Variant Class Features question-- Something for Nothing??

[Thanee]

These variants are simply bad design.

The gained ability should replace the ability you lose for it.


Solutions:

1) If it fits the character and does not offer too much of an advantage, just go with it.
2) Move the gained ability to the level of the replaced ability.
3) Don't use broken stuff from Dragon Magazine.

Bye
Thanee

 

[zendruid]

The stuff from dragon mag that really is questionable has been put forward for revision by the DM. If he declares that it needs to be changed it needs to be changed. This should not prevent it from being used, only from being used as written.

Part of the joy of D&D 3.5 is that there are so many possible variations from the typical character archetypes. This would be why they include prestige classes and rules for creating variant classes in the DMG (a core book not a splat book or supplement).

These rules are guidelines at best and are written as such. The DM holds the ultimate say in this matter and I defer to him.

The simple heart of the issue isn't should this be allowed because it's from Dragon but how does this need to be adjudicated to make it allowable in this particular campaign with these particular players.

I will be the first to admit there are several issues with all the supplemental material from any source. That is why there is errata, sage advice, forums for discussion and DM fiat. There must be room, however, to allow for expansion upon the core rules or were are playing a game that rewards hard-line rules lawyering versus creative thinking.

If there weren't so many attractive (at least on the surface) options there would only ever be a rogue, a wizard, a fighter and a cleric in every group. These characters players would then pursue this single class for 20 levels and the game would end. That sounds more like WoW than D&D to me.

I've given my two cents as the player of said potential character. The DM has the final say. If he rules against me so be it. I will find another way (perhaps a more creative one) to make the character fit the concept in mind.

Just on a side note, the amazing mumford has, insisted on using supplemental rules from Dragon. Particularly the misfire table for firearms. Much to his chagrin, I have yet to get a critical failure on this table. Woops maybe I just jinxed myself.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, I mentioned it briefly before, but even the most heinous example (in my mind), the Solitary Hunting variant, doesn't seem that broken if someone dipped and "stole" it. You still only have a single favored enemy at +2 (or +3, with certain racial foes and racial sub. level). It's not going to make much of a difference in most games, it's probably ok to just let it go. The bigger issue to me isn't the mechanical aspect, it's the "principle of the matter." I just don't like that level of powergaming, exploiting badly designed rules like that.

As for the something for nothing (and vice-versa) thing in general, I can understand a need for it. Not all trades will be nearly equal, and it makes sense that some things should could earlier or later than what they're replacing because they're that much better/worse. Say (just as an arbitrary example) you gave the ranger Wildshape as a druid in return for 4+ int skill points and loss of hide in plain sight. Wildshape is MUCH better than the lost class feature, but gaining it as a druid means getting it much earlier. Arguably, the skill point loss is making the trade overall "equal" (and I definitely would still call the ranger weaker than a druid) and is being paid for all along...is it fair to gain the class feature at 5? I don't mind such kinds of swaps in individual games for a specfic character that I approve of...I'm just not sure it's a good idea to publish them as "official" variants for anyone to use...

I'm just rambling now, don't even know if I actually made a point in the end.