Remind me again why this is a bad idea.

[bondetamp]

Ok, I almost never play d20 in any incarnation, so most of my opinions on the game are purely theoretical. One of my main beefs with the game is its use of classes, or rather, the implementation of them. Too little wiggle room, in my ever so humble opinion.

Example one: An urban Fighter. The character is a street thug, born and bred in the slum, using most of his day beating things up for the local thief guild. He has a lot of combat training, translating to feats, and few skills. He should clearly be a Fighter. On the other hand, he never uses armour heavier than leather and he never uses a shield. The background sugest that he isn't trained for heavier armour or shield.

Could someone tell me why it is wrong to let the player exchange the superflous armour- and shield feats for other feats? Why is this more unbalanced than simply demanding the player to roleplay, giving him a pretty severe penalty with no tangeable benefit in return.

The character in question isn't much of a swimmer, but he handles himself pretty well at the average stare-down. Is there a reason why a player can't choose the character's class skills at character generation? Come to think of it, is there any reason to use class skills at all? Exclusive skills I get. Class skills I'm less sure about.

Note: The fighter example, is just that, an example. Telling me to pick another class or avoiding the problem in other ways doesn't really help, if you see what I mean.

Any D&D junkies out there who can explain this to me?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Montecook said he would like to have integrated some customized core classes in the Dungeons Master Guide.
So, though there is no rule for it - because it is hard to make a rule about these things - there are no rules against it.
Just ask your DM - or be the DM - and make some fitting chances.

For advises, look at the witch class in the DMG or the Urban Ranger in the Masters of the Wild for ideas.

You should have some D&D experience to safeley (without screwing balance) customize a class, but if you wish, do it. (Hell, there are a million Ranger variants out there )

But for your example: He is not clearly a fighter. Working for the thief guild to beat people up - he is a rogue, but non the trapsearching pickpocketing stealthy type of rogue. Low Intelligence, high Strength.
"Tag Skill": Intimidate. Other skills might include Move Silently/Hide (depending on how he had to beat up the guys ), Gather Information (where can I find this guy I have to beat up - Don`t know, try to find it out. What are we paying you for?), Jump, maybe Tumble...
He might multiclass with Fighter later.
Feats: Improved Unarmed, Thug (if available)...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

*shrugs*
The Core Rulebooks specifically discuss changing character classes - the PHB has an example that talks about a street smart Fighter with reduced armor proficiencies and improved skills. The DMG discusses changing classes completely.

I would advise actually reading these books, before forming these opinions.

As for why a guy shouldn't choose their own class skills, there are a couple of things to consider:

1) Anybody can buy almost any skill cross class. Moreover, cross class skills don't represent poor training - they represent normal training. Class skills represent *exceptional* training. Like, anybody can learn Tumble - Rogues are just particularly suited for it.

2) Certain skills are more powerful than others, and it would affect game balance to let anybody pick them. Spot, Listen, and Tumble all come to mind as particularly good class skills. To keep the game working the way it is supposed to, it's better for most classes to buy these cross.

(Most people shouldn't spot the invisible monster, or bounce around the game like ping pong balls.)

One thing you might consider doing is just giving everybody +2 skill points to their base number - so Fighters get 4 per level, Rogues get 10, etc. We've been playing 3E a long time, and my group has really gotten good use out of that house rule.

 

[Vaxalon]

Could someone tell me why it is wrong to let the player exchange the superflous armour- and shield feats for other feats? Why is this more unbalanced than simply demanding the player to roleplay, giving him a pretty severe penalty with no tangeable benefit in return.

Customizing core classes is a fine art. The fact is, not all feats are created equal. The fact is, only about one fighter in eight or ten actually uses the heavy armor proficiency, and only about one in four uses the shield proficiency. Given that, I would allow a fighter to trade out ALL THREE feats for ONE feat, and it would have to be one of the less powerful ones like Toughness.

For the "Street Brawler" class, I'd strip out the martial weapons as well. In return for removing all of those proficiencies, I'd grant him proficiency in ONE martial weapon of his choice, plus the toughness feat, and a D12 hit die.

Skills aren't created equal, either. Swimming might come up once in ten sessions, while tumble could easily come up in every session. I'd allow swimming to be swapped out for "Knowledge: Nobility" when making up a class oriented around knighthood, or to make a PC-class version of Aristocrat, but I wouldn't let him swap out swimming for something widely used.

 

[Macbrea]

To me it sounds like the guy is basicly a rogue/ranger with favored enemy equal to his own race. Strange as that might sound he specializes in beating things up while maintaining a rogue type persona. He is more balanced toward being a fighter in light armor (ranger) and wants to have the skill base of a rogue.

If the player multi-classes those two classes you will basicly get a guy that can go out and beat up people. While still having the basic skills of both rogue and ranger. He doesn't actually ever have to use a weapon in his off hand. Expecially, if he takes Improved unarmed fighting. In which case his fist makes a great off hand weapon.

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

Customizing core classes is a fine art. The fact is, not all feats are created equal. The fact is, only about one fighter in eight or ten actually uses the heavy armor proficiency, and only about one in four uses the shield proficiency.

I disagree with this observation - IMC, almost every Fighter looks forward to heavy armor, and many choose shields over two handed weapons. (I wouldn't, but I *love* the Tower Shield.)

However, I agree with the idea that Feat trading shouldn't just be all willy nilly. My rule is, Heavy Armor = 1 Exotic Weapon Proficiency, no questions asked. Anything else is negotiated.

The Knight thing reminds me of something I shoulda mentioned earlier:

The best reason to not change classes around too much, or worry about them, is that multiclassing is really easy. If you want a street smart Fighter, just multiclass Rogue and Fighter. Does the job pretty well.

(The Knight thing reminded me, because I've made some really cool Aristocrat / Fighter types lately. Didn't need to change either class - they're an awesome combo, especially in an RP heavy game.)

Edit:
D'oh - shouldn't take my time typing these things up.

 

[Macbrea]

If he did Rogue/Ranger here is how it would look about 6th.

Louis, M Human Rogue3 Ranger3 CR 6; Size:M Type Humanoid; HD (3d6)+(3d10)+12; hp 44; Init +2 (+2 Dex, +0 Misc); Spd Walk 30'; AC 17 (flatfooted 17, touch 13), *Dagger (Adamantine) +6 0'/P (1d4+3 19-20/x2 Primary T ) or *Dagger (Adamantine/Thrown) +4 10'/P (1d4+3 19-20/x2 Primary T ) or *Sap (Masterwork) +6 0'/B (1d6+1 20/x2 Off-hand S ) or ; SA: Sneak Attack +2d6, Favored Enemy(Human), Evasion, Uncanny Dodge (Dex bonus to AC); Vision: Normal AL: CN; Sv: Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +4; Str 14, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 10

Skills and Feats: Appraise +8, Balance +3, Bluff +5, Climb +6, Diplomacy +4, Escape Artist +6, Gather Information +5, Hide +9, Innuendo +4, Intimidate +7, Jump +8, Knowledge (Local) +4, Knowledge (Streetwise) +3, Listen +1, Move Silently +8, Search +7, Sense Motive +5, Spot +5, Tumble +8, Wilderness Lore +5; Ambidexterity,Armor Proficiency (Light) (1x),Armor Proficiency (Medium) (1x),Combat Reflexes,Exotic Weapon Proficiency,Expert Tactician,Expertise,Improved Unarmed Strike,Martial Weapon Proficiency,Shield Proficiency,Simple Weapon Proficiency,Track,Two-Weapon Fighting
Possessions: 0 Outfit (Traveler's), 1 Dagger (Adamantine), 1 Sap (Masterwork), 1 Chain Shirt (Masterwork), 1 Ring +1 (Protection), 1 Cloak of Resistance +2,




I didn't min/max the character very far to get a guy that should be running about a city. He isn't carrying very much in the way of weapons but those can be picked up at random and used. If his party is deciding to spend alot of time fighting larger creatures he should pick up the Longsword and shortsword style over this dagger and sap.

 

[Petrosian]

My points are...

first, not every character concept is buildable by ONE core class. The reason 3e has the loose multiclassing rules is to allow you to build the character "mechanics" to fit the concept. In the character you described, i would definitely see him as a fight-er-rogue and probably about evenly split. that gives him the skills he would seem to acquire, extra combat feats as well as things very useful to fighting thieves like uncanny dodge. The fact that the character concept is better fitted by a MC combo is not a sign of a problem but rather a sign of the strength of the new mc rules and their ability to help you meet your class.

Second, both the PHb AND the DMG give sections on Gm altering classes when he feels its a good idea. They even go into some do's and don't sna d such but in the end the Gm there has to handle balance issues.

Three, while a gm could let you trade off feats like heavy armor for something else, he *should* consider balance. I do not view "heavy armor" as much of a loss for a character class which is going to not want to be slowed anyway. Consider... a character in plate with a 12 dex gets an Ac of 19. A character with an 18 dex in chain shirt has an Ac of 18. If the class is going to want a high dex ANYWAY and wants to avoid skill penalties (for all those rogue skills) then the difference is almost insignificant.

So, a wise Gm, will keep that in mind when allowing trade offs. he might allow you to lose heavy and medium armor but probably ought not to allow a "in tade" useful feat for each.

As a balance-o-meter, comsider the following...

How many rogue character players have been willing to spend two feats to gain heavy armor? How many have been willing to spend one feat for medium armor? if the answer is almost none, thats a good indication of how much the class is losing. if a guy wants to turn a fighter class into a rogue class and "turn in" his armor feats... use this to judge how much he is actually losing.

Second look... if you were to waive a magic wands and allow all rogues to have armor medium and armor heavy for free feats, how many would be rushing out to use them? Few in all likelihood (and those probably only looking for mithril breastplates, 1 Ac superior to chain shirt.)

In short, if a character came to me with this concept, as you defined it, asking for class changes... i would instead suggest he grepresent it with a rogue-fighter multiclass as that combo will represent it well.

 

[apsuman]

Why not a straight ranger? (the one exactly in the PHB)

You get the HP.

You get the BAB.

You get the shieldless two weapon fighting.

You get more skills.

The only rouge like thing you miss is uncanny dodge, but is it absolutely necessary for this concept? No.

The easiest thing IMHO would be to negotiate with your DM as to how your Ranger could eventually get uncanny dodge.

g!

 

[Vanye]

The only rouge like thing you miss is uncanny dodge, but is it absolutely necessary for this concept? No.

The other rogue like ability he loses is sneak attack.