When it comes to matters of fine-tuning or tweaking character concepts in your campaign -- particularly during character creation when unique "origin stories" are crafted -- to which of the two routes do you adhere?:
1. Allow PCs the option of swapping out core rules abilities for something approximately equivalent without penalty.
2. Requiring PCs to "pay" for any changes beyond what is clearly definined by the PHB (and DMG), at the expense of a feat, for example, or the loss of an additional minor ability.
Examples would include allowing a gnome character to pick any three cantrips instead of the standard 'dancing lights' et al in the PHB, or allowing a paladin to attract some other animal partner at 5th level(?) in his holy quest instead of a mount, or "specializing" a fighter class by redefining his skills set (but not the skill point number). ... In other words, the sort of substitutions that don't necessarily unbalance the game.
I'm curious about this choice because various game supplements and Dragon magazine articles seem to embrace both styles. One month you may see an article that outlines a series of ability-swapping feats (and feats are very much a character-development asset that require a sacrifice of some other choice); the next month it will be suggested that a DM simply allow players to substitute equivalent abilities to help them define a character.
So... Free Substitutions vs. Penalty for Deviating from Standard. Which one?
1. Allow PCs the option of swapping out core rules abilities for something approximately equivalent without penalty.
2. Requiring PCs to "pay" for any changes beyond what is clearly definined by the PHB (and DMG), at the expense of a feat, for example, or the loss of an additional minor ability.
Examples would include allowing a gnome character to pick any three cantrips instead of the standard 'dancing lights' et al in the PHB, or allowing a paladin to attract some other animal partner at 5th level(?) in his holy quest instead of a mount, or "specializing" a fighter class by redefining his skills set (but not the skill point number). ... In other words, the sort of substitutions that don't necessarily unbalance the game.
I'm curious about this choice because various game supplements and Dragon magazine articles seem to embrace both styles. One month you may see an article that outlines a series of ability-swapping feats (and feats are very much a character-development asset that require a sacrifice of some other choice); the next month it will be suggested that a DM simply allow players to substitute equivalent abilities to help them define a character.
So... Free Substitutions vs. Penalty for Deviating from Standard. Which one?
