This is WHY i love it... not having the ability is stupid, they always start you with a stupid skill... or you make a mistake by trying one after spending 20 hours and realize you hate it and cant move back a enough saves to undo it... and starting over is pointless, like pushing a rock up hill...

ill hack the ever loving crap out of a game to get my skill points back, i dont need a timesink i need a story... there are more than enough timesinks that exist.

In Path of Exile you get respec points that you earn.

However given that your skills are built along a path, you can only respec just so much, but there the skill points are more bonuses than core skills, so it's not exactly the same thing anyway.

I don't like respecs, but personally I like when RPGs (I don't limit this just to ARPGs) have very high level caps and allow you to master all or nearly all skills if you want so, given enough time and devotion. That's why I like Final Fantasy X, like Final Fantasy XII PS2 English version (and dislike IZJS version), Agarest games, etc.

On other hand, I don't like when max level characters have access only to 10% of available skills. Player should be given a choice/option to level up to very high levels, raise all stats to their max and all skills to their max.

Depending on the game (not even on the genre but on the precise mechanics and the strength of counters), respeccing can make the game ridiculously easy and even pointless; other times it's like preparing a different set of spells with a D&D wizard.

I consider arguments from RAELIZARM to be absurd: ARPG characters and their abilities are already firmly within the realm of the abstract and the supernatural, so it makes perfect internal sense when a wizard attunes to different elements or a shaman prays to different gods or a warrior adopts different (supernatural) fighting styles and thus gains access to different sets of abilities.

And here's why I want unlimited respec to be present as an option:
90% of everything is shit.
For any given game, it's very likely I'm only playing it once.
RPG mechanics are often terrible, intentionally obscure, and/or intentionally left for the player to discover.
<<< I don't need an extra reason to drop the game and never touch it again.

---
re: ToME: iirc the archmage madness win was achieved when it was still possible to partially respec in dungeons.

Path of Exile has an absolutely fascinating skill tree, but you're right that the respec points don't do a lot of good. It's a game that would benefit immensely from a full respec option.

Honestly I don't really understand why it isn't always available, unless it's for the above-mentioned reasons of padding game length. Not having the option, frankly, is a sign of disrespect for players' time. If it's an option, the hardcore players lose nothing because they can simply opt not to use it. Everyone is happy. If it's not an option, only the hardcore players are happy.

Pretty much this.

I really don't know why someone would have a problem with it. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to use it. It's just like that hotspot highlight thing in adventure games that's been discussed recently, or to give another example, fast travel in open world RPGs or the option to save whenever you like in addition to checkpoints. For some reason some people want games to only be playable the way they like it, and actively hate it when people who want to play in another, usually less time consuming way, can do so, even though it has zero impact on their playthrough.

I guess if I decide to play that game, I'll likely play in exploration mode; it sounds like it would be fun for someone who loves to experiment as much as I do.

The question is, are there any differences that would affect the results of experiments? (I mention this because, in Nethack's wizard mode, wishes work differently, so it's not suitable for testing the limits of wishes.)

Interestingly, I am sort of the other way around here. I prefer when characters are realistically limited in power, but respecing is something that can be done as easily as job/ability changes in Final Fantasy 5. In other words, I prefer it when I can change my setup anytime outside of battle I feel like doing so.

On the other hand, I am playing Torneko: The Last Hope, and when playing as a Warrior, you do have to make irreversible (for the current dungeon run) decisions about which skills to set on your equipment; however, because these dungeons are not individually as long as full-length RPGs, and your skills reset to unassigned when you leave the dungeon (as does your level), it doesn't bother me. (In case you are wondering, it is possible to reach high levels, but there is a (rather high) turn limit on each floor, and there is a starvation mechanic.)

It is for this reason that games need to be balanced with all their decisions in mind. If you are going to allow anytime respec, balance the game with that in mind. (Final Fantasy 5 does this well.) This also applies to mechanics like the save system (save anywhere should be balanced appropriately, but don't force the player to do too much reloading, because that gets annoying), the rest anywhere mechanic (common in WRPGs, but almost nonexistent in JRPGs), health regen (for those who consider this to be a modern mechanic that cheapens the gameplay, I could point out that this mechanic was present in Rogue, which is neither modern nor easy), weapon durability, hunger, and pretty much any other mechanic. (As for weapon durability and hunger, either make sure the mechanic matters or don't include the mechanic in the first place.)

What about RPGs where it is the *only* way to travel (like TES: Arena) or where it is the only practical way to travel (like Daggerfall)? There's one issue to watch out for: It is, in many games, possible to save yourself into a corner. For that reason, I suggest that any game with a "save anywhere" feature, unless it's meant to be hardcore in a manner similar to Wizardry 4, should have a feature similar to Might and Magic 3-5's "Mr. Wizard" option. (I have seen this sort of feature both in Lennus 2 and Golden Sun.)

Side note: I think that more games should include New Game + like mechanics that are accessible before beating the game. That's one nice thing about Dragon Wars (where it is not needed unless you get stuck, but still nice to have) and Zelda: Majora's Mask (where you are expected to use this mechanics a lot).

Bringing the side note back to the main note: How about a game where you are expected to use a New Game + mechanic over the course of normal gameplay (before reaching the end of the game), but each time you use it, it unassigns your skill points, allowing you to respec?

Well, obviously then it's no longer a matter of it being optional, but those are poor examples, as those are very old games, that were only just figuring out the whole "open world" thing and the Elder Scolls formula.

Victor Vran is awesome. I hope they get to make a sequel or something similar eventually.

I like not knowing that I'm screwed 5-10 hours into a game because I picked the wrong bonus back at my third level.

Oh! I especially like it if thanks to hidden yet predetermined dice rolls, the final stats of my character are completely screwed from the start. I especially like it when those dice are then weighted by an arbitrary factor.

I especially like it when stat growth is determined by actions rather than class. Or where growth ignores any logical system entirely and just randomly throws numbers. Those are the best.

Now another good system is where the stats are of indeterminate use. Sure, the numbers get bigger and your dice get better, but there's no way to tell if your investment into CON is doing anything.

Could you please re-post your thoughts without using any sarcasm? I am finding it hard to decipher what you *really* mean by this post.

I actually like it when your stat growth comes from your actions rather than from a rigid leveling system. (It's one of the reasons I prefer a game like SaGa Frontier to a game like Baldur's Gate.)

Realism aside, respeccing a character really cheapens the RPG experience. It takes away of the "gravity" of each level-up decision. We should build characters to reflect our playstyle, but we should also be flexible enough to alter our playstyle to suit our charater's chosen skills/abilities. However, that only truly works in well-balanced games, where every build is viable. The worst offenders are games with totally useless skills (Realms of Arkania, for example). As for ARPGS, they are "lighter" games, so some mistakes are forgivable when it comes to balance.

I disagree with the idea that level up decisions should have "gravity" in the first place. In fact, ideally, a game would not have levels in the first place and would have a more continuous approach to character growth.

Personally, I feel that the fact that you are stuck with your build and can't change it cheapens the RPG experience, by limiting how much you can play around with the battle/growth system. The game is much more fun when you can switch playstyle at the drop of a hat, and can prepare individually for each dungeon (or other area) or battle. In fact, if anytime respec is allowed, it becomes easier to make puzzle bosses; the game designer can assume the player has access to a much wider range of abilities, even if not all of them can be active at once.

It's entirely sarcastic. I also prefer class levels separate from overall levels, like the job system in Final Fantasy III and V.