ACF chaining

[Aeryr]

There are a lot of ACF, to customize further a character, listed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7908) are those of the official sources.

By RAW one should not be able to stack them, since they require levels in the class (of the ACF) for example. A bard can get an animal companion using nature bard (UA, p 58) but he cannot trade it for an urban companion (CS, Web) since he doesn't have druid levels.

I understand that allowing chaining, might lead to some shenanigans, but overall it seems to allow more customization to the PCs (or NPCs).

Would it break the game to allow to do so?

Also on a related note taking some of this ACF might make impossible by RAW to qualify to prestige classes or feats. For example a swashbuckler that gets arcane stunt (CM, p 32) stops being able to qualify for daring outlaw.

Would it break the game to allow a character with an ACF to qualify for a feat/PrC at the level that he would qualify without that ACF?

What is everyone opinion?

[Larkas]

Hmmm, I really have no formed opinion on the subject, but you might want to check this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869822/Variant_Chaining) out.

[Fax Celestis]

Nah, I've never found an issue with it. In fact, I played a wilderness dungeoncrasher feat rogue once, and it was quite possibly the most fun quasi-ninja I've ever played.

[Jasdoif]

As long as the ACFs themselves are reasonably balanced, and applied reasonably (not replacing a half-progression animal companion with an ACF that replaces a full-progression animal companion, for example), I don't think chaining them together would cause a problem. If chaining did lead to an issue, I'd be far more likely to blame one or more of the ACFs, rather than the chaining itself.

As for using replaced features to qualify for feats/etc....I'd discourage it. You shouldn't be allowed to qualify with a feature you chose not to take, just like you shouldn't be allowed to qualify with a feat you chose not to take.

[TroubleBrewing]

I've always wanted to be able to do this. It's kind of like playing '6 steps to Kevin Bacon', but with ACFs. '6 steps to Wildshape'. I'd allow it for my games.

[Gorfnod]

I have used and allowed ACF chaining in games and have never seen any problems with it as long as everything was traded for properly.

I agree with Jasdoif that allowing a missing class feature to count for a PrC or feat should not be allowed. This is already taken in to consideration for most things where it could be a major issue. (Rage variants generally state that they count as rage for the purposes of anything to do with rage and so forth).

Simply put, if you don't qualify, you don't qualify.

[Acanous]

There's some of this in Pathfinder already.
For example, an Archaeologist Bard gets a bucket of rogue features, and one of the features he gets is rogue tricks. Some of the rogue tricks grant access to class features from other classes, so you can , for example, be a Bard with Trapsense and Evasion that casts a number of spells from the Sor/Wiz list as EX abilities and has a familiar.

[Soranar]

It can lead to some strange things

This guy for example

Start Barbarian

trade fast movement for pounce

trade rage for ranger archery combat style, trade ranger archery combat style for ranger wildshape and fast movement

Essentially you traded something and ended up with something else that's more valuable (wildshape is more versatile than rage) and something which you had traded back (fast movement)

[darksolitaire]

Most of those ACF chains improve mundanes. I can't really see how they could be used to break the game. Wild Shape Barbarian would be solid tier three, for example.

[Eisenfavl]

It can lead to some strange things

This guy for example

Start Barbarian

trade fast movement for pounce

trade rage for ranger archery combat style, trade ranger archery combat style for ranger wildshape and fast movement

Essentially you traded something and ended up with something else that's more valuable (wildshape is more versatile than rage) and something which you had traded back (fast movement)
Building on this: with things other than wildshape, I believe it is possible to end up with functionally infinite movement speed, amongst others.

[Aeryr]

I agree that taking an ACF makes you unable to qualify for stuff that needed the original class feature, even in a case by case basis I might allow it.

On the ACF chaining I don't see the examples presented extremely game breaking. Even if Wildshape is relatively speaking more versatile than rage (there are utility forms, and combat forms that stop being able to use equipment, while rage is only combat but there is still a chance to use equipment) I don't see a wildshaping barbarian competing with a tier 1 character. Imho if it leads to the player having more fun, having a character more similar to his intended character I won't outright ban it.

Any gamebreaking example that someone can pull off?

[Soranar]

You will never get anything gamebreaking from a class that isn't already gamebreaking to begin with since breaking the game usually entails casting (or manifesting) which you cannot trade in order to obtain.

but some minor things can increase those tier 1 and 2 classes further

off the top of my head.

Sorcerers/Wizards can trade their familiar for an animal companion

Druids let you trade an animal companion for an urban companion (same as a familiar but 2/3 your hp instead of only half.)

No cost, clear increase.

Wizard

Trade your bonus feats (and scribe scroll) for bonus feats like a fighter
trade your fighter bonus feats for sneak attack as a rogue.

In most builds you're better off with the bonus feats but if you require sneak attack , for whatever reason, you have the option

[Aeryr]

Yep, trading the familiar for an urban companion is a power increase. Wait, no, it is not. For a wizard his druid effective level is half his wizard level so he would have to expend twice as many levels to get a bump in its familiar capabilities 6th level is needed just to be able to deliver touch spells, having to take 6 levels of wizard for just a bit more of HP in your familiar (with d4 HD) is that worth it?. Better results could be achieved by multiclassing earlier and then the lose of the ability to use the familiar to deliver spells might be significant. A bard does indeed gain an animal companion of his bard level but at the same time loses stuff like inspire courage so probably even trading it for an urban companion the power increase won't be broken.

And the wizard doesn't replace wizard bonus feats for fighter bonus feats, he replaces his bonus feat list.


Wizard
Gain: Bonus feat list (as fighter; bonus feats gained at 1st level
and every five levels as wizard).
Lose: Scribe Scroll, wizard bonus feat list.

So he cannot replace fighter bonus feats because he still has wizard bonus feats and even if it were the case trading 5 feats for 5d6 sneak attack extra precision damage is probably not comparable to getting empower spell with only 1 feat.

[Soranar]

Right, chaining ACF is a lot of fine print reading (was using the ACF compendium which didn't have all the details right)

But I do have a way to break make a bard quite strong using that shenanigan.

the key is that an urban companion is not a familiar

Go savage bard and nature bard

bard 5/UrPriest 2/Mystic Theurge 3/Sublime chord 1/mystic theurge 7/ Any Arcane Advancing Class 3

Take the obtain familiar feat

you now have an urban companion and a familiar (both have share spells)

cast divine power and shapechange

you now have 2 engines of destruction in front of you

until that happens, you can use your 2 familiars to use wands through UMD

[Quietus]

I think the key to this is simply being reasonable with what you can chain. In general, if someone comes to me and says "I want to make a Barbarian who's traded Fast Movement and Rage for X Y Z", and I don't see anything leaping out at me about this being too good of a trade, then I'm probably going to allow it. Oh noes, he traded Rage for pounce and a limited Wildshape? That doesn't scare me, as a DM. In fact, I'd encourage this, because I prefer characters that are flexible over those that are singleminded engines of destruction. And that's exactly what ACF chaining does most often, in my experience - trades focus for versatility. This is only ever a good thing in my books.

[deuxhero]

So he cannot replace fighter bonus feats because he still has wizard bonus feats and even if it were the case trading 5 feats for 5d6 sneak attack extra precision damage is probably not comparable to getting empower spell with only 1 feat.

You could quality for some prcs with it.

[Particle_Man]

I'd say it is getting closer to point buy a la Mutants and Masterminds (perhaps with Wizards and Warlocks as the supplement).

As you get closer to point buy, you need a DM/GM to be more willing to say "No, that would be too much for my campaign" and players willing to respect that without whining, pouting, etc., even if they disagree with the DM/GM.

So, it really depends on your group.

[Yorrin]

I allow (and toa degree encourage!) ACF chaining at my table. I've never seen it used problematically any more than I'd expect from the players using it. In other words- the one guy that tries to push the power limit chose better chained ACFs than the player who likes plain vanilla Monks and Barbarians without Pounce, but neither exceeded what I usually expected of them from it.

[DemonRoach]

"Gamebreaking" is subjective in any case. In my personal experience I don't think it would be too problematic.

[Rejusu]

You shouldn't be able to take anything that replaces a class feature that you've already traded away. But something which causes the loss of a class feature shouldn't make you lose what you traded it for. For example if you take the Holy Warrior Paladin ACF that gives you bonus feats in the place of Paladin spellcasting and then take a level in Ur-priest (which causes you to lose all previous divine casting ability) you shouldn't lose those feats.

[Person_Man]

The more time you spend playing or DMing, the more comfortable you become with alternative class features, 3rd party material, and homebrew. Words do not become magically better because they're published in a core class and not an alternate class ability, or even in a book as opposed to a forum. There is no such thing as balance, unless it is created by the players in your group through consensus.

[Rejusu]

There is no such thing as balance, unless it is created by the players in your group through consensus.

Amen to that. I've said a million times that in regards to D&D it doesn't matter that the system is unbalanced, it doesn't mean the games have to be.