Celebrim
Legend
zyzzyr: I figured you wouldn't try to cheat the system like that, but the DM in me wanted to point out to you and anyone listening that not all trades are created equal. Giving up a powerful ability like turn undead is very hard to get back.
If I were your DM, I'd be easier to convince to trade heavy armor proficiency for another feat if you wrote down on your character sheet something like:
"Advantage: Unusual Background - This character's unusual disposition caused him to fail to recieve the unusual training in armor and lacks Heavy Armor proficiency. He forgoes recieving Heavy Armor proficiency as a class feature of any class that has such benifit. However, in exchange he gains the 'Scribe Scroll' feat."
This makes it clear to all parties involved that you won't see heavy armor proficiency unless you spend the feat to get it.
I'd even be happier if you forgo both medium and heavy armor, because I could foresee players forgoing heavy armor with no intention of ever wearing it anyway, but 'Scribe Scroll' doesn't seem like the request of someone trying to munchkin out so I'd probably allow one for one with the understanding that this ruling is on a trial basis only.
If I were your DM, I'd be easier to convince to trade heavy armor proficiency for another feat if you wrote down on your character sheet something like:
"Advantage: Unusual Background - This character's unusual disposition caused him to fail to recieve the unusual training in armor and lacks Heavy Armor proficiency. He forgoes recieving Heavy Armor proficiency as a class feature of any class that has such benifit. However, in exchange he gains the 'Scribe Scroll' feat."
This makes it clear to all parties involved that you won't see heavy armor proficiency unless you spend the feat to get it.
I'd even be happier if you forgo both medium and heavy armor, because I could foresee players forgoing heavy armor with no intention of ever wearing it anyway, but 'Scribe Scroll' doesn't seem like the request of someone trying to munchkin out so I'd probably allow one for one with the understanding that this ruling is on a trial basis only.