• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

(APG) Substituting Archetype Abilities

Kaius

First Post
Hi,

How do people feel about making particular abilities within a base class archetype optional. As an example one character in my game is playing a 2nd level fighter. I just picked up the APG and told everyone they can have a look at it and retroactively change their characters using the new options if they wish. The player with the fighter wants to change to a polearm fighter but wants to take one polearm fighter ability and switch it back to the armor training ability that it would normally replace (going by memory here I don't have the book with me at the moment). I think he wants to get the armor penalty reductions from armor training so he can tumble around the battlefield or something.

At first I said no, he has to take the entire archetype as is, as some ability replacements may not be balanced on their own, but the archetype is balanced as a whole. This seems to be the case because some of the archetype abilities are simply restrictions on normal fighter abilities, like making a polearm fighter take weapon training in polearms only.

Now I am second guessing that decision. I am thinking of allowing a player to switch a certain number of abilities as long as they don't switch the base class ability restrictions placed on an archetype.

Another example I found for a character I want to play in another DM's game is the shielded fighter. The first ability is something like get a +1 (which increases with level) dodge bonus when using a shield while fighting defensively, on full defense, or with combat expertise. You give up armor training 1-4 with this ability. The character I have in mind would be fighting with two shields (shield bash) and so would have a high dex for two weapon fighting, and was not planning on taking combat expertise. I feel the character would benefit more from increased max dex than a bonus when he fights with combat expertise.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Zurai

First Post
Bad, bad idea. The archetypes are balanced assuming the whole package is taken. Some abilities are stronger because other abilities are weaker. If you allow the player to keep the strong abilities and trade away the weak ones, you undermine the whole thing.
 

Kaius

First Post
Yeah I agree with you now. I found a bunch more abilities in the archetypes that are clearly unbalanced on a direct trade for the ability they replace. Also, DnD classes in general are not meant to be that customizable. It diminishes the whole game to make classes so wishy-washy, if you know what I mean.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
Some of the archetypes are compatible:

Should I allow a rogue with both the scout and the acrobat archetype? One replaces trapfinding, the other uncanny dodge.

Should non-clerics be allowed to choose from the sub-domains (they are listed under cleric). I think here about the Inquisitor, the druid and the paladin variant.
 



Jor-El

First Post
I also think it has been said that non-clerics may NOT take sub-domains, but its one of those things that strongly inferred and not spelled out directly.

I eagerly await the errata document so as to avoid any future conflicts!

edit: ninja'd!
 

Walking Dad

First Post
Back on page 72 it says you can do this. (bottom of first column)
Thanks. How did I missed this? Will you be able to choose both guide and shapeshifter ranger. None replaces the same feature, but guide gives a group bonus if they are in fav terrain (which shapeshifter replaces).
Could I just ignore the bond feature for having no fav terrain, or would the combination be forbidden?

I'm no big fan of fav enemy or fav terrain.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top