Class 'tweaks' - cost a feat, or even swap?

[moritheil]

In your gaming experience (or your belief, if it hasn't happened yet), when a player requests some simple swap for a particular class ability, should that divergence from the norm require the expenditure of a feat or should it pass merely with the DM's agreement?

Examples: PC gets a familiar instead of animal companion; or fighter feat instead of rogue sneak attack; or a gnome gets three different cantrips at creation. It is assumed the player has a good characterization/background reason for the swap.

Cost a feat to change, or simple DM's approval?

Why not just have the PC write up a new core class that combines elements of the two, and then the DM can check it for balance? That way the DM gets to see exactly what is being proposed, and all the implications for 20 levels are there on the sheet.

 

[Privateer]

Of course, those swaps have to be allowed. I wouldn't let a rogue get fighter feats every odd levels instead of sneak attack dice, as this would be, IMHO, too powerful, and stepping too much on the fighter's toes. I'd tell that player to think about a rogue/fighter multiclass instead.

Actually, that's a variant presented in Unearthed Arcana. Personally, I don't have a problem with that idea; lots of skills and fighter feats, but low hit points and only an average attack bonus. Sounds like the iconic swashbuckler to me.

A fighter with sneak attack is in there, as well, but I'm not entirely sure I'd allow that... sneak attack's balancing factor to me is the fact that it won't often connect and that attacks and hit points are traded for the ability to set up devastatingly damaging blows.

And I have no problem with switching out abilities. I've even encouraged my players to make their own classes to better suit what they want their character to be able to do. Then again, I'm in high school, so I have time to check them over for balance problems when they take advantage of such a thing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I will allow players to customize a class or ability or design their own individualized class if need be. Og course, I encourage players to use as much as they can from established sources and not to improvise unless their concept demands it, I won't allow anything, but ultimately my judgement of appropriateness and power is the only limit I impose.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Class features? Within reason.

Racial features (like Gnome cantrips)? No.

And it would have been nice to have a 'no swaps' option, even though I am not using it...

The Auld Grump

 

[zeo_evil]

I didn't vote because I don't quite see the need for the question given the existence of Unearthed Arcana which is fair game at our table. Nearly every combination is given in that book so I say use that book as a foundation for any such requests. If that doesn't cut it then allow the three "generic" classes in that book but limit multiclassing to those three classes and PRCs only and let them build their character from the list given. Thoughts?

 

[zeo_evil]

A fighter with sneak attack is in there, as well, but I'm not entirely sure I'd allow that... sneak attack's balancing factor to me is the fact that it won't often connect and that attacks and hit points are traded for the ability to set up devastatingly damaging blows.

I have seen the fighter with sneak attack in action and it isn't bad at all. A fighter without bonus feats has nothing. He still gets Weap Spec at 6th but that doesn't make up for the lack of Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Iproved Crit at 8th, etc. The lack of Tumble makes the fighter have to take the hit on the way in so the extra Hit Points the fighter has go away quickly. Heavy armor compounds the lack of movement to move in for the sneak attack. Plus what fighter has that high of a Dex and Imp Init (without bonus feats to get it) that he is going to go first and get a sneak attack anyway?

 

[zeo_evil]

Why not just have the PC write up a new core class that combines elements of the two, and then the DM can check it for balance? That way the DM gets to see exactly what is being proposed, and all the implications for 20 levels are there on the sheet.

Because that would be crazy. They are called players for a reason. It would be like opening Pandora's Box or something.

 

[moritheil]

Because that would be crazy. They are called players for a reason. It would be like opening Pandora's Box or something.

Not really. Most of my players have realized that they have no aptitude for writing classes, and leave me in (relative) peace. I only have one guy continually attempting to write his own PrCs, which I keep kicking back to him with comments like "Please do not invent new mechanics. I don't know where to start balancing this."

He's rapidly learning to standardize.

If there is the slightest doubt about balance, the DM can always just reject the proposal out of hand. I tell my players that that is what I will do unless they argue convincingly (and I will insult them publicly in the process.) It tends to cut down on the frivolous requests.

 

[Gez]

I wrote my upgraded Aristocrat class as a player...

It has not proven unbalanced so far.

 

[Driddle]

This has been noted before, but is becoming less common: Character-tweaking feats provided in Dragon magazine articles tended to lean more toward the side of paying for change with a feat. Not so much anymore; core changes suggested in the mag are more likely to be free.

And, yes, Un.Arc. would seem to legitimize all sorts of swapperoos.