Allowing flaws midway

[Zanticor]

Hi there,

My players have been advancing at a slow pace for the last 4 years and have just hit level 16. Along with this advancement their characters developed and they have become so attached to their PCs that I hardly even dare to kill one even if resurrection is a possibility. One of them also developed an interest for the various splatbooks our there. He now finds his feat selection suboptimal and boring and wants an upgrade. First he discovered the retraining from player handbook 2. Then he found the possibility that flaws offered (from unearth arcana). These basically offer one more feat in exchange for things like -2 on a save and worse flaws. And now he send me an email about rebuilding his character with three flaws and five new feats from the ultimate feats book. My other players don't much like meddling with the integrity of their characters. He already is a druid and I fear he we become a dreaded Godzilla. Still I don't want to disappoint him to much. So do any of you have any experience with these kind of players? How would you rule when a player begs you for a level 16 rebuilt within one in-game-day (we are playing a game with a severe time restraint). I'm especially interested in suggestions for compromises although if you find the whole suggestion ludicrous, I'd also like to hear your input.

Zanticor

 

[Monsterknuffel]

Hmm interesting. hmm... ^^'
In our group the pcs have the choice to make a new character after an adventure (maybe because his actual one is retireing or whatever) or when the Char dies. Ok, they donßt change character after every adventure part, what would be very strange, but if he is totally unhappy it is better to let him make something new. I don´t know anything about the ultimate feat book but i heard and read something about flaws. I like the ideas behind the flaws if they are also played correctly. But i would not allow many flaws at once becaus in my oppinnion they are very strong.I heard ab about retraining but i don´t know what it means.

One option could be the Psychic Reformation power in the expanded psionics. This spell allows you to "go back in you char levels" You can reset your skill points, choose new spells and change your feats. (always in exchange for your old ones^^) this power costs 50 exp per level you want to go back.
So if your level 16 Char wants to change his feats etc from first level on, it would cost him 800 exp. (or an appropriate expensive scroll/power stone ^^)
This spell doesn´t allow to take flaws, or to change your classes.

 

[Shin Okada]

I usually just allow players to rebuild their PCs during sessions. Every month some new supplements are issued (though, not anymore for 3.5e) and players finds something more interesting than the feats, spells, etc. their PCs already have.

So, basically, I just allow free rebuild during each sessions. If not, some players will just ask me to let the existing PC retire and make a new character. As long as the basic character concept does not change (say, one is a fighter/mage type), I have no trouble. It is not so fun if you must keep using your rogue 5/cleric 5 when Complete Adventurer is published and you find Shadowbane Stalker in there.

Regarding flaw... I do not have much experience in using that rule.

 

[krupintupple]

i've actually quite a lot of experience using flaws in my campaigns and we've decided to houserule some of their effects, but your mileage may vary:

when chosing a flaw, the player chooses 3 and the DM picks the one that has the 'best fit' to the PC involved - a wizard taking 'noncombatant' will probably never see that flaw in use (and are horrid in close combat anyhow) so they've gained a benefit that even when pressed, could be bypassed with magic.

we allow 2 flaws maximum in our campaigns and first is chosen as above, but the second is DM's choice - typically people so feat-starved that they're willing to get flaws have a build in mind (noone takes flaws for average feats like improved toughness, or what have you), so the DM is suggested to choose one that is brutal (such as the -6 to initiative)

i'd also allow a flaw to be taken later in game, as long as it has a valid reason (a PC died and then took 'noncombatant' to show her fear of death and the feat she chose was one that we explained helped her avoid melee - something like improved initiative)

 

[frankthedm]

if you find the whole suggestion ludicrous, I'd also like to hear your input.

I find the player's suggestion very ludicrous. Drastic changes mid game are rarely a good idea. Simply inform the player that such options will be considered for the next campaign and by that time you will be ready to make your decisions.

Flaws are a very bad idea unless the flaws will actually affect the character.

and five new feats from the ultimate feats book

Did you even tell the player that book was allowed?

 

[irdeggman]

If you even think of allowing such a rebuild then follow the restrictions of retraining.

That each level must be rebuilt as they go along and each feat taken must have all requisites met at the level taken.

So if taking a flaw then follow the rules for doing so - the flaw would have been taken at 1st level and the feat also taken at first level. This would remove being able to take a lot of uber power up ones because prereqs couldn't be met by a 1st level PC.

 

[Airos]

I allow flaws to be taken in my games, but only at 1st level for much the same reason as irdeggman said. It prevents players from "suddenly" having a flaw right when the qualify for a new feat, which could get them other feats, or even get into a PrC sooner.

Taking different feats after the fact, for whatever reason, is something that I plan on taking a tougher stance on. The retraining rules found in the PHB2 offer optional rules for time and gold costs, (they're presented to compliment the same rules found in the DMG). I do not require my players to spend time or gold for the initial training for each of their levels, but I do require time for retraining.

Player's need to think carefully about their options and choices when making characters, and sometimes we all make bad choices. Now, I'm not such a jerk as to prevent players from correcting some of those mistakes, but I can't allow free and unlimited swapping of feats and class levels after the game has begun, because I have to plan the encounters according to how the PCs are built. If that changes, then I have to adjust all my work. With a "cost" attached, the PCs have to figure out if they can afford to take a couple of weeks off from adventuring while the PC swaps out a couple of feats or some skill points.

 

[Thanael]

It seems a bit much overall. Generally I'd allow retraining and rebuilding in mid campaign, but probably only on a case by case basis. How about letting him retrain them one feat/flaw at a time.

I'd be acreful to allow more than one or two flaws. And I'm not familiar with Ultimate feats. Care to list which feats/flaws he wants?

 

[Thanee]

In most cases, Flaws are only a very minor nuisance, while the Feat you gain for it is much more useful.

If anything, I would allow a single Flaw, no more, and none that has absolutely no effect on a character (there are some such combinations).

Also, Retraining should be limited to one choice per level-up, I think. A gradual process, not a complete make-over. At least that's how I would prefer it. Giving the option for retraining in general is fine, however.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Drowbane]

3e has over a thousand feat options. Most PCs have access to what... 7 feats by 19th?

On one hand, I think characters can do with more feats. On the other, the Flaw system is... well... flawed. You're really just giving away a couple feat slots for minimal pain. Which you may be ok with (I allow it).

I've been allowing 1 feat per level for awhile now... with no fuss (except, perhaps that PCs are still feat-starved).

edit: oh, and my last couple groups allow near 100% character revision between levels. Cuts down on prep-time (you don't have it get it perfect the first time. Stats can't be rerolled or redistributed, but just about everything else is fair game)