Would you let your player do this?

[TheAuldGrump]

As has been stated before - This is exactly what retraining is for.

The sad thing is that since I told the players that retraining was an option, that if they felt that they had made an early mistake but wanted to correct it, not one player has taken that option. I really thought that someone would have by now.

Let the character do it next time he goes up a level.

The Auld Grump

 

[Nyeshet]

Retraining seems to be the popular decision here.

As for myself, I am a bit wary of the retraining option. Personally, I would use the "brother" method. By that I mean, the character retires and his younger (by a year or so) brother - who has taken the normal barbarian path - joins the group. Any gear the retiring character doesn't think he'll need and that his brother could make use of he gives (or lends) to his brother.

If the group is in the middle of an adventure, you can easily back-story the elder brother having recently becoming less interested in the adventuring lifestyle. Perhaps he has built up enough wealth, glory, etc and is ready to set down roots, become a headman in his tribe, etc. Then, fortuitously, his younger brother - who took up adventuring some time not overly long after the elder brother left - happens upon the group. They talk for a while, and the elder suggests the idea of the younger taking his place in the group. He gets to return to his tribe, etc, taking the equipment that his brother wouldn't be able to make ready use of (bow, arrows, etc), while his brother continues with his adventuring with the group.

I would insist that the 'brother' have the same stats as the former character, perhaps allowing a trade off between Str and Dex. Skills would remain the same, with the exception that if the archery variant has different class skills, and if any ranks were put into them, the player has the option of reassigning those skills (as they would otherwise immediately be cut in half due to being cross class skills) into typical barbarian skills. Archery specific feats could be traded out for others as well. Equipment would be altered and somewhat lessened. If the elder had a +2 bow, the younger has a +1 (axe, sword, whatever). Only basic equipment - perhaps with basic numerical enhancements as stated a moment ago - except for what the elder brother decides to allow his younger brother to use / have.


In point of fact, this is basically retraining, but instead of a long quest to explain it, I would use role playing to bring it about in the form of a new character related to and highly similar to the former character.

 

[William drake]

Riiiiight. Because the game is so much better if every elf is the same, every dwarf is the same, and so on. And if the guy really wanted to play for power and nothing else, he'd be doing a human or dwarven barbarian instead of an elf.

As for the OP's question, same answer here as from most of the posters. Let him do it.

All evles arn't the same, and even with the classes they stay in, they still arn't the same. Its not their class, is their concept that makes them differnt, how their played, and the roles and goals they want to achieve. You could make every elf an archer, or a wizard, and they'd be differnt, or, atleast they should be.

And yes, Humans should be barbarians...the nomad people, the ones who live in homes that move by seasons, and are rough and wild and looked down upon by the old cultures,...LIKE THE ELVES...elves arnt rough, or rugged or drink it mead halls, or anything else; not that every barbarian did, or that that made them less of a culture. And not all barbarians were CONAN,I'm just saying that if you were to put the races in a class society...I would ay that Elves would be the ROMANS, and the humans would be saxons, or the pixs, or the Gauls or Brits....those who lived in tatched houses, and wore paint on their faces and didn't bathe.

The elves are the advanced people, perhaps long ago they were barbarain-like, but no more. If then you made them into a fey-like being, and not the Evles we know, then perhaps...but even then they wouldn't be barbarians...they'd just be more fickle elves, those who teased and picked on all men, toyed and pestured them and even killed them for fun when they got lost in the woods.

I also wouldn't say that Dwarves would be barbarians either, they'd be fighters or paladins...they are and old people with a long standing culture...humans the ones that shift in tribes, not the old races.

Sorry, just thinking about a skiny, fem-looking, long haired elf, holding a battle ax and crying for blood, is a bit funny.

But I also think that rangers and barbarians should be made into a single class. Also, not every barbarian was a bloodthirsty battle hardened warrior, and lossing your self in the Rage, wasn't a good thing. but no one ever plays that up, its just "can I rage now so I can do more damage and take less with my extra hitpoints."

But, that's just me.

Game On.

 

[Farcaster]

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

I'd have him respec and get rid of the UA variant ability.

 

[atomn]

If I were the DM, unless I had a really nifty side-retraining quest I'd just let them change up right away. Side-retraining quests could be fun but if it's just in there to go through the motions of retraining, I'd rather skip it and stick to the main story.