Would you let your player do this?

[klofft]

One of my players is playing an elven barbarian/cleric. At 1st level, he used the barbarian variant from UA, and chose the ranger's archery path rather than the ability to rage.

Now, 5 levels later, he has decided that he loves the thrill of melee far more than archery. He wanted to know if he could ever get the ability to rage.

I told him that I would not let him treat the UA variant as merely an alternative class feature that he could re-train (as per PH2), as it was really intended as a whole separate class (IMO).

But I was considering allowing him to take a level in "regular" barbarian. However, that would mean all the benefits of a "dip" class, as well as effectively doubling his level 1 barbarian bonuses.

Would you let your player do this? Or, alternatively, is there any other way he could get the ability to rage?

C

 

[hong]

Eh, some people are more indecisive/changeable than others. If he's not just trying to cheese benefits out of the system, I say let him do it. There's no point making him play something he doesn't really like, just because he made the wrong decision 5 levels ago.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

If the player wasn't enjoying his build, I'd just let him retroactively change it as long as it weren't something he tried to do on a consistent basis. IMO, any alternative would detract from everyone's ability to enjoy the game--it's not like he's asking to do something ridiculously overpowered, just revert his class to the PHB version. You can just pretend that he's been that way all along.

 

[rgard]

One of my players is playing an elven barbarian/cleric. At 1st level, he used the barbarian variant from UA, and chose the ranger's archery path rather than the ability to rage.

Now, 5 levels later, he has decided that he loves the thrill of melee far more than archery. He wanted to know if he could ever get the ability to rage.

I told him that I would not let him treat the UA variant as merely an alternative class feature that he could re-train (as per PH2), as it was really intended as a whole separate class (IMO).

But I was considering allowing him to take a level in "regular" barbarian. However, that would mean all the benefits of a "dip" class, as well as effectively doubling his level 1 barbarian bonuses.

Would you let your player do this? Or, alternatively, is there any other way he could get the ability to rage?

C

I'd let him re-engineer the character to the original barbarian class. The point is to have fun and the re-engineered character is no different than bringing in a new character by a new player or as a replacement for a dead character so you aren't breaking or unbalancing anything by letting him re-engineer.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'd let him retrain it as an alternate class feature, because, well, that's what it IS.

In all seriousness, why NOT allow him to change? If he's been hurling himself into melee on a regular basis anyway, it makes sense his archery skills would start to atrophy.

 

[sjmiller]

Another alternative would be to let him take a "feat" of Rage. Make the feat have a prerequisite of sacrificing a current class ability and you are all set. That means there's no "retcon" of his character, and he still gets what he wants.

 

[nute]

One of my players is playing an elven barbarian/cleric. At 1st level, he used the barbarian variant from UA, and chose the ranger's archery path rather than the ability to rage.

...

Would you let your player do this? Or, alternatively, is there any other way he could get the ability to rage?

If it would not unbalance the campaign, I would say yes - but also give an in-character reason. Like a blow to the head makes the barbarian slightly nearsighted and deprives him of that amazing skill with a bow. He's so angry about this that he gains the ability to rage. Just sub out the alternate class levels for regular barbarian levels, and go from there.

 

[Bardsandsages]

IF his character has not really been using the archery AND it won't upset the storyline or gameplay, just let him switch from one to the other.

Or, if you want to work it into the story, perhaps he gets sent on a visionquest by his patron diety, and upon completing the task has "forgotten" the archery ability but gained divine insight into calling upon his rage.

I'd personally go with working it into gameplay and making him earn it, but I see no reason not to let him just switch.

 

[delericho]

I told him that I would not let him treat the UA variant as merely an alternative class feature that he could re-train (as per PH2), as it was really intended as a whole separate class (IMO).

May I suggest you revisit this decision? This seems precisely the sort of thing that retraining was designed for, and the quickest and easiest way to satisfy everyone.

(That said, I don't actually like or use retraining - I would just let the player swap out the abilities and have done with it. But, if you're wanting to stick to RAW, or you're already using retraining, then this is the way to go IMO.)

But I was considering allowing him to take a level in "regular" barbarian. However, that would mean all the benefits of a "dip" class, as well as effectively doubling his level 1 barbarian bonuses.

Those 'dip' benefits are precisely why I wouldn't allow this option. What you could do, though, is let the PC trade out whatever the Barbarian power of the next level he was to gain in place of the ability to Rage as a Barbarian 1, and increase rage from there.

Would you let your player do this? Or, alternatively, is there any other way he could get the ability to rage?

I believe there are PrCs that give the ability to Rage. The Singh Rager (from OA) for one.

 

[Mouseferatu]

May I suggest you revisit this decision? This seems precisely the sort of thing that retraining was designed for, and the quickest and easiest way to satisfy everyone.

What he said.