Crothian said:
When a PC does ask to trade things in like that and they are set in there ways, I make sure they recieve diminished returns. It's too easy to min max by trading character abilities like this.
*shrug* It seems a bit like a smack in a face to me.
A fighter from one area is not going to be like a fighter in another area.
That applies to almost all the classes.
But then where do you draw the line? I have a ranger that knows all simple and martial weapons. I use a bow and a spear, that's it. It'd be great to get rid of the other pesky weapon proficiencies for something useful. Same with medium armor and a shield.
I draw the line where it makes sense- no heavy armor in areas it would not be practical.
I am not sure about your example- bows are martial weapons, as are long spears. The other spears are simple. What other weapon proficiencies are they getting rid of?
But just because someone chooses not to use something is not an option for replacement-
For example, there is a rogue imc who wanted to multi into a fighter. I have a rule that for the first level of a new class- the pc must usually find a trainer.
The dwarf trained him in everything but heavy armor, because the only heavy armor around would not fit him.
I made it clear the dwarf taught him the basics- so once he had exposure to heavy armor, he could take the feat.
Now, he has no intention to ever wear it, and had asked if he could take another feat. I said no. It is not a plug&play option- the dwarf did not teach you anything else in that place- it is up to you if you want to gain that feat or ignore it.
As I said- it is a balance between fitting a class to a player's imagine and trying to redesign the class for maximum power.
I just would not draw a line in the sand and say "take it as it is and don't whine about it".
FD
