Optional rule: remove class feature for a feat?
- Thread starter calypso15
- Start date
Infiniti2000
First Post
I don't recall seeing such a rule and I'm not sure how well it would work out. Class features are not equally powerful, so using such a rule would most likely be much more powerful at lower levels than at higher levels. The most obvious example I can think of is to swap a fighter bonus feat (a class feature) for a general feat. The second is clearly stronger.calypso15 said:
John Q. Mayhem
Explorer
Swapping, say, Uncanny Dodge or Evasion for a feat should be fine; Animal Companion is also a good candidate for feat-swappage. It's not a good idea to swap out, say, the ranger's Endurance for a free feat, though.
Okay, I guess I was hallucinating. Basically, the reason I asked is because I have a character with rogue levels who is never actually going to sneak attack (character reasons). I thought there was some rule that would allow me to basically "give up" sneak attack in exchange for a feat. I was wrong. 
I don't see any particular problem with it though, beyond the fact that it adds another dimension for powergamers to abuse (much like the merit/flaw system). Maybe I'll just rename my "sneak attack" ability to "precise-ish strike" (like duelist!) and only use it when flanking.
Calypso
I don't see any particular problem with it though, beyond the fact that it adds another dimension for powergamers to abuse (much like the merit/flaw system). Maybe I'll just rename my "sneak attack" ability to "precise-ish strike" (like duelist!) and only use it when flanking.
Calypso
Infiniti2000
First Post
Well, if you're not going to use sneak attack at all, I'd be interested in hearing about the character description why not. Fwiw, don't take the names of abilities, spells, etc. at face value. Sneak attack is not necessarily sneaky or underhanded. Feel free to label it something else, like what you suggest or anything. But, if the mechanic itself is something you're not interested in (name notwithstanding), then I'd be okay as DM to allow you to swap it out for a specific subset of feats of a similar power. It would be a lot of work to balance properly, though, so I'd rather tend to see if you could choose a different base class instead.
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
I'm fairly sure there was a rogue variant (in Unearthed Arcana?) that let you swap the sneak attack for feats. Might have been a house rule. Can't really remember...
Anyway, a player in our campaign used it. Without the Sneak Attack, his rogue was very weak... albeit this was a fairly combat heavy game.
Anyway, a player in our campaign used it. Without the Sneak Attack, his rogue was very weak... albeit this was a fairly combat heavy game.
Infiniti2000 said:
Well, he's basically a free-spirited gambler/swashbuckler/airship captain. (For those of you that frequent the WotC boards, I was the one asking for suggestions on building Setzer from FF6
) The build itself is Rogue 2/Swashbuckler 3/Fighter 1/Holy Liberator 3/Duelist 7. He's out to fight against tyranny and injustice, and look good doing it. Basically, he's a swashbuckler at heart, so he's not going to use any underhanded methods. If his opponent is prone, he'll wait for him to get up. If his opponent loses his weapon, he tosses it back. He is very honorable and fair. Realistically, I'll never flank anyone either.Hence, no sneak attacking.
EDIT: Though, I can see him using Feint.
Calypso
Infiniti2000
First Post
So, he'll only ever fight opponents one on one, then, right? He'll never fight 2 against 1 (your character being part of the 2)?
Infiniti2000 said:
Well.... I wish that that could be the case. However, you know as well as I do that that is impossible (hence the rhetorical wording of your question). If I just stood there and watched as the rest of my party fought some big-bad, I don't think I'd be very popular.
Believe me, I'm open to suggestions on making it work
Calypso
