Fair Trade?

[Arthur Tealeaf]

Be careful with allowing trades like this.

Medium and Heavy armour proficiencies aren't that great; and giving them up means nothing to many characters.
If the character takes a level of Fighter (or Paladin etc) he gets the feats back anyway; If the character has a really high Dex then Light armour is better anyway.

Geoff.

It's for me, and I will absolutely not take advantage of that!

I'm not trying to cheat myself to a good character rules-wise, I'm simply trying to use the rules to tailor a character I have pictured. I'd rather have him exciting, interesting and fun to role-play (and play) than have him good rules-wise, so i don't think I'll switch races or anything very soon, because then the whole concept would be lost...

 

[Ywain]

Originally posted by Crothian
Players choose to give up things they know they will never use to get things they need.

This is all too true, as a general rule. That is why Kits were fundamentally broken in 2e -- everyone chose a kit that gave up something they never intended to use in the first place (and there were enough kits out there that you could always find one). At least prestige classes have positive hinderances; you have to spend feats and skill points, and not just give up an ability or two.

My default answer for customizations like this is no. But, on a case by case basis, consider the proposal. If the player doesn't usually ask for exceptions to the rules and I know the player is doing it for the character concept, then if it is a fair trade I'll allow it.

This is a fair trade, although barely. Trading two feats for an extra class skill is generally underpowering your character, but they are closely related feats -- if you aren't planning on wearing medium armor, you probably aren't planning on wearing heavy armor. So even though you are giving up two feats, you are really only giving up one class ability. The bonus skill points might be a little bit much.

If I thought that the player might be prone to later abusive requests, I'd throw in a requirement that they take Skill Focus (Knowledge (Science)) as well, just to make sure that they really want this and to set a precedent I can fall back on.

 

[Quickbeam]

Thanks for the idea!

We've just started a brand new campaign (we rotate DMs and I get to play now), and I've created a gnome cleric of Boccob. I'm going to suggest this very trade to our current DM. Thanks !!

For what it's worth, making House Rules for reasonable trade-offs like this are always encouraged in our group. Not every character has to fit a cookie cutter mold, and coming up with balanced suggestions of this sort encourage greater character development and roleplaying IMO.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I wouldn't allow it because there is already something in place to let you do what you want. You can take the cosmo feat and get what you want, without changin any rules (well, except maybe the character region rules).

--Rough Spikey

 

[Galfridus]

Be careful with allowing trades like this.

Medium and Heavy armour proficiencies aren't that great; and giving them up means nothing to many characters.
If the character takes a level of Fighter (or Paladin etc) he gets the feats back anyway;

In which case, the character has given up a level of spellcasting to get the proficiencies back -- but yes, it's still abusive.

I would attach a caveat to trades like this that the character can't use class abilities in whatever armor they are giving up: so if the character wants to take a level of Fighter, wear full plate, and be unable to cast cleric spells or turn undead, so be it.

If the character has a really high Dex then Light armour is better anyway.

Geoff.

Sure, but that's not a reason to deny the trade. At some point they will regret not having armor (like when they are surprised). If they don't, the DM isn't doing his job correctly.