Respec?

[Shadenuat]

This is ridiculous. Respec should't exist in a game with save/load option and where skills would possibly affect dialogue outcome.

Not to mention all the strategic value and taking consequences of your actions which long term planning adds to roleplaying system.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Althernai]

It depends on how game balance is designed. If the balance is such that you have to respec, then the problem is most definitely not solved. If you don't need to respec to solve the game, then it does nothing but add an unrealistic gimmick. The very presence of respec will alter the game in a significant manner.

No, it will not. You are missing the point of this option: it is to let players who don't fully understand the system correct a character build that is not working the way they expected it to work. These rule systems are invariably complex and with complexity comes the potential to screw up. The option to respect is there to fix a badly broken build. It has no impact on the balance because it is too rare and too expensive to use for anything other than making a generally bad build better. In particular, it is not something that can be used on a per-encounter basis or even a per-boss basis -- you can only do it a few times a game.

[diablo169]

Respecs have no place in a single player CRPG, this isnt an MMO. If you screw up your build then either load a prior save or start again...

[mediocrepoet]

 

It's unclear to me why you shouldn't expect people to be able to read what the abilities they're choosing do and to live with that choice once chosen. Not many games give you take backs on any choice you make simply because you realize later it may not have been optimal or you were careless - and if you do so need that option, there is a feature called load saved game.

 

Having stable skills and abilities is part of what makes a character that character instead of a specialist in whatever catches the player's fancy that instant. Beyond that, what is the rationale in a world for having a person (PC/NPC) who one day is great at something and the next day barely understands the basics of it?

[Sistergoldring]

Well personally I don't use respec options but I've been playing these sort of games for a long time now and am pretty familiar with the CC process and I don't much care if my character build is suboptimal so long as it is consistent with the character I'm playing. However I don't feel against it being a feature for other players as long as there is something to deter it being used as a combat tactic.

 

If I was new to the genre I can see that it might be possible to pick badly and in fact to pick so badly that you lose enjoyment in the game particularly if PE has (as I hope it does) a complex CC system. So I guess I would support it if a respec option was included, I don't want anyone who could enjoy PE to throw in the towel because they've accidently gimped themselves horribly. I think that it's OK to be a little forgiving of mistakes and provide and avenue for an inexperienced player to rectify some poor build choices.

[evdk]

Respec? Despect!

 

[argan]

No. Just no. You screw up - you start the game anew.

 

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

You should definitely be able to change your spec if you aren't happy with the one you have chosen. Maybe through a quest chain or something. But there is no reason to force a new person to just deal with it, because that will turn people away from the game. I am not sure why all these "hardcore" gamers want to take away all the perks for the rest of us. I am aware that some of you want to hardest game imaginable, but that's why there are iron man modes. If you want to keep the same spec for bragging rights or whatever, far be it from me to stop you, but don't try to limit tools in the game for others. It makes you look like an elitist ass.

 

Well, to be fair, you knew the type of game that you pledged to on Kickstarter. A spiritual successor to "old school" RPGs such as Baldur's Gate which definitely didn't allow you to "respec" or something like that. I fail to see how Obsidian living up to their promise is "taking the game away" from you.

Edited October 30, 2012 by argan

[rjshae]

I support the option of a complete skill respec. You quite often wind up not having your build just the way you want it, you find out a skill you selected sucked and you are stuck with it etc, but it's not like you would bother starting over. I don't mind it costing a lot of gold or some experience even, so you don't misuse it.

If there is a skill respec then I'd like to see it happen via an in-game mechanic.For example: using a method comparable to what was done in the Dollhouse series, except you'd be paying for intensive and lengthy memory surgery by an arch-Cipher.

[Tuckey]

Just have an out of game app like shadowkeeper for those that want to respec; keep the respecing out of the actual game through.

[Farbautisonn]

 

Yes and no. Sometimes its because you have have an idea that you think you are building, even for RP purposes, and then come to find out you misread something, or its just not doing what you expected it. Then it can hurt both the tactical combat, and also how you viewed the RP part of your character as well.

And then you live with your choises and play the next playthrough whilst metagaming. Its fine by me. I dont metagame, but I undestand some might like to. If you do not expect your toon to make mistakes, if you want the "perfect playthrough" in your first playthrough, then you arent really playing to enjoy the story or to experience the game. Youre just in it for stats and gear. Find a savegame editor. Those will abound too.

 

And sometimes it doesn't reveal itself instantly.

No? Should it? Must it?

 

It may be the 3rd or 4th tier if talents that reminds you "boy did I screw that up." Its happened to me in WOW, in Borderlands, DAO, and virtually any other game that has talents and skills like that. I get about 20-30 hours in, realize I screwed up, respec, and then usually finish out the game having played it enough to understand how the mechanics worked. So... its both for RP and tactical purposes.

And then you play your next playthough armed with that knowledge. Then you can choose to metagame, or try out new stuff and see if that works better or differently. I fail to see why one must have everything handed to you on a platter during the first playthrough.

[Tsuga C]

Forget the respec! I'm in for the printed manual and if there's not a complete listing of all feats/skills in the manual, then there has to be one in PDF format on the DVD. Regardless, read the manual and know what you're doing before you get to level 8 with a completely fudged-up PC. Sheesh, people--take some responsibility.

[Umberlin]

Adding in Respeccing is essentially saying, "Throw the role-playing elements out."

 

Your statistics, skills, feats and particular abilities/spells are what define your character in a D&D styled RPG, and, while P:E is not a D&D game, it is a role-playing game. Just like statistics are there to limit you, to force you to play as, 'that' character and not just 'do whatever you want' if you can just respec . . . then what's the point of any of it? Got a problem your current build can't instantly deal with up front? Oh well, no sense trying to figure out how 'the character' would find a way around the problem, just respec to the right role to solve the problem instead of actually role-playing the character, and figuring out how they would handle the situation with the statistics, skills, feats and abilities/spells that they actually have.

 

Bleh.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Umberlin

[Shevek]

Imposing a non-trivial cost to the respec.

 

Non-trivial cost? That might be interesting. Like respec = perma crippled or perma/major stat loss. Xp or gold is fairly trivial though since you can get that back pretty quick.

[AGX-17]

It would be ideal if a game was designed in such a way that you couldn't find your way to a bad build (i.e. there are no "bad builds,") but forcing players to restart the entire game is too unfair a penalty for being unfamiliar with a game and its systems. If you were playing with your friends on a table it would be a different story, but when you're spending dozens of hours on a PC game you shouldn't have to restart it unless you want to.

 

Personally, I think that a limited number of respecs should be available, (not like completely rebuilding the character from the start,) with additional significant costs. But like I said, punishing players by forcing them to waste time doing everything over as a chore rather than as a willing choice of what to do with their time does not strike me as good game design.

Edited October 31, 2012 by AGX-17

[Arundor]

The only time I might want a respec is if a patch changes the mechanics and functionality of a skill I had previously selected. I don't like it when the abilities I already selected get retroactively altered. If that happened, I'd either want a respec or I'd just completely restart the character so I could re-plan my build under the new mechanics.

 

I don't think respecs are needed in any other circumstances, as long as the skills and stats have appropriate descriptions so that we know what we're selecting and can plan ahead.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Arundor

[Shadenuat]

The ideal system where every build would be valuable not only is impossible, but it also would be boring and harmful to the gameplay. The most interesing systems icluding those implemented in games are those which give player great freedom over his character's strenghts and weaknesses. And picking weaknesess creates a possibility of making a mistake in build. Did Fallout opposed player if he wanted to create a character with dexterity of a table but high charisma? No, and that what was very good about Fallout. People've beaten the game by all sorts of characters, from munchkins to junkies and pacifists. They did it because of their knowledge of the game and with trial and error way. That's replayability for you, it's a good feature when it comes to games; the more time you can spend with the game the better, because that's their purpose - to have lots of fun time. Will it be possible if game handholded player all the time? I don't think so, as I said, the more freedom and flexibility there is, the more the chance you could possibly create a horrible freak who could't beat his first met rats.

Also, there is combat, combat in RPGs is influenced by strategical choices you've made at you character screen; and strategy means there are right choices and wrong choices; creating balanced party, picking it equipment, it's all aboud avoiding potential failure. If you're afraid of failure, then it's a downhill to "skip combat" button from there.

[Aowkoi]

Just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. To me, a respec option does not belong in this kind of an RPG. It cheapens the choices made at the start of the game, as well as damaging the feeling of consistency in the setting, if my warrior suddenly changes from a greatsword-weilding behemoth to an agile swashbuckler because I decide I don't like my character's build anymore.

 

A sub-optimal build really isn't the end of the world anyway, particularly in a single-player RPG where you have 5 other party members by your side as well. I vote no to respec!

[GhostofAnakin]

I'm not a fan of respec-ing in RPGs. It kind of cheapens the original choices you made by allowing you to alter them at any time (or even just one time) during the game. During character creation, you don't have to think long and hard what kind of character you want to build or which skills to focus on, since you know you can just change them later on. So it kind of takes away from the importance of creating that character.

[Urist_McDorf]

Respec is important. It's unlikely you'll understand the whole system behind the game on your first try (much less when creating your first character), yet first impression is the most important one. If an average player ends up screwing his build too much for it to be useful on his first go and only realises that some time in the game, he's just as likely, if not more, to just stop playing instead of trying again. It is not adding consequences to choice, it is punishing for not having system mastery. For actual consequences to choice, quests exist.

 

That said, some things are core enough for their ability to be respecced to not be vital - race and class, for example, as long as there're at least a few viable builds for a given race+class combo. The retraining shouldn't be costless, either, so you're encouraged to learn as opposed to being permanently punished for not knowing something initially.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Urist_McDorf

[Gibbscape_Torment]

HA HA! Thank the lord the devs don't share the psuedo sadistic vibe all up in this thread. Forcing one to start the game anew because they didn't build their character properly is just a crime.

 

Unknowingly gimped your character to the point of uselessness because you're not an RPG veteran? Tough ****, says the forum! Didn't guess the right spells to use in preparation for a level you know absolutely nothing about? Boobs be tough, chants the RPG vets, you must reload for not being a fortune teller.

 

Obsidian are proving to know exactly what made and hurt the IE games of old.

[Shevek]

Respec is important. It's unlikely you'll understand the whole system behind the game on your first try (much less when creating your first character), yet first impression is the most important one. If an average player ends up screwing his build too much for it to be useful on his first go and only realises that some time in the game, he's just as likely, if not more, to just stop playing instead of trying again. It is not adding consequences to choice, it is punishing for not having system mastery. For actual consequences to choice, quests exist.

 

That said, some things are core enough for their ability to be respecced to not be vital - race and class, for example, as long as there're at least a few viable builds for a given race+class combo. The retraining shouldn't be costless, either, so you're encouraged to learn as opposed to being permanently punished for not knowing something initially.

 

This game isn't for the average player. The average player is playing Call of Duty or some other such game. The average player buys their game off a Walmart shelf not from the GoG catalogue.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Shevek

[Gorgon]

It is not adding consequences to choice, it is punishing for not having system mastery.

 

This.

 

So often you have no real idea what you are selecting before you have tried it out some.

[Shadenuat]

It is not adding consequences to choice, it is punishing for not having system mastery.

 

- This.

 

So often you have no real idea what you are selecting before you have tried it out some.

 

Trial and error is a natural way of learning things. How can a system be complex and flexible if it does't allow any mistakes? Risks are what make games more exciting. It's risks, risks and even more risks which made games with highest replayability out there - taking risks and playing unarmed character in Fallout, taking risks and playing ugly half-orc in Arcanum, taking risks and picking charming Malcavian (or gimped Nosferatu) in Bloodlines.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Shevek]

If the game doesn't give you enough rope to hang yourself with then it just isn't complex enough. Allowing respecs trivializes choices players make in a serious way UNLESS said respecs are very very limited. In a 3.5E system, I could understand allowing a player to switch out ONE feat (and only ONE) when they level. However, if they invest in 3 or 4 feats to became a dextrous TWF and then decide swap out everything and become a Sword and Board fighter... well, thats a bunch of crap. "Oh, I was a dainty swordsman but now I want to be a hulking badass." Bah... that is not what these games are about. You are supposed to progress not radically change your character on a whim.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Shevek

[Slaunyeh]

If the game asks me to make uniformed character advancement choices, it better dang well offer some kind of way to alter that choice. If the game ends up being magically better than all other games at informing the player about the consequences of any given choice, then by all means. No such system is necessary.

 

But I'll want to see that before I believe it.