EP For Character Respecifications

[Ndreare]

I want a respec EP menu item and want to know what people think about it as I am ready to go begging for it.
Here is what I think a fair price is:

5 EP Per character Rank (The character must maintain the same concept as currently been in play, must still be a rules legal build built from 0 advances up and requires GM approval)



So what do people plink?

[Freya Kay]

I think RFT price is sound.

[Carlos]

It is not an unreasonable idea, but I am well aware that some players have a lot more EP than others, there should be some other limitation than just having EP involved, though the GM approval question matters.

[Radecliffe]

I like this though it would be good to define just what limitations there are for this. For example, changing attributes allowed? What about HJ or F&G rolls? Any other guidelines?

It is not an unreasonable idea, but I am well aware that some players have a lot more EP than others, there should be some other limitation than just having EP involved, though the GM approval question matters.

This is true but what's the point of having EP if you don't have anything to spend it on? For newer players that have novice or seasoned characters 5 or 10 EP shouldn't be too insurmountable.

[Tribe of One]

Some kind of GM approval needs to be in there. I don't have a problem with a player tweaking a character to undo a choice that turned out to be bad/out of concept/whatever, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with respecs that are purely to take advantage of some new power build, or tinkering out of of wishy-washiness, etc.

[Radecliffe]

I think it should be limited to parts of the character that for one reason or another just don't get used. Skills or edges that a character has used in game shouldn't be discarded unless there's a compelling argument for it.

[Ndreare]

Some kind of GM approval needs to be in there. I don't have a problem with a player tweaking a character to undo a choice that turned out to be bad/out of concept/whatever, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with respecs that are purely to take advantage of some new power build, or tinkering out of of wishy-washiness, etc.

The requirement for GM approval is in there.
Along with it must be the same concept.

The idea is tweaking a character you made a bad choice on, not turning your Burster into a Mind Melter

[Ndreare]

there are just times when you realize you made a character with underwhelming overlap of another PC, so you refocus. Of you play for a while and decide hey this is how I envision him.

For example with Kidemonas I started off thinking Magic, but after playing for a while I realized I like playing him ignorant and naive as more of a brute than an arcane master. While at a home game you could just work it out with your GM a bit, on a board with 40 players that is less practical.


For clarity, the reason I am interested in this is because if approved I will Ask Coragon for permission to adjust Kidemonas. The EP system offers a reasonable balance to it, so it does not become a common tool of vague players.

[Freemage]

I like the idea. I would limit it to the following:

• Advances
• Starting Edges from Hindrances
• Skills that have never been used

The latter is important because you don't want someone front-loading their combat build, then nudging it down later when they will be able to just up it again, in order to get a few d4s.

(Say I start with Agility d8, and Fighting and Shooting d10--a moderate investment. Then I re-spec at Seasoned, taking Agility to d10, and putting Shooting and Fighting at d8s to start, but then advancing them to d10s with one of the remaining advances from the respec. I use the two points from starting into, say, Intimidation and Taunt at d4 each, and now you're halfway to qualifying for Strong-Willed.)

[Jude Maverick]

I would say maybe another limit is you're only able to do it at a level up, i.e. at the end of a quarter when you're gaining Advances, so we don't have multiple rebuilds a quarter. And maybe limit it to one change (without leaving hanging points, of course)? So if I decide my Taunt and Intimidate haven't been useful, for example, I could only drop Taunt this quarter, redistribute the points, and have to wait until next quarter to drop Intimidate.

This might effect pricing. Instead of 5 EP per rank, maybe just a flat 5 EP each change? Or less?

[Kuikku]

I like the idea of being allowed to rebuild.

I like the idea of limiting it to "on the quarter", though it may not be necessary.

Not so sure about Jude's "price per change" and limiting how many at one time. IMO, if you are going to rebuild the last thing you want is to be forced to play a half finished build for the next three months. And if you have/need more changes than can be done in two sets you are playing a crippled character for half a year.

Having said that I agree that 5/rank is a reasonable cost.

[Ndreare]

I like Jude's idea kind of. 5 per change seams reasonable.

If the thing frustrating me is points wasted on Persuasion, then paying five EP to swap that to stealth is reasonable.

As always with GM permission.

[Freemage]

I like the once-per-Quarter rule. But I agree that making it a multi-step process is likely a very large frustration. Trying to rebuild to qualify for an Edge will be tricky enough with the 'no used skills can be lowered' rule, but with a requirement to do it one quarter at a time... not likely.

Oh, but I should've included one other bullet item in my list--you can change Attributes.

[Radecliffe]

How attractive the option will be will depend on what the price ends up being but making it one change per quarter would be a deal killer in my opinion. That's just way to harsh. I'm fine with making the cost on a per change basis though in that case I think 5 EP is too high.

Also, as a point of clarity I'd say that only skills that have never been used can be decreased or eliminated but you can still shift those points that you have used before.

[Hardin]

I think if you’re working with the GM you probably don’t have to worry too much about setting rules for which skills or attributes can be adjusted or when.

If I have a skill I have used but that has not been as fun for me as expected, I’d like to be able to change that. I think one price to reallocate everything (with GM approval) is simpler and more fun than a pay-per-change rule, even if that price needs to be a little higher in the end.

[Pender Lumkiss]

I am trying to not loose it here. Deleted my first post actually. I voted no.
Anyone who voted yes ask yourself if this is a shared story experience where the goal is to have fun. If you are a GM or plan to ask yourself, why would I not let a player undo a choice that is negatively impacting their enjoyment.

Anyone in the vampire kingdoms or 13th you make a choice you don't like shoot me a pm so we can undo it or make it more relevant. Any player who wants the same but your GM is unwilling to work with you hit me up and I will have a side bar with the GM and champion your cause. Not to let a player change their mind unless they pay EP? Why?

[Ndreare]

Looking at it. It sounds like half the GMs think it can be handled between GM and player. Half the GM's think it is reasonable for an EP item.

Players like the idea in general (all player votes).


So that makes me wonder, do players generally feel comfortable bringing up character tweaks after the game starts?

[Radecliffe]

I am trying to not loose it here. Deleted my first post actually. I voted no.
Anyone who voted yes ask yourself if this is a shared story experience where the goal is to have fun. If you are a GM or plan to ask yourself, why would I not let a player undo a choice that is negatively impacting their enjoyment.

Anyone in the vampire kingdoms or 13th you make a choice you don't like shoot me a pm so we can undo it or make it more relevant. Any player who wants the same but your GM is unwilling to work with you hit me up and I will have a side bar with the GM and champion your cause. Not to let a player change their mind unless they pay EP? Why?

To be honest I voted yes because I thought it was the only option available and the idea was intriguing. Since then I've realized that other than tweaking a couple skill points for Radecliffe I really wouldn't need the option anyway. Certainly if the GM's want to have a policy where a player can tweak a character "for free" then I certainly see that is the best option available and I think most everyone would agree with that.

I would point out, however, that one isn't going to ask if they can go through a door if they don't know the door is there. One of the limitations of communicating solely by the written word is that in many cases context is lost so what may be blindingly obvious to person A may not even register with person B. Hopefully that makes sense.

In any case I'm sure we can all agree that pie is a superior dessert?

[Hardin]

Looking at it. It sounds like half the GMs think it can be handled between GM and player. Half the GM's think it is reasonable for an EP item.

Players like the idea in general (all player votes).


So that makes me wonder, do players generally feel comfortable bringing up character tweaks after the game starts?

As a player, I have felt comfortable asking the GM to approve changes to trappings for powers I haven’t used yet (I did this with both Hardin and Rill within the first couple of posts), but I don’t think I’d feel comfortable asking to reallocate skill points, adjust attributes, or swap out edges. I haven’t had the need yet to do any of that, but I like knowing it’s an option.

I voted yes so there’d be some mechanic to adjust a character if needed, but if it can be done for free (within reason), I’d obviously prefer that.

[Freemage]

I am trying to not loose it here. Deleted my first post actually. I voted no.
Anyone who voted yes ask yourself if this is a shared story experience where the goal is to have fun. If you are a GM or plan to ask yourself, why would I not let a player undo a choice that is negatively impacting their enjoyment.

Anyone in the vampire kingdoms or 13th you make a choice you don't like shoot me a pm so we can undo it or make it more relevant. Any player who wants the same but your GM is unwilling to work with you hit me up and I will have a side bar with the GM and champion your cause. Not to let a player change their mind unless they pay EP? Why?

To be honest I voted yes because I thought it was the only option available and the idea was intriguing. Since then I've realized that other than tweaking a couple skill points for Radecliffe I really wouldn't need the option anyway. Certainly if the GM's want to have a policy where a player can tweak a character "for free" then I certainly see that is the best option available and I think most everyone would agree with that.

I would point out, however, that one isn't going to ask if they can go through a door if they don't know the door is there. One of the limitations of communicating solely by the written word is that in many cases context is lost so what may be blindingly obvious to person A may not even register with person B. Hopefully that makes sense.

In any case I'm sure we can all agree that pie is a superior dessert?

Assuming you mean key lime, yes.

And as with Radcliffe, my main reason for supporting it was making sure it was out there as an option. If we're going to assume everyone here is mature enough to handle tweaking a character without a formal system, then let's go for that.

[Hardin]

I am trying to not loose it here. Deleted my first post actually. I voted no.
Anyone who voted yes ask yourself if this is a shared story experience where the goal is to have fun. If you are a GM or plan to ask yourself, why would I not let a player undo a choice that is negatively impacting their enjoyment.

Anyone in the vampire kingdoms or 13th you make a choice you don't like shoot me a pm so we can undo it or make it more relevant. Any player who wants the same but your GM is unwilling to work with you hit me up and I will have a side bar with the GM and champion your cause. Not to let a player change their mind unless they pay EP? Why?

To be honest I voted yes because I thought it was the only option available and the idea was intriguing. Since then I've realized that other than tweaking a couple skill points for Radecliffe I really wouldn't need the option anyway. Certainly if the GM's want to have a policy where a player can tweak a character "for free" then I certainly see that is the best option available and I think most everyone would agree with that.

I would point out, however, that one isn't going to ask if they can go through a door if they don't know the door is there. One of the limitations of communicating solely by the written word is that in many cases context is lost so what may be blindingly obvious to person A may not even register with person B. Hopefully that makes sense.

In any case I'm sure we can all agree that pie is a superior dessert?

Assuming you mean key lime, yes.

And as with Radcliffe, my main reason for supporting it was making sure it was out there as an option. If we're going to assume everyone here is mature enough to handle tweaking a character without a formal system, then let's go for that.

Maybe this could be added as an update to the character creation rules thread?

[High Command]

Reasonable

[Venatus Vinco]

Hello,

Been following but keeping quiet.

Given our rules on XP (you keep it all if you die or switch characters), only GM fiat stops you from rebuilding a new/same character with the changes you want.

Therefore, it's only reasonable that players and GMs can work this stuff out together. My advice to GMs would be: favour the player. My advice to players would be: don't be min maxing ass hats.

All that being said: Freemage can I change the glowing eyes trapping on Herra's puppet power

VV