Retroactive Character Customization

[Trainz]

Sometimes a player will discover that certain options he picked for his character are suboptimal or even downright useless. The DM plays a certain item in a way that the players didn't expect, the campaign turns out to be devoid of the item that the player's ability focuses on, the player simply didn't understand the rules right when picking the item.

Examples:

- Sorceror picks the spell Alarm, but the DM decides that the spell can be triggered by squirrels and other small mammals, which renders the spell virtually useless (sorceror is currently dual-classing and won't have a chance to switch his spell before long)
- Ranger focuses on dragons as species enemy, only to find out after 20 or so games that the DM will only have them fight a dragon about once during the campaign, if any
- Cleric picks the feats Empower Turning and Quicken Turning and then finds out (as previous example) that very few undead will be fought
- Sorceror picks the feats Draconic Heritage and Draconic Fight, and very rarely uses them because most fights in the campaign are in low-ceilinged dungeon rooms
- Fighter finds a long-sword that the campaign suggests he should wield (nice powers, story arc including sword), but half his feats are devoted to weilding a greatsword
- Upon becoming epic, a cleric needs a high prereq in a skill (Spellcraft for example) to acquire a certain feat, but never developped the skill before
- You want to qualify for a certain prestige class, but you have none of the skills and feats requirements

There can be any number of reasons that your character could be more than he currently is. It can be frustrating to wait for many levels until the new items are acquired, with the old items still taking space on the character sheet, unused.

A fix to this could be to simply let players change items on their sheets for different ones, but in order to prevent abuse, I would like to propose a system under which to execute those transformations. The following items can be switched with the following XP costs:

-Feat: 1000 xp
-Skill rank: 200 xp
-Spell known: 100 xp / spell level
-Favored enemy: 500 xp / +2 increment

The transformation takes time. A character can't simply decide to have a certain feat in a fight and switch it for another in the next fight. When a player decides to alter his character using those rules, he immediately loses use if his current item, and will only have access to the new item in a number of days equal to the XP cost divided by 100. This represents the period the character needs to train/research the new item. It can be done while adventuring, and as long as the character isn't helpless/bound, the switch will happen after the given time. Reduce the training time by half if the character devotes all his time to the change, and reduce time by 2 days if he has access to someone who already has the knowledge and is willing to impart it on the character.

What do you think ?

 

[Jdvn1]

I kind of like how the RAW handles it, with the psionic power, and that seems like a lot for a Favored Enemy.

 

[Trainz]

I kind of like how the RAW handles it, with the psionic power, and that seems like a lot for a Favored Enemy.

OK... but if you don't use psionics ?

How much would you propose for favored enemy ?

 

[smootrk]

I think it to be a bad idea. Choices are part of the game. Players could easily get input from the DM about the direction of the game and some commentary on choices for their character.

What you will get is power-gamers who trade in powers to suit the game, and very un-interesting characters who are perfectly suited for the challenges they face. Heroes face obstacles and overcome those obstacles with the skills they have. Even if they have to use those skills in unconventional ways. They will just have to adapt.

 

[Mark Causey]

Some of what you're referring to Mike Mearls refers to as 'mother may I' abilities (favored enemy, for example), that depend entirely on the DM introducing the enemy for it to be useful. I've found that I've forgotten to include multiple enemies for cleave attacks, sneak attackable enemies for rogues, downtime to allow for item creation, and so on.

I believe this comes down to communication and not a matter of power gaming or un-interesting characters. Some players are fine with some of their abilities or feats being used rarely, but most are not. A good idea can simply be to tell the DM that you'd like to use the ability that you chose. I know it helped my game out a lot.

As for a game where everyone has made choices and that leads to a lack of logical encounters where their abilities can be used, I agree with Trainz; an in-game ability to retroactively 'tune' their character to their environment would be useful. (E.g. A coastbound game may lead to skill points being spent on sailing and crafts that later prove useless as the game, willingly on both sides, heads inland).

Maybe you could use the Blackguard as an example? You get to 'trade-in' levels of Paladin for extra abilities of the Blackguard class unavailable elsewhere. Racial substition and Planar substitution levels exist to trade-out standard class levels for a different focus on that character class. Short of a case-by-case rework of the player's next class, however, you'd be stuck with no other options.

I don't try and do the hard core math that some people do to balance out the home brew options. But I do have a suggestion:

For a feature of the class, such as skill points or a class feature, divide the experience it took to reach the class they've achieved (2000 XP from level to 2 to 3 (3000-1000=2000)) by 4 (HD, saves, skills and class features = class level, in general), and then if it was only part of said feature (1 skill point when they would normally get 4 or one of two class features for that level), divide it further to get the XP cost for the replacement. This means that it would not ever lose its significance in cost.

 

[smootrk]

I agree with what you are saying about the communication. That was my point as well. Communication before choices are made as to whether they will be relevant choices. I agree also that it is far simpler to communicate player to DM to make previous choices come into play more.
What I don't agree with, is somehow forgetting how to do something and somehow some other form of knowledge coming into a characters mind. Just doesn't make much sense to me. I learned Visual Basic. I never seemed to use it much..... I still know VB... Even if I learned some other more useful skills in the meantime.
What I do realize is there is not always a good level of player/DM communication in all groups. In those groups, it may be the right way... but in mine, it would just be a reason to role-play more.
For example: I have a Paladin who has Profession (teamster). While at first this may seem to be a waste. But role-play has brought up interesting developments as he uses this skill while driving a caravan from one location to another. In other words, it is all how you use the skills you have picked, with cooperation with the DM.

 

[IcyCool]

There can be any number of reasons that your character could be more than he currently is. It can be frustrating to wait for many levels until the new items are acquired, with the old items still taking space on the character sheet, unused.

That's why character building isn't called character instant gratification.

Seriously though, the general process of character creation should go something like this:

1. You create a ranger who has dragons as a favored enemy and submit your character to the GM.

2. GM looks over sheet and sees favored enemy: dragons. GM knows that there will be all of one or two dragons in his campaign world. Or, GM decides to include more dragons so that this character may make use of this ability. If the latter, the GM approves the character and the process is done.

3. GM talks to the ranger player and informs him that he is very unlikely to get a chance to use his favored enemy.

4. Ranger either:
A: Reworks the character.
B: Plays the character anyway.

3-4 of the examples you listed would have been solved before the game even started by using this method.

The other examples you gave are either not a problem (Draconic Feats example), or highly dependant on circumstances (wants to qualify for a prestige class or lacks skill ranks for a feat). In the last two, I'm usually flexible (letting them re-assign points, or letting them into the PrC bu requiring them to spend them in those skills until the pre-reqs are met). If it's clear that they wanted to go that route from the start but chose to invest those skill points elsewhere, well, tough.

I think trying to introduce a mechanic for a situation that should be about players communicating with and trusting their DM is a bad idea.

 

[Trainz]

So far, the input given has failed to demonstrate TO ME that my house rule is bad. And I am quite content to change my POV on these boards given enough reason to.

What I'm proposing isn't a way to make PC's stronger (you don't gain something over what a perfectly planned character would gain), and there ARE XP costs.

I would also like feedback on the XP cost portion of my house rule. Too little ? Too much ? Wrong cost ?

 

[Trainz]

That's why character building isn't called character instant gratification.

It isn't instant, it takes time for the change to take effect.

And, you don't gain access to things you wouldn't normally be able to get if you had followed the propoer route. A feat with a prereq of BaB +8 would still be unatainable to any 6th level character. Nothing instant about it.

I think trying to introduce a mechanic for a situation that should be about players communicating with and trusting their DM is a bad idea.

It has nothing to do with DM trust (the DM shouldn't have to change his whole campaign based on a single ability of a single character), and comparing your character's abilities to the DM's campaign was but just a single reason given as an example to use the proposed system. Many more reasons were given.

Forget that aspect. Would the proposed House Rule be able to serve other needs (listed in first post) efficiently ?

 

[Jdvn1]

OK... but if you don't use psionics ?

How much would you propose for favored enemy ?

Well, I tend to think that if you don't have psionics in your immediate area, that you can Plane Shift to a place that does have it. Or go to Sigil. Or create an Arcane equivalent. I'm sure there are some creative Wizards out there.

I'd propose... I dunno, 250 or 300 sounds about right to me.