This makes sense. That would be akin to losing the skill points that were needed to get a perk to get rid of the perk, and it would be appropriate to have to retrain the skill, and relearn the perk. What's not appropriate is to have to redo EVERYTHING I've ever done on the character. Why should I have to redo all the quests I've done, retrain ALL my skills instead of just the relevant ones, and reacquire all of my equipment? None of these things are relevant to the acquiring of skills. By following the way learning works in the real world, we forget less used knowledge and replace it with that which we want to learn and employ. There should be a similar system in game if we're talking about realism.

I could also get behind the idea of using dragon souls to fuel new perks, provided it was at a fairly steep rate, and maybe a vendor as a last resort. And a quest or series of quests to respec or retrain or whatever would be awesome.

I'd be interested to know your reasoning behind this.

But you would have to redo things because you're playing a different person altogether. As far as new perks go, by all means go ahead and get them when you acquire new perks to spend, but it's utterly absurd to expect to be able to recycle a perk point, removing it from the old perk and spending it on a new one.

And plan more accordingly next time~

Hell, why even plan? People in the real world learn all kinds of stuff they end up not using. How many people with Bachelor's degrees end up working in the field that their degree is in?

then, you would simply ignore the option to do so.

Have you never played an ARPG in your life? Respeccing isn't a new concept. Borderlands, Titan Quest, Torchlight, and even Diablo II with the latest patch all give options to do it, and those are just the ones I can name off hand.

Even if you oppose the notion (and frankly the opposition isn't very well thought out), this should not be as mystifying to you as it is.

not if they actually used their creativity and came up with a quality system to implement that made sense, had penalties and added to the gameplay value.

But they can't build your armor and and enchant the heck out of it, dump your perk points from enchanting and smithing and put them into something else. See how that works?

OH MY ACHING HEAD.

I figured it was only a matter of time before somebody brought up the "it's a single player game so why do you care if they added the feature if you don't like it just don't use it" argument. You do realize that your argument means that there's never any reason to add any and all suggested changes because if you don't like something, just don't use that part of the game.

"I think there need to be airplanes, Italian restaurants and Uzis in TES."

"...Seriously? That wouldn't fit at all."

"Why do you care? It's a single player game, and what I do in my game doesn't affect you in yours. Just don't fly the planes/eat the pasta/shoot the Uzis if you don't like them."

Can you not see that your argument essentially tries to justify any and all absurdities, no matter how ridiculous, just because it's a single-player game?

no, you are actually wrong in your logic.

without the option i cannot perform the desired game mechanic.
with the option you can do either.

as well, other games have already implemented this particluar gameplay option. it's not a new idea.

And then they learn something else they do use, and sometimes forget the old, but never lose the ability to learn more. The problem is the strict limit of perks available, which is the same for every player. That is unrealistic

me for one, was studding electronic but was picked up to do programming once I ended university and have done since.
Now for Skyrim the only issue would be if they add DLC who changes gameplay, say an very mage centered pack, here a pure high level warrior or thief will have problems, solution might be to grant free perks as quest rewards or similar.

As for follower stats, I would love to, guess it comes as an mod soon, got an shock then I saw Lydia do a sneak forward roll, something my character just learned herself.

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.

Should there be indestructible armor available for free at the beginning of the game and handed out by every vendor in every town? Yes, because those who don't like it can just not use it.

Should there be fighter jets added to the game, with dragon-seeking missiles? Yes, because those who don't like it can just not fly them.

Should there be a McDonald's in every city, village and hamlet in the game? Yes, because those who don't like it can just not eat there.

Should there be a spell available that summons fifteen Daedra Lords to fight for you for two hours straight at a cost of 1 magic point, available at the start of the game? Yes, because those who don't like it can just not use it.

Should there be a strip club where you can get lap dances from naked people of all genders, ages and species in the game? Yes, because...DO YOU GET MY POINT?


Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer isn't a new idea either, but it's still a bad one.

Not really, because nobody in the real world can become good at everything.

The problem with that comparison is there aren't a large number of people who want Uzis and Italian restaurants, and that, compared to the idea of respeccing, which does make sense, despite your insisting that it doesn't, it's irrelevant. A large number of people would like a respec option. It doesn't effect those who don't use it. I can't understand your unwillingness to accept other people don't want the exact same thing in a game as you do.

That's not what I said. I said they lose SOME of the old and gain SOME new skills, not all.

LYDIA? Lydia couldn't spell sneak if you spotted her the S,N,A, and K. She'd think you were offering her a SNACK or something.

Not regardless of what it is. Only if it is wanted by a significant amount of players.

There's no reason to appeal to magic or different rules of the real world. People learn and forget stuff in the real world all the time. Younger people won't be as familiar with this phenomenon, because they're still learning new stuff very quickly, and it hasn't been a long time since the old stuff they learned, and most of what they "used to know" was merely training-wheels knowledge to get to the more advanced stuff, not really knowledge worth keeping.

You are good at what you do, and you aren't so good at what you don't do. Even if you used to be really good at something, you still maintain a lot of the fundamentals, but other aspects are simply no longer there and need to be retrained. For instance, I used to play the piano very well, and I still play decently, but I haven't played regularly in decades. So I can sit down and play certain things that never left my fingers, but other things just aren't there: I'd have to spend a week or so practicing to get a particular song back that I forgot, for example.

I could see the same kind of thing with respect to skills and perks. We already have this a bit with respect to skills: they generally go up, but if you do jailtime, you might lose a point or two. With respect to perks, I would suggest that this retraining suggestion would be explained as, "Yeah, I used to know how to lockpick master locks easily, but I rarely run into master locks, and I'm out of practice. Instead, I've been practicing with fireballs and fire magic, so I'm good at that." No you'd not suddenly -svck- at picking locks (0 skill points), you'd just not be as expert as you used to be (with several perks).

The only real question is what you'd make such retraining cost, in terms of resources. One possible cost is losing skill points in whatever from which you remove perks, to reflect the fact that you have (or so you claim) not been really using those skills regularly.

It's illogical and absurd regardless of how many people want it. It is impossible to learn things without taking the time to learn them. You can learn new things, but it will take time - and you cannot replace that time by offering to forget something else instead.

If I know how to do framing, hang drywall and do plaster for house walls, fine. Now, if I also want to learn to become an electrician, that's going to take time - years, in fact. I cannot choose to instead just forget how to hang drywall and then instantly get to learn to be an electrician in an instant. If it takes you a year to learn to do A, and you want to learn B, which also takes a year, there is no option except to spend a year to learn to do B. You cannot say "Well, I already spent a year learning A and I'm not really using that, so I'll just swap it out for B". It just can't happen, and it's an utterly weird concept in a game to be able to do it.

That doesn't prevent it being absurd. A significant number of people can be in favor of an absurdity. History tells us that much.

adding a very realistic gameplay feature like perk reinvestment is not, for me, ANYWHERE near the same as those ridiculous examples you used.

though, i do see your point.

Already addressed that issue.

Can you give a single concrete example of why it is absurd? Uzis are absurd because they don't fit in the setting. Same thing with Italian restaurants, jet fighters, McDonalds, and every other example you gave. What about losing skills from neglect, and learning new ones from practice is illogical?