Thinking on your "feat": dynamic character design

[Psion]

I was just wondering if anyone else here operated by a sort of "shrodinger's character" paradigm. The way I do thing, no character design decisions are fixed until they come into play.

This has expressed itself primarily in the realm of feats. Once we had a monk who was getting hammered upon by an ogre barbarian and decided to retreat.

"Do you have mobility?" I asked.

"I do now," said the player (and erases the feat he had selected for the level.)

Likewise, a rogue took "lightning grab" feat (from TQR) to grab an item that was important to the plot.

This seems to make feats more interesting, IMO, and lets players select feats that make a different vice ones that they think are going to make a difference but languish unused. It also generates a feel of "hidden talents" and "potential."

Any thoughts?

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations,

Hmm, I am not sure it would work with most of my group.

They are very casual players and regularly have to refer to a rulebook. Character creation alone takes a good segment of time.

If they were to pick as they play, then I think it would slow down the game.

FD

 

[Numion]

I allow changing feats and skill points retroactively. It isn't done on the spot as you wrote in your post, but rather when new sourcebooks come out or character rises a level. (Usually for PCs to qualify for some new class.)

For example, now that the ELHB will put significant importance on Spellcraft skill, I allowed a cleric in my group to transfer skill points from other, less used skills, to Spellcraft. (In order to get some of the feats when he's 20+ level.)

Your method of on-the-spot adjustments seems like a good idea to try. Generally I try not to use any strong-arm tactics as a DM, but concentrate on whats enjoyable, rather than whats 'by the rules'.

 

[Umbran]

Yes and no.

Sometimes I, and other DMs I know, will allow some flexibility if they find a feat is simple not coming into play at all. If the player chose something, but finds it dreadfully hard to get any use out of it, allowing a change is not unreasonable. Similarly, when a new book comes out, some re-writing of the character may be in order.

However, no DM I know allows such things in play, spur of the moment. It isn't quite right to have characters manifesting notably different combat abilities between one round and the next. Aside from this making encounter design somewhat more annoying, I think of these things as choices that should be thought over. Reconsideration later is allowable, but not without the small penalty of having to wait until there's a proper break-point to make the change.

 

[pensiv]

I find that that approach makes a lot more sense than just having the player pick a feat at level-up.

I approach it a slight bit differently, however. A character wouldn't choose a feat at level-up and then switch it later on. What would happen is that at level-up, the new feat slot is availableto be filled in a given situation. When a situation arrives in which the player feels that his/her character should "push his/her limits" and take a situation appropriate feat. This feat fills the slot that was made available at level-up and the player has to wait until the next feat-generating level-up to open a new "feat slot".

I've been in games where skills were gained in a similar way as well. Instead of adding ranks to just any skills at level-up, the player is asked to add ranks to those skills used most often, or to spend "downtime" seeking out training in new skills wanted. This approach is a little harder to keep track of, but it really depends on the group.

 

[Psion]

However, no DM I know allows such things in play, spur of the moment. It isn't quite right to have characters manifesting notably different combat abilities between one round and the next.

Which is why I only allow changes, as I said, to abilities that have never come into play.

 

[VoodooGroves]

I have little to no problem allowing this as a DM, as long as I pay attention and keep things fair. This just recently occurred to me as a player, however, and I was glad to have the opportunity to switch.

I had built a 6th level character to join a game with the understanding from the DM that I would not "buy" equipment or magic items beyond normal - those would be chosen by some background information we chatted about before the first adventure in which I participated - my equipment would be found at the end of the adventure.

It was a fun idea, so we tried it out.

I had envisoned this pole-arm wielding paladin and had headed the power-attack / cleave route with some expertise thrown in (for improved trip on the polearms).

This was all fine and good until (naturally) the "weapon" I had been carrying around turned out to be a short sword. At that point we did a few adjustments and ditched the improved trip for some other feat (forget which). Still, feat had been un-used previous to the switch.

 

[Umbran]

Which is why I only allow changes, as I said, to abilities that have never come into play.

*shrug*
Trading in an ability that has not come into play for one that does qualifies as a major change in my book. In the middle of a battle with a bunch of kobolds, having the fighter trade in Endurance for Great Cleave would seriously alter the course of events.

As a DM, I want to see the PCs grow and change. I don't want to see them making unpredictable and significant alterations in the middle of an encounter, though. It would seriously get in the way of my planning, and rather goes against the way I'd prefer to depict character advancement. Ymmv.

 

[warpmind]

I prefer not doing that, mainly because if you don't have that feat you need (or not enough skill points for something or whatever) you just have to wait to gain some levels and then take them. It's not a drama.

The other point is that I think that players earn XP between adventures, and that it's when they train and think about recent experiences that they learn new tricks and techniques. That's my view on level advance. It's more logical to try to learn a techinique that would have been of help in a recent situation than simply learning it as a "reflex reaction" to that situation.

The last point is that if you not allow PCs to improve their abilities in reaction to a problem they're facing at that precise moment they have to seek for another ways of avoiding them, using whatever abilities they have at hand.
It can be a bit easy for a PC to just take a new feat to overcome a threat. I prefer them to use more wits and to take profit of their capacities.

Finally I think you'll not try to use this philosophy with spells prepared. Something like Spontaneous Spellcasting with any spell. It could be devastating and unbalancing.

 

[Psion]

It's more logical to try to learn a techinique that would have been of help in a recent situation than simply learning it as a "reflex reaction" to that situation.

I think you misunderstand the approach. It's not that the character "spontanously learns" within the mileu. It is merely that the character has a talent that has not been expressed in the game yet. Basically, what I am doing is saying that most character stats are subject to change until demonstrated... in otherwords, the character sheet is not the final word on what abilities the character really has, but what happens in the game is.

Edit:
A question you should ask yourself is "when does a character design decision become true/irrevocable." Let's say your DM hands out experience that night, your character advances, and you get a feat. You go home that night, and you add the new skills and feats to your character. The next day, you get to talking with one of the other players, who tells you about this prestige class that would fit your character so well. But since you already set pencil to paper, are you going to say "naw, I took the wrong feat last night"? I think not.

AFAIAC, no character design decision becomes "true" until it enters the continuity of the game. If you contradict that continuity, THEN it becomes illogical. I find your claims that this approach is illogical unsupportable, because I am not changing the past, because it never was the past until it enters the continuity of the game.

The last point is that if you not allow PCs to improve their abilities in reaction to a problem they're facing at that precise moment they have to seek for another ways of avoiding them, using whatever abilities they have at hand.

It's not like this technique would always apply. You typically only get one new feat every 3 levels. Taking a feat that you think will be useful and ends up just decorating the paper is worse, IMO, than tolerating the fact that the character sheet is not set in stone.

It can be a bit easy for a PC to just take a new feat to overcome a threat. I prefer them to use more wits and to take profit of their capacities.

Bifurcation. The methods are not mutually exclusive.

Finally I think you'll not try to use this philosophy with spells prepared.

Don't be so sure. I typically don't, because I consider spell selection to be an in-game choice vice a character design choice and thus less mutable. But there are cases in which allowing flexibility on that score results in a better game session than sticking to your guns would. See the Lady Despina's Virtue story hour for a glittering example.

Something like Spontaneous Spellcasting with any spell. It could be devastating and unbalancing.

Could be. But like all things, DM fiat applies--and my players know that. I think are projecting the situation as rather more haphazard than it is. I have used this technique 3 times in the game that I can recall. But that is three characters that are more interesting for the effort, vice being saddled with abilities that in hindsight were ill-considered. I really don't think the game should be about punishing players for making less than optimal character design choices. I say give them a little leeway (a little, mind you.) The game is supposed to be fun.