Retroactive Character Customization

[IcyCool]

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.

I hope it works out for you

I'd be interested to hear how this actually works out with your group. Would you keep us posted?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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

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

*SNIPPED*

This is how I generally handle things in my games, but I typically try to be pretty flexible about character rebuilds, too-- especially since my campaign plans change sometimes, or my rules change in a way that negatively impacts a character's abilities. (As my rules become more stable, this should be less of an issue.)

 

[Jdvn1]

I hope it works out for you

I'd be interested to hear how this actually works out with your group. Would you keep us posted?

Ditto! Glad to hear everyone liked the idea and I wanna hear how it turns out in-game.

 

[Trainz]

I guess it'll be a while if we ever use it: it's not something you can expect to do often. But the fact that we now have such an option... comforting.

 

[S'mon]

Your house rule is fine, but if a player came to me and asked to change an ability that had _never come up in play_, I'd probably let them swap it out for a reasonable alternative with no XP cost. I'd be a bit reluctant to do that for Sorc spells (unless it was a spell I had nerfed in-game) since there is already a swap-out mechanic in 3.5, but for feats or skill points I'd pretty well always be fine with it. The important thing is that all decisions would be at my discretion, the player doesn't have a _right_ to retroactively tweak their PC for optimum build. Rather, I'll let them tweak poorly chosen abilities so they're not too weak relative to other PCs.

 

[Trainz]

Your house rule is fine, but if a player came to me and asked to change an ability that had _never come up in play_, I'd probably let them swap it out for a reasonable alternative with no XP cost. I'd be a bit reluctant to do that for Sorc spells (unless it was a spell I had nerfed in-game) since there is already a swap-out mechanic in 3.5, but for feats or skill points I'd pretty well always be fine with it. The important thing is that all decisions would be at my discretion, the player doesn't have a _right_ to retroactively tweak their PC for optimum build. Rather, I'll let them tweak poorly chosen abilities so they're not too weak relative to other PCs.

I didn't mention it, but I do intend to have some control over the process, as I would about any choices the players make (for one, no frenzied berzerkers IMC).

For example, if a player is currently on a trek through some grasslands, I wouldn't let him swap some Climb ranks for some Swim ranks. I would require him to occasionally be near some body of water to have the change happen.

That said, if the PC wants to swap Improved Init for Power Attack, besides him training an hour every morning during the change, I wouldn't require much. Same for a sorceror spell: I would assume that he's currently going through some phase where his powers slightly transform, his Haste spell merging into a Dispel Magic spell for example.

I foresee a lot of fun in-game rationales to exercise this rule. The party accepted a mission that will take them into a lair infested by demons. Prior to going, one of them decides to spend 3 full days into the town's archive and at the temples to acquire knowledge to face that enemy. 3 days later, he has swapped 6 ranks from other skill into Knowledge: the Planes.

 

[S'mon]

Hi Trainz - I do think your XP system is a very nice way to represent a PC changing the focus of their self-training (eg from 1 skill to another), as long as it takes a decent while to do. The nice thing is that unlike some XP-for-ability systems it doesn't make a character objectively 'better' than a new-build PC of equivalent level, so it's much less likely to cause balance problems with the CR system.

 

[Trainz]

Hi Trainz - I do think your XP system is a very nice way to represent a PC changing the focus of their self-training (eg from 1 skill to another), as long as it takes a decent while to do. The nice thing is that unlike some XP-for-ability systems it doesn't make a character objectively 'better' than a new-build PC of equivalent level, so it's much less likely to cause balance problems with the CR system.

Thanks. That's what I was going for. Not better, just more efficient.