Quote from: Marleycat;536056No, but there is no reason you might not be training slowly on some other side skills that you may decide to really focus on at some point because of a change in circumstance. It's not that it just popped into your head suddenly it was there but it was not a focus or a hobby or a skill not used at an elite level because circumstances didn't dictate the need, but you did know it when pushed in a special situation.

Its simple. If you no longer want to use a skill/ability and simulate that your character forgot it then just stop using it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536065Its simple. If you no longer want to use a skill/ability and simulate that your character forgot it then just stop using it.

Good one. RandallS pretty much sees were I am going with this. I in fact would be harsher than him. But my point is that I see no harm in having it as an option, not a base rule.

The problem is a Class/Level system with X Type 1 Slots, Y Type 2 Slots, and Z Type 3 Slots per level.  Your capacity for learning is totally based on slots and numbers.  Either play by the numbers or if you want realism, roll with a skill-based system where you spend exp, you advance in something, period.  

Retraining isn't a real process, it's simply learning something new.  The problem is a feat system where I mathematically can't learn anything new because these weird manufactured slots in my brain seem to be full.

Letting people swap those out is even more retarded and unrealistic then having the limitations to begin with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;536091The problem is a Class/Level system with X Type 1 Slots, Y Type 2 Slots, and Z Type 3 Slots per level.  Your capacity for learning is totally based on slots and numbers.  Either play by the numbers or if you want realism, roll with a skill-based system where you spend exp, you advance in something, period.  

Retraining isn't a real process, it's simply learning something new.  The problem is a feat system where I mathematically can't learn anything new because these weird manufactured slots in my brain seem to be full.

Letting people swap those out is even more retarded and unrealistic then having the limitations to begin with.

So we agree the whole system is retarded, if so, then this is no more retarded than anything else. No problem then.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536065Its simple. If you no longer want to use a skill/ability and simulate that your character forgot it then just stop using it.

More importantly, given that the old feat represents an investment of time and effort to acquire, a new feat probably shouldn't just appear in its place.

This whole process needs to be stripped way the fuck down. One of my favorite characters ever required that I spend a single weapon proficiency point to 'optimize.' Everything else was roleplayed without recourse to rules.

Quote from: Benoist;535943Holy fuck B.T.! You ACTUALLY make sense this time. You are scaring me...

Yeah he kicked ass with that one.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;536103More importantly, given that the old feat represents an investment of time and effort to acquire, a new feat probably shouldn't just appear in its place.

This whole process needs to be stripped way the fuck down. One of my favorite characters ever required that I spend a single weapon proficiency point to 'optimize.' Everything else was roleplayed without recourse to rules.

I think you nailed it in the linked post; if you have a strictly limited pool of resources, and success in the game world means using them in the most effective way, you end up forced to choose between "doing something that would be fun" and "doing something that would be efficient". And if the game is designed around "efficient", there simply isn't room to spend on "fun". On the other hand, if you have unlimited resources, or a "fun" choice is almost as efficient as an "efficient" choice, you have a lot more freedom in how your character develops, and the game world can be more unpredictable and interesting to play in.

Moving to another point, I don't buy the "optimisation is bad" line of argument; a laser-focussed character can be just as playable as a more varied one, although certain players will prefer one over the other and be more able to play one over the other. Driven, focussed people would exist just as much in a game world as in any other. The issue I have is with characters who are so sharply-focussed that they couldn't have survived long enough to become a PC, because it's a rare species of character that can just emerge out of nowhere.

Quote from: Ladybird;536153I think you nailed it in the linked post; if you have a strictly limited pool of resources, and success in the game world means using them in the most effective way, you end up forced to choose between "doing something that would be fun" and "doing something that would be efficient". And if the game is designed around "efficient", there simply isn't room to spend on "fun". On the other hand, if you have unlimited resources, or a "fun" choice is almost as efficient as an "efficient" choice, you have a lot more freedom in how your character develops, and the game world can be more unpredictable and interesting to play in.

Exactamundo.

Quote from: Ladybird;536153Moving to another point, I don't buy the "optimisation is bad" line of argument; a laser-focussed character can be just as playable as a more varied one, although certain players will prefer one over the other and be more able to play one over the other. Driven, focussed people would exist just as much in a game world as in any other. The issue I have is with characters who are so sharply-focussed that they couldn't have survived long enough to become a PC, because it's a rare species of character that can just emerge out of nowhere.

I would argue that the strongly archetypal characters of 1e AD&D, pre-UA, are optimised, laser-focused adventurers. Even at first level they are gifted well beyond the normal people of their world, and by the time they've added even two or three levels, they are precision instruments.

Feat Retraining (in the game mechanic sense) in 4e D&D is purely a meta-game construct, but a necessary one due to the scaling nature of the system and number of levels spread out over three tiers.  In the context of the 4e D&D game engine, feat retraining not only makes sense, but is necessary for proper growth of the character over the three-tier system and 30 levels.

However, looking at it from a setting point of view, it doesn't make any contextual sense to me either.

Quote from: jibbajibba;536057but that slow training woudl require new 'skill slots' not old ones

I am all for limiting the maximum numbr of feats you can have and as you learn new ones the old stuff you haven't used faded (have 3 stages active, past and faded with limits at each level) but trading stuff whole cloth is breaking immersion for me.

That's my take on it as well.

Caveats: I remember once letting a character trade in a feat that they had actually never used at all for a different one, but with the understand that it was a retcon - we're not saying that they've forgotten it, but we'll pretend they never had it at all. The new feat was one that fitted in much better with things the character had just learned about their background.

I would also allow retraining if the character doesn't actually forget anything. That is if your Rogue 1 took Martial Weapon Proficiency [Longsword], then took a fighter level that gave them proficiency in all martial weapons, I'd give them their feat back. I'd definitely let a character swap out Toughness if they went up level and rolled more than 3 hit points, and so on.

Quote from: Drohem;536184Feat Retraining (in the game mechanic sense) in 4e D&D is purely a meta-game construct, but a necessary one due to the scaling nature of the system and number of levels spread out over three tiers.  In the context of the 4e D&D game engine, feat retraining not only makes sense, but is necessary for proper growth of the character over the three-tier system and 30 levels.

However, looking at it from a setting point of view, it doesn't make any contextual sense to me either.

The way its done in 4E also bothers me since its a patch for crummy design. Powers are the worst; its hard coded into the system that you forget a power of level X and take a power of higher level in its place - they couldn't be bothered just building lower-level powers that would scale (adding more Ws or squares of pushback or whatever), or a system for custom-scaling-up powers.

I can't say retraining ever bothered me that much.

I figure that any system generally does an incomplete job of representing the character I have in my head anyway.  It's more of a 'best fit' scenario.

For the most part feats rarely give you another new ability that you didn't have before.  Most of them give some kind of bonus or the like and they just mean moving the numbers around.  If you want to be really good at  surviving in the wasteland,  there's a bunch of feats you could take to help you take to do that, and swapping them around really doesn't change all that much.

Really in 4E you can change your class and it doesn't necessarily have a big effect on how you role-play your character.

Quote from: Benoist;535847I want feats to have meaning in the game world, to represent something about the character that matches up in the make-believe. I don't want purely gamey, mechanoid feats that don't add anything to the character.

This I think is the bigger issue.  Not the retraining per se, but the lack of meaning they hold in the game world that makes  feat retraining possible.

Quote from: Drohem;536184However, looking at it from a setting point of view, it doesn't make any contextual sense to me either.

Well, yeah. Very little about 4E makes any sense from a setting point of view.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;536025Make decisions? Man I'm talking about rolling hp when you level up and moving the fuck on with the game.

Ah. So you want a version of D&D that looks like no version of D&D that has ever been published in the past 38 years.

Well, 4E suggests that this is possible. So you might get your wish here. But I doubt it.

Like I said upthread I think combining feats with 1e style class abilities to create things that scale is a far better approach.

Back stab is a great example.

It's something that without training shouldn't you be able to attempt, yes I can stab you in the back, but I haven't been trained to target your vitals or whatever.

It is useful in many situations but still has a clear focus

It appears as a class skill in older edditions but you can see it being applicable to other classes, Assassins, maybe commando style rangers etc

it scales with level 1-5 x2 damage; 6-10 x 3 etc etc

Now you might think the ranges are too big (I always though thieves should fight on a par with clerics myself but meh...) but you can see how it could be tailored.

The same can be said of a lot of the old 1e Class abilites. If feats looked like those and the two became synonymous I would be happy.