Class subtypes

[DMH]

Again, no way in all the hells. They give up almost nothing (they might use a crossbow very early in their career, but that passes quite quickly) for a big boost

How vulnerable are spellcasters in your campaigns if they had no way of defending themselves? What happens when they run out of spells? Do they run away (which is why I mentioned that feat) or cower in the middle of the party hoping they won't die from an arrow?

You mean extra turning?

No, the SRD I use has the feat as improved turning (adds one level for turning attempts).

Even then, this means often that they really give up nothing and get a big boost out of it. If anything, I might allow Skill Focus (and there, I might restrict the skills to be boosted), Run, Endurance, Toughness (the normal one, not Improved Toughness or a houseruled Toughness that gives +1/lv), Eschew Materials (but then again, spontaneous casters get that for free IMC), Track, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll. Nothing else.

Okay, but you would still use the idea, correct?

As for the fighter example- how long would he last in a prolonged battle without any armor?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Okay, but you would still use the idea, correct?

I might use the concept to fashion a core class that I thought was balanced, and then offer it to a player that had expressed interest in a specific type of character (light horseman, etc.) You need look no further than the core rulebooks for this concept.

I would not introduce this idea into my campaign as a general option, allowing players to pick and choose. It allows min-maxing to a frightening degree, particularly when combined with multiclassing.

Let's see, I want to create an unarmed, unarmored fighter, so I'll trade Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor Proficiencies, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and Tower Shield Proficiency for 6 free feats.

At 2nd level, I'll start taking levels of monk.

In a word: no.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

On the other hand, if you'll pardon this disgression into House Rules territory, you could use the Weapon Group Proficiency rules from Unearthed Arcana and create a list of acceptable "proficiency" feats that these feats may be chosen from-- I include my modification of Improved Unarmed Strike as a weapon proficiency, for instance.

I wouldn't allow Spell Focus, either, but Combat Casting might be good, or Battle Caster for characters eligible for it. Similarly, Weapon Focus might be selectable, for characters more interested in specialization than variety. I'll have to sit down with a list of feats and see what might make good additions to this list.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

How vulnerable are spellcasters in your campaigns if they had no way of defending themselves? What happens when they run out of spells?

Even witht he proficiencies, they aren't really good at fighting with a weapon. If they run out of spells, they're useless either way. And it happens only on the lowest levels, anyway.

As I said, the only situation where an arcanist will use a weapon is at very low levels, when he wants to reserve his spells. Later, he either doesn't run out of spells or, if he does, is useless with that weapon, anyway.

Okay, but you would still use the idea, correct?

Only reluctantly, if at all. I'd have to trust the player in question not to abuse this (by multiclassing, for example), and those who won't do such a thing to abuse the system might not be interested in the whole thing, anyway. So my final word is probably: "I'll think about it if and when it comes up, but I doubt it ever will"

As for the fighter example- how long would he last in a prolonged battle without any armor?

He doesn't have to give up all kinds of armor, right? So he gets rid of heavy, maybe medium, too, because he's a finesse fighter, anyway, gives away shield and tower shield, and has no problems with his combat expertise, dodge and high dexterity...

 

[DMH]

He doesn't have to give up all kinds of armor, right? So he gets rid of heavy, maybe medium, too, because he's a finesse fighter, anyway, gives away shield and tower shield, and has no problems with his combat expertise, dodge and high dexterity...

I meant the example given by CRG- the one that has no armor at all. He is going to get pulped by any encounter with a lot of opponents.

Another way the DM could use this is to limit the exchange to one proficency for one feat.

And as for multiclassing, a metagame way around that is to say when a profiency is given up, it can only be regained by spending a feat. Is there an easy way to explain this in game- no, but there are a lot of things in game that can't be explained (like taking a level of wizard after first level- they need years of training).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I meant the example given by CRG- the one that has no armor at all. He is going to get pulped by any encounter with a lot of opponents.

He can still use other stuff, like dodge, combat expertise, and magic items. Or just take wizard levels (for shield and mage armor). He sure doesn't need fighter levels, with all those bonus feats. Or he becomes a monk.

 

[DMH]

Again, the control of balance of this is in the DM's hands. If he or she wants to allow armorless fighters who can do all kinds of stunts, that is up to him or her. If the DM wants to allow a little bit more customization of a character and just limits it to one for one, then this is also a way of doing it.

I started this thread for both extremes and everyone else in between.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Let's say this: I wouldn't allow players to exchange their starting proficiencies with other feats. I might allow them go play a class variant, though. They would tell what kind of variant, and I'd figure something out. This would change starting proficiencies, class skills, some class abilities. The PHB has an example for that, and Unearthed Arcana has a lot of variants of that type. If it isn't there, you can get some inspiration from there.