Retroactive Character Customization

[smootrk]

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 ?

I am not saying your house rule is bad. It may be the perfect band-aid to correct some poor character choices in your campaign.

I just think it is an un-necessary rule to correct something that could otherwise be worked around using creative role-playing or better communication between player and DM during character creation or level-up situations.

As far as xp penalties -
- with my own views on communication: if I had a player who just could not live with the choices he made, I would penalize heavily. Probably loss of a level (and thus the opportunity to at least re-choose some skills and options). And if that was not enough (needing to fix choices that go back further into the characters past), I would then add xp penalties, and your penalties seem appropriate for that.
- these are just my opinions of what you are trying to achieve. I would suggest using whatever makes your players happy, but keep in mind... most player's always try to utilize whatever tool they can use to become the most powerful. You are just putting another hammer in their toolbelt.

 

[Trainz]

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.

What part of the Psionics SRD illustrates that system ?

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

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Trainz]

I am not saying your house rule is bad. It may be the perfect band-aid to correct some poor character choices in your campaign.

I do appreciate your input, even if negative. You took the time to read my thread and give feedback.

Maybe it's just that the concept is very alien to your gaming style.

 

[smootrk]

I do appreciate your input, even if negative. You took the time to read my thread and give feedback.

Maybe it's just that the concept is very alien to your gaming style.

Well put. Whatever works for your group is the best solution.

 

[Jdvn1]

What part of the Psionics SRD illustrates that system ?

Which system? Psionics, planar travel, or creating new spells?

Thanks for the feedback.

Well, 300/+2, of course, but yeah. No problem.

 

[IndyPendant]

I have a house rule for my campaigns where, for the first 3-5 sessions, if a player discovers there's something wrong with their char, then they can change it no questions asked, roleplaying be damned. I want my players to be happy with their chars as much as possible, and sometimes you just don't realize how something will play out...until you play it out. So far, that house rule has been used very rarely, and I've had it in pretty much since I started GMing in 2000.

Even after that, I tend to take a balanced view. If it could arguably be stated that the player could not help the situation, I tend to be lax in char changes. Let me give you some examples. (These are all taken from actual experience, although heavily adapted for this post...: )

--In a longstanding campaign, a player discovers the *perfect* PrC for his char--in a book that came out after his char was created. His char is missing certain prereqs. I will then try to work with the char to find a compromise that works. (Switching out little-used skill ranks, waiving a feat req so long as it's the next feat he selects for that char, something.)

--The cleric in the party bites it, and the player doesn't want to bring in another cleric. Rather than forcing the players to shuffle the chars around, the druid has just levelled and decides to take Spontaneous Healer from Complete Divine. But he doesn't have the skill reqs for the feat. Since he would never have taken it with a cleric in the party, and he's doing it to fill a party role to minimize disruption, I would try to work with the player again.

--The player has taken the SRD Toughness feat for his 1st-level wizard, despite my advice against it, has now reached 5th level, realized just how crappy a feat it truly is, and wants to swap it out. He gets a "Yeah, that's tough." pat on the back from me--and is stuck with it.

I always try to keep in mind the primary goal of RPGs: to have fun. If a player doesn't seem to be enjoying themselves, I work with them to see if we can fix that. But I also don't coddle my players, and if they insist on making what I think are mistakes despite clear warnings from me...*shrug*. They're (presumably!) adults. I let them. : )

 

[Angel Tarragon]

In my experience as a player, the GMs I've played under have taken an active role in the the way the campaign gets molded and shaped based on the choices of the players have made for their characters. Also many of the GMs I've played under also told us whichDnD/D20 books we could and couldnt use, rather then letting the player have free reign on the cghoices made for skills, feats, spells and prestige classes.

I think it is important for the GM to have a hand in the development of the characters. That way he/she can choose/write adventures specifically for what the players are looking for.

 

[IcyCool]

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.

That was a bit of a joke, hence the smiley

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.

Well, it is a trust issue, is it not?

As to the reasons given. I'll do a point-by-point:

- 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)

This is something that probably won't come up during character creation. The player should ask the DM if he can switch out the spell, as he thought it would be useful and the DM is making it "worthless". The DM should let him, or provide him with a decent reason as to why the sorceror can't swap it. (Alternatively, the sorceror could realize that alarm has other uses than just warding a wilderness encampment)

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication.

- 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

See my answer to this one in my previous post.

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication at character creation or level up.

- Cleric picks the feats Empower Turning and Quicken Turning and then finds out (as previous example) that very few undead will be fought

The resolution to this issue is similar to the Ranger issue, except that the words "very few undead" are a tad subjective. If the player is disappointed because there aren't undead in 75% of the encounters, that's a problem with the player. Alternatively, if the DM doesn't warn the player at character creation or level up that there will be 2 or 3 undead encounters in the whole campaign, then that's a problem with the DM.

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication at character creation or level up.

- 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

Again, "very rarely" is subjective. Once a session? Once the whole campaign? I would argue that being able to use a feat once or twice a session is plenty.

Problem Resolution: Is there really a problem here? If so, how can this not be solved via DM-Player communication?

- 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

So, is there a good reason why the sword the fighter finds can't be a greatsword? Some plot-critical reason? If so, that's what dispel magic and polymorph any object are for. If not, why is the DM deliberately being difficult with his players?

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication at character creation or level up. Or, player inventiveness (Dispel and polymorph).

- 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

If the player of the cleric never knew about the skill pre-req, he should talk to his DM. If it's an attempt at deliberate abuse, then the DM should reign the wayward player in.

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication at character creation or level up.

- You want to qualify for a certain prestige class, but you have none of the skills and feats requirements

Again, if the player didn't know what PrC they wanted to go into, then he should talk to his DM. (Personally, I encourage players to consider what prestige classes they are going to want at character creation). Abuse should be addressed by the DM.

Problem Resolution: DM-Player communication at character creation or level up.

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

I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. But if you want, you can consider it forgotten .

As to the house-rule itself, I think the "prices" for each are a bit expensive, I'd probably cut them in half. Otherwise, it looks workable.

 

[LazerPointer]

I'd take the costs you list and have the characters multiply them by their level, or half their level or something. That way a bad choice is easy to fix at low levels, but the players will work hard to not have to lose a lot of XP down the road.

 

[Trainz]

Thanks for all the input guys, you've been very helpful.

I presented this to 3 of my players tonight, who are also all DM's, one of which I play in his game. They were all excited byt this house rule and decided to adopt it for their own campaigns. After reviewing this thread together, we decided to reduce the Rangers enemy cost to 250 (thanks Jdvn1 !) and skill ranks to 100.