Magic brings an endless amount of possibilities so anything can be justified, but some things can be justified better/easier than others. Respeccing through the use of magic is an easy enough concept to grasp and doesn't raise too many questions whereas summoning an F-35 joint striker jet, whilst justifiable, would raise many questions.

Making it so nobody ever has to commit to anything is just absurd. It's just silly. "Magic" doesn't justify having no order to a game, or consequences to actions, or sensible rules.

That's a choice that should be up to the player.
Person A may want a game where they are forced to face the consequences of the choices they make.
Person B may not want to be restricted because of a choice they made in the past.
Any form of respeccing would be optional and therefore please both sides.

Besides, I'd rather have consequences in the form of alternate endings and things that have a noticeable impact on the game.

That isn't a game. If your past choices are meaningless, you aren't playing a game, because nothing matters. You can change anything at any time. Challenge cannot be optional.

There is such a thing for the "oops, killed the wrong guy" thing. It's called save. And people do use it all the time to "game the system" so to speak. The rest of those are also all possible too with console commands to PC players. I think you're really missing the point. But I believe I know why too. It's illustrated by this sentence you wrote earlier: "Yes, I know, but what I am saying is that by your logic, the answer to the question "Should the feature X be added to the game" is always "yes", no matter what it is, just because people can always not use it if they want to not use it." Which is wrong.

The only thing the "mind your own business/it doesn't affect you" argument counters is the sense of self entitlement that feature X should not be added because I think it's dumb or I think it doesn't make sense. It does not in and of itself support any given feature's addition. The fact that guns should not be left out of an Elder Scrolls game just because someone doesn't want them in it in no way means there is NO reason to not put them in the game. If you got something like, oh say, the Elder Scrolls universe is based around the classic middle ages, DnD type fantasy setting in which the closest thing to a gun is a crossbow, then forward that as an argument against the idea, that would be a "the game should stay logically consistent to its setting/lore" counter, not a "I just don't see why someone would want this" or "I feel like it's irrational". The answer to the former is someone else did want it and the answer to the latter is who cares if you can't understand it.

Make a non side track argument like "I don't see a way for it to fit into the world and lore" and it's now a relevant point that would be up to the developers if they cared to maintain such consistency to answer. Make a point about it's being something that ought to have a cost consistent with the power of what it allows you to do and that is valid point and part of the discussion of how such a feature could be introduced with gameplay power balance.

You know what other non-trivial, relevant argument hasn't been tried yet against it? The "well, sure they could do that, but it would take developer time that could be spent doing Y instead of X" argument. I just get tired of seeing this same resistance to respec (not the first game I've seen this tussle play out in) out of some crazy sense of entitlement to dictate how other people play their own game. If a feature is proposed, and you don't like it, fine. I don't like a number of things I see, some of which were actually acted upon and are now in the game. Steam forced inclusion on the PC version being the absolute worst of all to me. But I have never entered into any discussion about any proposal that could only change something for the individual and just generically blackballed it because I don't agree. I bring valid points (my feelings about how others might use something I won't do NOT qualify) and try to give some reason for or against.

You actually brought up the lore reason too, but as I said, it's not that far of a leap to believe some aedra or daedra could take away your knowledge and then gift you with other knowledge. No more so than believing the time dragon could eat everyone in the world back to age six. No more so than believing I can convince an enemy out to split my head that people he or she have known way longer than me are in fact the enemy while I am to be defended to the death with a command spell. This is why I laughed at invoking how it just doesn't happen in our world. Well, um, a hell of a lot stranger things don't happen in our world that are commonplace in Tamriel. Now a lore consistent explanation, that is a valid point to make. I just disagree that nothing in all the lore of this world of myth and magic can possibly offer such an explanation. If I knew one off the top of my head, I would give it. Maybe people who are very well acquainted with the lore could do so.

But that's such an utter misuse of magic and fantasy that I don't even know where to begin.

I have no interest in "telling others how to play their game". But we all have to play the game under the same rules. I've mentioned this before in relationship to how certain skills and perks make the game too easy. People say "well just don't use them", and my response is that it isn't the player's job to create a challenge, and they shouldn't have to handicap themselves to do so. It's the developer's job, and the proper response to some skills and perks isn't for people to stop using them, it's for the developers to not include anything at all that can remove the challenge from the game, or at least from the hardest difficulty level.

Similarly, it's up to the developers (in a fantasy game) to understand how magic and fantasy work, given their basis in real-world legend and folklore. The mundane things in the world must be recognizable from our own world. I've seen people complain that there shouldn't be any real-world animals in the game. These are, I presume, the same people that prefer Morrowind, which seems to me, from what I've seen when Googling "Morrowind screenshot", to have been set on an alien planet, with utterly alien life-forms. Well, fantasy is one of those things that you get used to when it's overused. If every damn animal and plant in the game looks like something from an alien world, then dragons and minotaurs and unicorns and trolls and what have you lose their uniqueness and become just another damn weird animal. But, if the common animals are deer and wolves and rabbits and foxes and hawks and bears, then when you do run into a dragon or a troll, they stand out as unique, fantastic creatures. The mundane must be familiar so that the unfamiliar can remain fantastic.

This goes beyond the setting of common animals, plants, and building styles, and extends to how things work. As I've said numerous other times, water in Skyrim flows downhill, fire is hot, ice is cold, apples are edible food. Similarly, the way knowledge works should be familiar as weill, and connected to how people in the real world learn, by studying and practicing. Now, I can understand in unique situations that there will be limited exceptions. The Greybeards are able to instantly teach the character Fus Roh Dah and Whirlwind Sprint, but that is a unique situation. You are gifted with an innate knowledge of dragon-speak by the Gods themselves, and as far as I know, they only teach you those words. This is a far cry from being able to completely reset your perks. The mundane processes of learning should be the familiar ones from our world - you spend time doing something, and over time get better. If you decide later you don't consider the knowledge or skill worth the time it took to learn it, well, that svcks, but oh well. Decisions have consequences. If you feel that strongly about it, reload. If you want the instant-learning to seem unusual and magical, then it has to remain unusual to seem magical. If you can just change everything you learned in the past, all those perks, and decide "well, I'm now going to change the knowledge in my head" then you're simply destroying the foundation of the everyday that fantasy has to rest on.

Part of the issue is that some people don't relate well to games that fall outside of the linear fps style, where the path is laid out, the weapons and character improvements are set in stone, the enemies you face are specifically crafted for a specific point in the game, etc.

Sandbox RPG's are different...your actions and decisions are what the game is about. You are creating your own legendary character, which is the point of this game...you are the main character in the game, you should be a real legendary hero. Game challenge can only occur up to a point, and that point is where your character is so developed, and is wearing armour that is so tough, and carrying weapons that are so effective, that you fall into the category of 'legendary hero'.

If some people choose to reach that point early, that is their choice...if they choose to delay that, to maximise their run-through enjoyment, they can do that as well. But no-one, particularly Beth and the developers, chooses the path a particular player decides to go down...the consequences of that decision are the responsibility of the player alone.

There is a way to reset perks, and that is to go back to a previous 'save-game'...sure, you lose playing time, but that is the consequence of making that decision.

Im gonna have to go with Gram on this. The excuse "well if you don't like it then don't use it" or "because its magic" should never be a valid argument. Of course people are going to use it if its available, what are you blind? An aspect that is added to the game by the developers is something that must contribute to the difficulty of EVERYONES playing experience. Everything originally put into the game MUST be thought as being used by every player.

Im not saying there aren't people who will purposefully avoid it to make the game harder on themselves, but the fact of the matter is you know as well as I that almost everyone WILL use it. Therefore it does need to be thought as effecting the difficulty for all. In this case radically decreasing it.

Heres a less radical example but still ridiculous using that logic, "Oh no... I decided to kill an NPC earlier in the game that was a potential quest giver (like thats even possible here but not the point), why can't I just use magic to travel back in time to change that?"

Or "why can't I use magic to fly to the top of high hrothgar instead of traveling up?"

Yes, "magic" could vouch for these things, but that doesnt help the fact that they severely reduce the difficulty of the game.

Not any more absurd than learning perks through divine inspiration via star constellations.

If perk points represent time then "forgetting" a perk is completely reasonable. I don't remember things I learned long ago if I don't reference or use them often enough.
I'm not saying make it free or easy to unlearn a perk or that their shouldn't be a consequence. Make it really expensive even make it so you loose experience and possibly even level down. What's absurd is being stuck with something useless because on your first play through you don't know how useless it really is.

Why is everyone hung up on either side of this argument with this tangential attack on realism? It has absolutely no bearing on what the issue is- that being, resetting perks would make them pointless to have in the first place.

If you could reap the benefits from any of the trees and reset whenever you want, no matter what absurd 'cost' system you devise, there would be no consequence or impact. Therefore, it would be useless to even HAVE them as perks.

I guess I just don't get how you cannot seem to see the inconsistency of defending the "it's part of the magic in this world" justification designers used when putting some impossible things into the game and have such a hard time accepting the same for another. How do you explain instant "leaps" of knowledge provided by skill books, rewards, or the Oghma Infinium that represent no time spent learning which is impossible and unrealistic by our world's standards too. In fact, several perks are given as rewards. What they just matrix download months of training in fighting dragons such that all dragons now do 25% less damage?

It is no less difficult than the instance you yourself called a "unique exception" to buy. Invoking the "it's magic" excuse for it or the skill books is no less a stretch than would be coming up with some equally unbelievable in our world mechanism to forget knowledge because a god like being that could create the world, time itself, and the laws of nature offers some quest to do so for you and then bestows just as instantaneously any new perk you have sufficient skill for. How can you possibly say it is?

Explain why dwemer can build artifacts to tap the heart of a god and regress levels of creation so far that they rejoin the dawn state of being collectively as a race, undoing their very existence in this world, but a god can't make you forget you learned how to fish. Then explain why they couldn't do what reading a "magic book" can, or drinking Esbern's potion? You go on and on about things being consistent, but don't you need to be consistent when arguing against something that many would love to see added to the game?

I think you are just doing the "willful suspension of disbelief" version of selective hearing or selective memory. Picking and choosing what things that are just as ridiculous or unbelievable you will accept without question based on your own personal views is just another way to hide behind that same "magic/it's a fantasy world" excuse on one hand while simultaneously bashing what you hide behind when it comes to something you don't support. Unless of course you really do find invoking that means we need to remove magic fire shooting mages and potions that somehow make you instantly more knowledgable in how to use that one handed weapon (or worse, items that when worn immediately give you the knowledge of many months training) from the game. What about dragons? You do know all the relevant arguments against body mass to wing span ratio that render the idea of something that big flying fantasy, right? Let's remove them too.

I don't think it's fair to cherry pick what fantastic, impossible things you find acceptable in a world of fantasy and magic. Nor to then use that selective willingness to accept the "it's magic" reasoning for some, then turn around and bash it for something you don't like, but that's just me.

I'm also going to disagree with the total nature of the view that it's not up to players to find challenge in a game. That is complete crap. I agree that it is the first responsibility of developers, and they shouldn't aim for a hello kitty level of overease in the base game if it's not meant for five year olds. But you're really asking for something that's impossible. You expect them to create a game that satisfies everyone's idea of appropriate level of challenge. They can only do so much. After that, it IS your job to figure out if there is more than you can do in the base game if that is not enough for you. That or decide the game is just not for you. It is challenging for a lot of people. It's too hard for some. So you set the bar "somewhere" that you expect can appeal to the most players. After which, if someone is so good at it they find it too easy and are unwilling to look for ways to challenge themselves, that stubborn refusal to try anymore is all on you.

The problem with setting the bar as high as the most challenge seeking of gamers might want it is they are also a minority. And if you err too far on the side of complexity or challenge, create too high a barrier for entry, or make the game so unapproachable for the vast majority of potential players, you won't have any. Dungeons and Dragons Online did this when they started and wound up with a niche game that had so few people subscribing that they nearly folded, until years later, they opened it up to a broader base of players (what many complained of as "dumbing it down"). I find challenge myself because it doesn't take using any overpowered abilitys or bugs to find yourself at that point where the challenge is gone.

I didn't say that the lower levels should necessarily be challenging, but the fact is that a number of people have said that certain combinations of skills and perks make even Master level easy. If they're correct, that's unacceptable. If you're playing Apprentice difficulty and it's too easy, then yes, the player needs to fix that by moving to Adept. If Expert is too easy, it's the player's job to move up to Master level. But if even Master level becomes to easy, the developer has not completely balanced the game.

The easiest skill level should never be challenging even to beginners, and the hardest skill level should never not be challenging, even for experienced players. I think that's a decent rule of thumb. The player's responsibility in regards to challenge is to not complain about the game being too easy (or too hard) until they've adjusted the difficulty as far as it can go in whatever direction is necessary. If they drop it all the way to Novice and it's still too hard, or raise it all the way to Master and it's still too easy, then at that point they've fulfilled their end of the bargain, and the developer still has work to do.

I think we could all benefit from having the option to redistribute our perks.
Whether or not it'll actually become available is another story.

That one's called save. And no amount of logic or reasoning can defend the nature of what save feature allows game players in any game to do. It's really this simple: some things are added that only exist as an option to make life easier or spare you a lot of wasted time. As long as it's an option, the dead is dead players can do their thing right alongside the people who would reload from earlier saves to avoid consequences. Everyone is happy except possibly those who get upset that other people are doing things they just don't like. Nobody in the game business loses a minutes sleep for that, nor do I. More options is better than less. Period.

I've read through this thread and all the arguments, and I find myself siding with Gram. I understand this is a fantasy game and that people should be able to play however they want, but it still seems to me that there needs to be consequences to the choices that are made during the logical progression of the game. Doesn't seem to me that somebody should be able to get a perk then use it to create whatever particular armor or weapons or enchantments they want and then go back and drop that perk in favor of something else while continuing to reap the benefits of the perk they decided they didn't want. I suppose there's a response that "well, what if all the benefits of the previous perk were removed?". I don't know there's a practical way to do that considering you may play for dozens of hours and accomplish all sorts of things with the benefit of that perk.

I can agree with that. With the qualification that it needs to be lots of people complaining that the lowest difficulty is too hard or the highest is too easy before the finger pointing at developers and accusations that they flubbed the job begin. I mean, where do you stop? How do you NOT disappoint at least some people? I killed Krosis at level 3 by pinging him with an occasional arrow and leading him down to the giant camp on the plain, carefully positioning myself and timing a dodged fireball to make him hit their mammoths, and yet some people abandon a character because they find the simple mechanic of feeding to revert to stage one vampirism too difficult. Who's right? A line has to be drawn somewhere or they'd never release a game.

I absolutely agree that some combinations of skills, perks, or other strategies can take a lot of the challenge out of things. I knew how to make a 100% chameleon suit in Oblivion, but what fun is it to attack non responsive attack dummies? The difference I think is that I don't think you should try to force views on people by taking away things. If it's truly a self control issue where someone simply will not do as I did and set their own limit, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for their unwillingness to not use things they think make the game unfun or too easy. And absolute support for those who want the option there and usable. I don't believe in the mentality of looking over other people's shoulders.

The question I consistently ask and never seems to get answered is why does it matter to anyone if another person is using a "cheat" or "exploit" in their own damn game? It's like wanting to stop someone next door from watching Twilight because I can't stand it. Even if I feel that doing so would contribute to the betterment of mankind in general and "save" another poor soul, I DO NOT HAVE that right. It baffles me that so many people seem to think they do. Isn't this still America? Leave the perk respecers alone. If they want no damn consequences for their choices in their game, then by god let them have none. You didn't buy it. I didn't buy it. They bought it, and if doing it that way leads to a general sense of dissatisfaction FOR THEM down the road, then Bethesda still has their money. The sky's still blue. The grass is still green. There will still be an Elder Scrolls 6.

I really don't like the idea of being able to reset your specs. I had a taste of that in RIft (although it was an MMO), and it really cheapens the game. Even with some kind of a "penalty" you just can't mess up, and it feels like hand-holding. Finding out what works and what doesn't is part of the fun of playing RPGs. You make your character, their personality, their skills, and just go with it. Mess up? Then you can either live with it as a part of the character, or make a new one.

Similarly, why can't you save then to avoid wrong perk point allocation? Both examples could be over the same period of time, therefore a save should also work here.

Because, that is specifically how Bethesda created their game to achieve the difficulty they strived for. It doesn't matter whether its feasible or not, the fact of the matter is a respec option would have a much larger effect on the game.

If there were a respec option, than why would anyone feel the need to create multiple characters anymore? Yes, you can make a jack of all trades now, but you still can't specialize in everything with one character (or at least not without putting in an absurd amount of time grinding misc quests). You would need multiple characters to do that. Therefore, creating more replay value.

Trust me, Bethesda thought this out guys, its not just because they want to grief you, its because adding that feature would immensely change the game. And if you still somehow can't see how it will change the game than that is just sheer ignorance.

Yep, I hear you. After reading thru this thread (which was very interesting, on several levels), I find myself in the uncomfortable position of sitting on the fence post.

On one hand, if the developers want to include such an option in a relatively unobtrusive way (e.g., an optional quest initiated off in the netherlands), who am I to complain when I could easily choose to ignore it? If it was an in-your-face option at every vendor then it might be a bit of a buzzkill, but that's neither here nor there when discussing whether it should exist at all.

On the other hand, the developers do have to choose where and what to focus their limited efforts/time as to fixing/improving the game. Personally, implementing perk-recycling is WAY low on the totem pole as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather they work on fixing bugged perks (and other game aspects) first, and only *after* those issues work on game balance (which is sort of the area, I think, this falls under).

And speaking of game balance, I personally don't think the BSG developers will implement perk-recycling. Their intent with TES seems to be, yes, an open-world design, but one with enough consequences that player-driven stories have the framework to be meaningful and rewarding. I suspect that this would cut against that grain in their view. I mean, I think even they'd understand the appeal for some players to late-game be able to experiment with different builds at their and the game's peak.

However, I think their overall view in evaluating this as an option would be determined by this example scenario:

----
I've reached Riverwood, exhale with relief at being in a safe place, and go the level menu to discover that I've gained two levels and am now Lvl. 3. Hmm, I have two perks available to choose. One is definitely going to smithing because it'll be a big boon in the short-run and will certainly be built upon the rest of the way.

Now for the second, even though I have some initial combat perks available, I'm tempted to use it on speechcraft. Now even if that 10% bonus in bartering will be mostly useless late game, I also know that it'll pay dividends through mid-game at least. Further, if I'm going to get it, the earlier I get it, the more I'll maximize its investment worth vs. the "waste" it'll represent later. Hmm, an interesting tactical choice with strategic repercussions ....
----

Personally, I think the developers want those kinds of decisions to remain meaningful.

since, i don't think beth could implement this in any satisfactory way, i too agreee with gram, and you.

live with it or restart.

Yet Bethesda still doesn't put a respec option in their games. Do you not think people have been asking for this since the beginning of "skill choice style" RPG's?

Something here must be telling you that there is a larger reason than just because they overlooked it, and sooner or later you may figure it out.

Its funny because if you were to work for as large a video game company as Bethesda and propose a new idea with the sole reasoning being "well if a player doesn't like it than they don't need to use it," you would be fired so soon.