Swapping class feats for chosen feats

[Quasqueton]

What is the common wisdom on the concept of allowing PCs to swap class feats, like Shield Proficiency for a chosen feat like Two-Weapon Fighting?

To me, it seems like trading nothing for something, sort of like those feats that give a bonus to a skill the PC will use and a penalty to a skill the PC will never use, that I've read some negative reviews on.

Quasqueton

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Generally, no. You get what you get and that's pretty much it.

Many DMs have houserules on this sort of thing, however. I've played with one who allowed you to trade hit-dice size for skillpoints, for instance.

EDIT: To add to the above, that particular DM was pretty nonstandard.

I assume, in your case, you've got a PC Fighter or Cleric who wants to get TWF in place of the Shield Proficiency feat, which, given their professed desire to go all-out TWF, they'd never use anyway.

I'd disallow it, personally, and force them to take the feat normally.

Another valid approach, would be to allow it with the caveat that, if you don't like the way it's working, it reverts to normal and they spend their next available feat choice (bonus or otherwise) on TWF.

 

[argo]

Generally the answer should be no because a customized feat package is (usually) more powerful than one of the standard class packages.

However, as a DM it is worthwhile to evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis. If the player has a sound reason for why you should make the change and it doesn't appear too unbalancing then having a variant class can be a lot of fun to play and can make the campaign more interesting. Classic examples would be the Paladin who trades out his special mount for Leadership (can you say squire? ) or the sorc who trades his familiar for Eschew Materials, etc.

 

[Darklone]

two to one sounds often reasonable. E.g. Swapping shield proficiency AND heavy armour proficiency for one feat.

Might be silly in the case of someone who aims at non armour TWF prestige classes later though...

 

[Orm]

We use a houserule that the rogue can swap sneak attack damage dice for feats that have to be chosen from a small list of rogue class feats. It works pretty well for my rogue and I don´t think he´s overpowered compared to a standard rogue.

Orm

 

[Plane Sailing]

What is the common wisdom on the concept of allowing PCs to swap class feats, like Shield Proficiency for a chosen feat like Two-Weapon Fighting?

To me, it seems like trading nothing for something, sort of like those feats that give a bonus to a skill the PC will use and a penalty to a skill the PC will never use, that I've read some negative reviews on.

Quasqueton

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. While the PHB and DMG does *encourage* DM's to allow messing around with class features with numerous examples given, there has to be a good balance between the things that are swapped out.

As a for-instance, I allowed a fighter in my campaign to lose all armour proficiencies and shield proficiencies in order to start with TWF (she comes from a region which is known for two weapon fighting and not known for armour). Another trade which I might consider for a fighter would be "lose all martial weapon proficiencies and gain TWF", thus allowing them to only use it with simple weapons unless they spent further feats.

My personal preference is for slightly more radical changes though - e.g. a Ranger/Justicar who uses the Paladins spell list instead of the Ranger one.

Cheers

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I think trading starting feats is reasonable... among feats of equal value for that character. A character who isn't going to use a shield doesn't get as much out of shield proficiency as they do out of TWF, so that's not a fair trade.

Two-for- one may be reasonable (shield proficiency is -some- good, because you may pick up a magic shield somewhere, or need to carry one to another character and might was well use it as you do so). Also, I don't like penalizing someone just because they want to play a character concept that's less standard, as long as it's not disruptive to the campaign or more powerful.

For example, in one recent game a player wanted to have a barbarian without rage, but with a ranger's favored enemies. The idea seemed reasonable -- a non-berserker fighter from a primitive culture who wasn't necesarily a woodsman. And it seemed balance -- you can use rage in any fight, but the GM controls when favored enemies come up. So getting rid of all the barbarian rage abilities and replacing them with the ranger's favored enemy progression seemed like a good call.

Similarly, if someone wants to play a less armored, more weapon-finesse cleric I can se making some changes to assist. But I still suspect TWF is worth more than shield prof. I might let him trade in heavy armor prof for it, and shield prof for something like Quickdraw or Improved Initiative. I would also likely consider having a different set of weapon profs, or expanding the weapon profs in exchange for shield prof.

Play Well!
Owen K.C. Stephens

 

[Marshall]

A feat is a feat.
Giving up Shield, Med Armor and Heavy Armor for TWF at 1st, ITWF at 6th and GTWF at 11th is an even trade. In fact, I'd expect all TWF focused FTRs to actually do something like that. Forcing your players to accept "useless to them" abilities at 1st level doesnt make any sense.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I might consider allowing a PC to rade a shield proficiency for TWF considering TWF is underpowered anyway until you get 2 decent magic weapons.

On a side note I allow fighters to tarde a d10 HD for a d8 and 4 skills instead of 2 skills per level (x4 first obviously).

 

[Scion]

I'd rather swap and personalize a class than have the need for a million slightly different base classes to choose from.