so what you never had need o' respec. as Gromnir pointed out before you, a Living Gm won't be available in poe. we observed that as a living gm we could tailor encounters and create house rules. those are not options in poe. you made an irrelevant observation and attempted to give it merit by telling us how much experience you got. you replaced an argument and instead gave us resume material. *snort* http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66210-the-possibility-of-a-delayed-2015-release/?p=1450898 and again, is a pattern with you. being wrong could also be part o' the pattern... though we do concede that you actual made relevant arguments in the other thread. still, you were clear wrong... in spite o' your certainty and experience. as for robbing o' consequences, we has covered that ad nauseum. first, you ain't established that robbing o' consequences is a genuine worthy reason to prevent respec. a player made a mistake and thought 1h weapons would be a viable weapon choice. 1/3 through the game they realize that 1h weapon style were a poor choice. and? what is the value in forcing bob to either restart game or finish game with a character he discovered after many hours were a fraud. the character he meant to role-play as a combat expert turned out to be a combat liability? in any event, a single respec robs very little, not that you has shown that anything o' value has been robbed... and who is being robbed in any event? is this pj paternalism? is you deciding for the player that they are robbing themselves o' consequences? in the alternative, developer bugs and poor crafted rules descriptions actual do rob the player o' the meaning o' their choices. what Bob thought he were getting when he put points in dex before 480 were not what he actual got. there will be many similar problems at release. is many people still confused about what various talents do. there will be folks who were robbed o' the meaning o' their choices. the goal o' obsidian is to get folks to buy poe and future games. frustrate players unnecessarily is not aiding in such a goal. does need wait for a patch to be released to fix a major mechanical error increase player frustration? yes. does starting game over after dozens o' hours o' gameplay 'cause the player feels they were misled by poor worded talent descriptions tend to increase player frustration? yes. respec would save the developers grief. respec would avoid frustration for some and possibly many players. so what is the actual argument against a single respec? HA! Good Fun!

our definition o' broken is necessarily subjective. is many character builds we would be content to play even though the rules descriptions don't match the actual gameplay resulting in a disconnect between our role-play choices and the actual character we end up with in poe. our level o' tolerance for such will be different than many other folks. why should we get to decide what is the threshold for broken? why should stun? poe is a single-player game. the goal is for the player to have fun. if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution? as for silent winter's valid suggestion, we has already responded: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70370-option-to-respec/?p=1568555 even stun ain't wrong all the time. poe is a story-driven game. as such, we suspect that changing stuff such as race, background or culture could be problematic. HA! Good Fun!

actually, we clear responded to your silly and empty appeal to authority. you had no argument save for a logic fallacy... one which you has made use of before today. we revealed the fallacy and the habit. a declaration o' victory is curious response, but am suspecting that is another one o' your canned responses in the face o' failure. regardless, discuss the topic, to which you ain't actual added anything, or... is up to you. but, since you need a review, we has pointed out multiple times that poe won't have a live gm, so your observations and experience contributes nothing relevant. HA! Good Fun!

But there's a gigantic difference, especially in a game like PoE, where your character is "the chosen one", where your Biography is filled out and tracked based on every choice you make; and where there will probably be quests and NPCs that react to you based on your class. To replace your character with a different one halfway through would break the narrative. Again, stop defending stupid modern game safety-net mechanics. A distinction without a point. There will be no broken characters in PoE. And the game already gives you difficulty settings in case you manage to build a weak character. So, what's your point? Oh yeah, I forgot who I'm talking to. You don't have one. ... is bizarre. we keep observing that pnp and crpg is different. yes, the inflexibility o' crpg storytelling and the lack o' a living gm/dm precludes re-rolling a new character as a viable solution to broken characters in poe, which is why we ask for respec. duh. once again, crpgs and pnp is different, which is why the solutions, while achieving the same thing (a new character build) is different. am baffled by the lack o' comprehension. and we needs laugh at your belief that there will be no broken characters. is this the first crpg you ever have played? between bugs and poorly written talents and ability descriptions and simple mistakes by player, many folks will get deep into the game and realize their careful crafted role-play choices were rendered meaningless. and we similarly chuckle at pj, the guy who, if we recall correct, wanted to bet money that the poe release date would not go past 2014 'cause he were also an expert on software development? got 30 years experience in that field too? *shrug* am suspecting pj ain't played many new pnp rules systems in his 30 years. sure, as we noted above, we use house rules and tailored encounters to deal with most broken character situations, but is more than a few rules systems, particularly new ones, that has led to woeful broken characters, AND there is no live gm in poe to tailor encounters and create house rules... which were our point. what is with you folks? HA! Good Fun!

depends. plot, characters and setting? they is gonna be complete different. however, am gonna expect sharing and possible evolution o' thematic development. am suspecting that playing ps:t will not be necessary, but am believing that having played ps:t will enrich your torment (2015-16) experience. you don't need read in dubious battle and of mice and men to appreciate the grapes of wrath. even so, am thinking to read all three leads, potential, to a different level o' appreciation. HA! Good Fun!

In your hypothetical, Bob isn't respeccing, his character is. Which is a rather important distinction, considering that PoE is a party based game where the player is controlling up to 6 characters at once. But your point (And Voss' point) is well taken. PoE is built upon the mechanic that there is a "Main" character. Therefore it's silly to cite PnP as any sort of analogy for that. But hey, lets not let faulty hypotheticals get in the way of our defense of stupid modern game features. actually, we already showed how complete illusory were your distinction between re-rolling and respecing. "respec and play from same place in the campaign. "v. "retire old character and re-create a character o' the same level who joins the campaign seamlessly at next town or wherever dm chooses. "pretend that there is a difference is silly... stoopid." recall now? oh, and note that pnp is not same as crpg is also funny since we already did so. your selective amnesia is becoming amusing. that there is no live gm to create house rules for a crpg. is no live gm to tailor encounters to accommodate a broken character. and *sigh* there is no live gm that allows us to re-roll and re-level and re-gear a new character and re-enter the campaign seamlessly. all o' which is very good reasons for adding respec. you up to speed? HA! Good Fun!

I see. In that case, PoE already has a "respec" feature. Don't like your Wizard? that's fine, get rid of him and hire a Chanter of the exact same level the next time you're at an Inn. actually, no, that isn't at all analogous. allow everybody in our hypothetical pnp group but Bob to respec? doesn't seem fair. Bob is still stuck with his broken character, but every other party member can be changed? ... you aren't trying very hard, are you? HA! Good Fun!

Correct. In that scenario we'll give Bob the option to retire his character and play a different one. We won't, for example, suddenly break the campaign by having the Gods/genie-in-a-bottle/Ring of 10 wishes, drop down from the sky and morph his badly built character into something new and improved right in the middle of the adventure. actually, that is effectively what we do. respec and play from same place in the campaign. v. retire old character and re-create a character o' the same level who joins the campaign seamlessly at next town or wherever dm chooses. pretend that there is a difference is silly... stoopid. what we don't do is force the campaign back to day 1 when everybody were level 1. we don't force the entire group to replay the exact same adventures and encounters for... what? why? bad rules, ambiguities, mistakes and other such nonsense is not a reason to force a complete unnecessary replay o' potential months o' gameplay... or days/weeks in crpg. HA! Good Fun!

take responsibility? ... it's a freaking game. you didn't get a girl pregnant or take out a mortgage on your home. your responsibility is to pay for the game... period. as a consumer, you have a reasonable expectation that the game will be fun. if developer mistakes and rule ambiguities result in your enjoyment o' the game being diminished, we could argue that the developers have a responsibility to fix the problem. is a patch a month or three from now sufficient effort on the part o' the developer? perhaps. what do you do in the interim while you got a broken character, or at least a character that doesn't fulfill your role-play expectations even though you read the in-game descriptions o' talents and abilities? for chrissakes, if this were pnp, and you discovered that the rules of a brand new system were predictably broken such that it made Bob's character horribly unfun for him, what kinda arse-bag gm/dm would simple tell Bob that he should man-up and "take responsibility"? the goal in pnp is no different than a crpg: we are playing the game to have fun. as a gm/dm, if we see Bob gots serious screwed 'cuse o' his character development choices, we ain't gonna twist him up and force him to keep playing a broken character 'cause o' some kinda misplaced notions o' fairness and responsibility. it's a game, but is not as if one guy at the gaming table gets declared the winner. we does what it takes to make the game enjoyable for players. as a gm/dm in a pnp situation, we can typical tailor encounters to overcome most shortcomings o' player design. if we can't fix by tailoring encounters, we create house-rules and make alterations. is any number o' ways a pnp gm/dm can make Bob's playing with a broken character a fun experience. worst-case scenario, if we can't fix problem, we allow Bob to roll a new character at the same level as the rest o' the folks at the table, and we continue playing. but we is talking 'bout crpgs and there is no living gm. if obsidian made a mistake with mechanics and Bob is constant failing reflex checks and dying disproportionate, obsidian can't tailor so is far fewer reflex checks. obsidian can't create house-rules on the fly to deal with the busted mechanic resulting in Bob's perpetual fail relex saves. obsidian needs create a patch, whcih takes weeks to months to reach the player, and the patch is likely to break other aspects o' the game. obsidian should take responsibility. is a game and we is a paying customer. we got no responsibility. obsidian has a responsibility to us. make fun. patches is a good start on taking responsibility, but a single respec would go a long way in diminishing the inevitable damage broken mechanics, rule ambiguity and bugs is gonna cause their paying customers. take responsibility? *snort* HA! Good Fun!