Swapping feat due to multiclassing

[Arkhios]

A player in my group plays a Thief with the Moderately Armored Feat.

His stats are (after the feat) 18, 14, 14, 11, 14, 11.

The player is new (trust me, I know he's a total newbie, he still tries to make damage rolls with d20 every now and then) and didn't plan his character beforehand.

Now, at 4th level, he's taken a liking of the idea to multiclass into Fighter.
Since Fighter multiclass gives the same armor proficiencies as Moderately Armored does, my question is:

Would you, as a DM, allow the player to swap Moderately Armored with Athlete?

In my opinion it would feel unfair not to. A feat is a feat, and if multiclassing would pretty much negate half of its benefits, the chance for a feat would feel as being wasted for nothing.

[suplee215]

This comes down to how much leeway do you give new players. I personally see no issue with this, although I would suggest explaining to him why you are doing this. I also might go one step further and allow him to pick any feat instead of the useless feat, partly so it feels like his decision and also so he can maybe further plan his character design and feel like he has control over it. When a DM makes a decision for you as a new player, it is possible that you don't learn or understand that aspect of the game. Also I would stress that he shouldn't expect it in every game or with every DM.

[Sirdar]

Yes! I can see no reason to stop the change of Feat in this case. Everything you wrote speaks in favor of giving the player a chance to reinvent his/her character concept. :-)

[rooneg]

I would totally let them do it. Even in Adventurers League games that are super Rules as Written they have a mechanism for rebuilding characters (before you hit level 5) so that people can have some chance to correct early mistakes like this.

[Arkhios]

This comes down to how much leeway do you give new players. I personally see no issue with this, although I would suggest explaining to him why you are doing this. I also might go one step further and allow him to pick any feat instead of the useless feat, partly so it feels like his decision and also so he can maybe further plan his character design and feel like he has control over it. When a DM makes a decision for you as a new player, it is possible that you don't learn or understand that aspect of the game. Also I would stress that he shouldn't expect it in every game or with every DM.

I personally prefer to make fair rulings, be the players new or experienced. If I make lots of unfair rulings, I am seen as unfair DM, or worse, as an unfair person. I don't like to be seen as unfair, and I don't want my players to hate me for being a jerk.
I've done my share of stupid decisions when "building" own characters myself when I was less experienced, and I'm fairly sure I would know when someone is trying to cheat their ways with loopholes. However, the idea for the feat swap was mine, not his, because as an experienced player I know I would've felt bad if I later became more experienced and learned it would've been "waste of resources" so to speak if my DM wouldn't have let me do a swap like this.

I did explain why I let him swap the feat, but I appreciate the suggestion. Personally I wouldn't let him choose any feat, only one of those that would let him increase strength, as the Moderately Armored did, because those feats would make the most sense, ruleswise. But as said, there isn't many feats that would fit the concept. Athlete and Tavern Brawler being the best ones, which I did let him choose from, and Athlete fits his character concept slightly better, being a smuggler that has worked a long time with pirates, including occasionally as their crewmember. If he comes to second thoughts about Tavern Brawler before the start of our next session, it's fine by me if he chose TB over Athlete. It's his character, after all.

I haven't made any decisions for him, I've just given suggestions, which is what he's asked from me. He kinda looks up to me when he has a question regarding the rules, and I'm fine with that.

[suplee215]

I haven't made any decisions for him, I've just given suggestions, which is what he's asked from me. He kinda looks up to me when he has a question regarding the rules, and I'm fine with that.

Fair enough, just assumed it was the only option because none others were mentioned in your first post. Seems fine. As long as no one is abusing it for power gaming (which will be easy for you to figure out) allowing people to remake parts or all of their characters is usually a good decision, especially for new players.

[Zman]

I absolutely would allow that, doubly so for a new player who doesn't fully understand the rules and decisions they are making.

[Tanarii]

For a new player? Yeah, make an exception. But IMO this is why new players shouldn't be allowed to use the optional feats or Multiclassing rules in the first place for their first character.

[Arkhios]

For a new player? Yeah, make an exception. But IMO this is why new players shouldn't be allowed to use the optional feats or Multiclassing rules in the first place for their first character.

Technically it's his second character, but that said, I agree.

PS. Yes, it's a bit odd that he would still roll attack or damage or skills or saves with wrong dice if no one noticed (and our group rarely doesn't). I guess learning the distinction of abnormal dice (other than d6) just takes a bit longer for some people.

[bid]

Now, at 4th level, he's taken a liking of the idea to multiclass into Fighter.
Level 4, AL rule, rebuild your character.

That's the whole point of that rule.

[Arkhios]

Level 4, AL rule, rebuild your character.

That's the whole point of that rule.

I'm not running an AL game, but yes, I know. And no, I won't blindly adopt any rules from AL just because they exist.

[hymer]

I'd allow it. If it wasn't a new player, I'd ask that the attribute bonus from the feat was still part of the ASI or feat after the switch. Then it'd actually be a nice bit of gradually taking on a new class, I think.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd allow it, especially if it is a new player. Allowing newer players to be more flexible with rebuilding or redoing characters makes the optimization barrier to entry much lower. It also means that the player has more fun and that the character can contribute easier.

For more experienced players, I try to limit rebuilding to things that make IC sense and won't disrupt the story very much. Swapping a feat is easily retconned, wizard levels less so.

[Pex]

For a new player? Yeah, make an exception. But IMO this is why new players shouldn't be allowed to use the optional feats or Multiclassing rules in the first place for their first character.

If new players don't use feats and multiclassing how are they supposed to learn how to use them? Let them try things out. If it's not working out then fix it. That's part of learning.

[djreynolds]

A player in my group plays a Thief with the Moderately Armored Feat.

His stats are (after the feat) 18, 14, 14, 11, 14, 11.

The player is new (trust me, I know he's a total newbie, he still tries to make damage rolls with d20 every now and then) and didn't plan his character beforehand.

Now, at 4th level, he's taken a liking of the idea to multiclass into Fighter.
Since Fighter multiclass gives the same armor proficiencies as Moderately Armored does, my question is:

Would you, as a DM, allow the player to swap Moderately Armored with Athlete?

In my opinion it would feel unfair not to. A feat is a feat, and if multiclassing would pretty much negate half of its benefits, the chance for a feat would feel as being wasted for nothing.

What about those new UA Skills as Feats? And the racial feats are very good, especially if he was a dwarf. There are some good ones there that he might like

I prefer your idea, of granting him something in lieu of moderately armored

And imagine second story work coupled with athlete bonuses, could be cool.

But look at this from another perspective, what is fighter really giving him? Every level he will lose out on sneak attack damage. I would advise him to stay rogue. The fighter is only going to give him weapons he cannot sneak attack with and maybe an extra attack, but that's a loss of 3d6 damage for 5 levels.

Stay rogue, check out the Iron Scoundrel, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?405449-Shield-Master-Rogue-The-Iron-Scoundrel

[Tanarii]

If new players don't use feats and multiclassing how are they supposed to learn how to use them? Let them try things out. If it's not working out then fix it. That's part of learning.
By learning to play a single class character first. They've already got more than enough to learn, for the typical new player. "Shouldn't be allowed" is def too strong though. I certainly strongly recommend it to new players.

[djreynolds]

Plain old rogue, with moderately armored and shield master..... is awesome

Coupled with resilient con and later on you get resilient wisdom at 15th, is awesome

You get 6 feats, 3 going to moderately armored, resilient con, and shield master, and then 3 more to max out attack and grab HP

10d6 sneak attack damage every turn is frightening

[Arkhios]

What about those new UA Skills as Feats? And the racial feats are very good, especially if he was a dwarf. There are some good ones there that he might like
The campaign is part of the same setting me and my another friend kind of run together, just with our own respective groups. The setting is primarily his (the other GM's) creation with only bits of additional lore from my pen. I prefer keeping the allowed rules within same limitations as in the campaign he runs. As the "Grand GM" of the setting he has the right to veto any rules I'd use. All of the UA classes, sub-classes, feats, etc. (Except the revised ranger and revised downtime rules) are currently off-limits.


I prefer your idea, of granting him something in lieu of moderately armored

And imagine second story work coupled with athlete bonuses, could be cool.
Yeah, I should think so, too. Athlete is very fitting for a Thief.


But look at this from another perspective, what is fighter really giving him? Every level he will lose out on sneak attack damage. I would advise him to stay rogue. The fighter is only going to give him weapons he cannot sneak attack with and maybe an extra attack, but that's a loss of 3d6 damage for 5 levels.

Stay rogue, check out the Iron Scoundrel, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?405449-Shield-Master-Rogue-The-Iron-Scoundrel
Fighter gives him Two-Weapon Fighting Style (he has preferred to fight with two weapons whenever possible), all weapon proficiencies (there are still a few of martial finesse weapons a rogue lacks proficiency with - such as scimitar, the closest resemblance of the notorious pirate weapon: cutlass) and medium armor proficiencies he sorely needs due to his stats (when he created the character, he chose to do it all at random, and if I recall correctly, without my intervention he wanted to keep the stats in their thrown order. Quite lucky at that. I don't remember for sure, but I think the class was rolled at random, too.)

He's said he doesn't see his character using a shield; even when offered a Sentinel Shield when another character got rerolled because of reasons, he refused to take it.
Also, he said he might want to continue as a fighter for a while. If not until the end-game.

[Saeviomage]

I would be happy to let any player of mine rebuild his character from the ground up for basically any reason. I'd rather a character's numbers on a sheet change than the history of the character itself is lost for... some sort of worry about powergaming? I think? Or perhaps a DM not wanting to keep up with the changes?

I don't really know why DMs are set against players doing this. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose...

[djreynolds]

In this case, because he wants to use TWF.... allow him the swap of athlete and moderately armored.

Because the only reason to grab moderately is for the shield proficiency.

Also athlete does have a perk, 5ft to move from prone is actually very strong later on in game versus powerful enemy

Another option could be war cleric, he would get all armor proficiencies this way and divine favor is nice for TWF.. he has the stats

[Arkhios]

I would be happy to let any player of mine rebuild his character from the ground up for basically any reason. I'd rather a character's numbers on a sheet change than the history of the character itself is lost for... some sort of worry about powergaming? I think? Or perhaps a DM not wanting to keep up with the changes?

I don't really know why DMs are set against players doing this. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose...

I'd say it's beyond reasonable if a known sturdy fighter suddenly becomes a frail wizard from a character's history perspective.
But if a Thief wants to become better at being a pirate-esque warrior, why not. The player in question isn't a power gamer. As said, he's still very new. However, I appreciate his wishes to not completely change the character when organic growth approach is more subtle way to re-envision the character.

His character started as a street rat, stealing to feed herself (thief), eventually turning to smugglery (criminal), which led her into working closely with pirates, which are known to be capable and cunning warriors (fighter), which in turn is where she acquired her close-quarters dirty-fighting tendencies.

Personally, I think most if not all pirates have at least some "fighter levels", and are especially good with two-weapon fighting.
Fighter level(s) does seem reasonable course of character growth for his character.


... the only reason to grab moderately is for the shield proficiency.
I don't mean to be rude, but.. maybe it's the only reason for you. Doesn't mean it's universally true to all players.


Another option could be war cleric, he would get all armor proficiencies this way and divine favor is nice for TWF.. he has the stats
If he wants to, that's his call to make, not mine. As said multiple times before, he's new to D&D as a whole. "Noob" even. Not a power gaming optimizer. (No offense)

[djreynolds]

Then allow his multiclassing to be organic or story driven.

I once had a dwarven fighter, who became a cleric. I was a 6th level fighter with a 20 strength and then became a nature cleric, not really optimized (no shillelagh), but it fit the game.

Our cleric died and our monk worshipped Silvanus, and so it was organic to move to cleric and since I had no deity to be influenced by the monk who was always talking of his god, Silvanus.

So perhaps the player will strive for something in game, and let that be the catalyst for the change. It doesn't have to be optimized if it feels right

[Arkhios]

Speaking of organic growth and fighters becoming clerics...

My first D&D character ever was a Suloise Fighter for Living Greyhawk organized game.

He worshipped Kord the god of battle and strength and the patron god of all Suel.

So, I started as a Fighter with Bastard Sword and shield, eventually getting full-plate and a tower shield. The more experienced players "warned" me that using tower shield would hinder my ability to hit with my attacks. I didn't care. I found it awesome to wield a crazy long sword and a huge shield.
Later on, when I gained experience as a player, I realized I might need some boost to my will saves, and since my character had spoken highly of Kord, it felt appropriate to take a few levels of Cleric. It turned out to be awesome.
After a bit longer, I felt I'd want the character feel like he was some sort of Avatar of Kord I took a level of Barbarian as well.

So, there I was. Being able to enlarge myself and rage afterwards while wearing full-plate, a crazy long sword, and a massive shield. An unstoppable Juggernaut.

At that time I didn't know what optimizing meant, but later I realized I'd made a really well working character, and all that due to organic growth.

When Living Greyhawk ended at the dawn of 4th edition being released, the character ended up being a Fighter 2/Cleric 3/Barbarian 1.

(Note: the character was made sometime around 3.0 transition to 3.5)

[djreynolds]

See that's what I'm talking about.

Just letting the actual game and campaign influence the player

You friend has an image of what he wants with TWFing, so just explore it

The best thing about 5E is with bounded accuracy you are always in the game, even players who swear by an optimized build aren't that much better than an un-optimized build

I would love to see where this build goes, its fun

[Vaz]

I'd allow it, but he would have to choose a feat which matches the Str or (presumably Dex) increase which they took with Moderately Armored. Say they took Dex, they could choose a Feat which would grant them the Dex increase, so there's no change to their Stats.


Level 4, AL rule, rebuild your character.

That's the whole point of that rule.

Stop encouraging Adventurer's League play. It's pretty much the antithesis to DnD.

[Arkhios]

I'd allow it, but he would have to choose a feat which matches the Str or (presumably Dex) increase which they took with Moderately Armored. Say they took Dex, they could choose a Feat which would grant them the Dex increase, so there's no change to their Stats.



Stop encouraging Adventurer's League play. It's pretty much the antithesis to DnD.

I salute you. It seems we're on the same page. On both accounts.
AL doesn't - and shouldn't - set the default basis for D&D.


I would love to see where this build goes, its fun

I suppose I could edit the OP when his character advances ...if I remember :)

[Sirdar]

Speaking of organic growth and fighters becoming clerics...

My first D&D character ever was a Suloise Fighter for Living Greyhawk organized game.

He worshipped Kord the god of battle and strength and the patron god of all Suel.

So, I started as a Fighter with Bastard Sword and shield, eventually getting full-plate and a tower shield. The more experienced players "warned" me that using tower shield would hinder my ability to hit with my attacks. I didn't care. I found it awesome to wield a crazy long sword and a huge shield.
Later on, when I gained experience as a player, I realized I might need some boost to my will saves, and since my character had spoken highly of Kord, it felt appropriate to take a few levels of Cleric. It turned out to be awesome.
After a bit longer, I felt I'd want the character feel like he was some sort of Avatar of Kord I took a level of Barbarian as well.

So, there I was. Being able to enlarge myself and rage afterwards while wearing full-plate, a crazy long sword, and a massive shield. An unstoppable Juggernaut.

At that time I didn't know what optimizing meant, but later I realized I'd made a really well working character, and all that due to organic growth.

When Living Greyhawk ended at the dawn of 4th edition being released, the character ended up being a Fighter 2/Cleric 3/Barbarian 1.

(Note: the character was made sometime around 3.0 transition to 3.5)

Some people just have a basic level of optimization in their blood. You may not think how do I do this efficiently?, but it's there, in the back of your head. And when you choose a non-optimal path (according to some) you can still be confident that it is functional for your needs and your play-style. I guess this is somewhat true for you Arkhios? ;-)

However, organic growth can be complicated by mechanics even for the most experienced optimizer with complete system mastery. For this reason I think it is fair to allow some rebuilding of characters as the game progress. It's such a shame to see a player get gimped or refrain from taking a certain path that feels 'right' and go for the dull but efficient standard build due to mechanics.

[Arkhios]

Some people just have a basic level of optimization in their blood. You may not think how do I do this efficiently?, but it's there, in the back of your head. And when you choose a non-optimal path (according to some) you can still be confident that it is functional for your needs and your play-style. I guess this is somewhat true for you Arkhios? ;-)

However, organic growth can be complicated by mechanics even for the most experienced optimizer with complete system mastery. For this reason I think it is fair to allow some rebuilding of characters as the game progress. It's such a shame to see a player get gimped or refrain from taking a certain path that feels 'right' and go for the dull but efficient standard build due to mechanics.

True and fair deduction. I've always had a knack for optimizing but I'd like to think that I often choose to not follow those urges too much.

I hear people with tendencies towards optimal thinking make good engineers. More so when talking about programmers :P
I guess I'm well-fitted for my studies in that respect :P

[Sirdar]

True and fair deduction. I've always had a knack for optimizing but I'd like to think that I often choose to not follow those urges too much.

This is my take on optimization as well. I enjoy creating a strong build with a lot of synergy on a theoretical level, but in the end I will choose to play with a scimitar rather than a rapier if I think it looks cooler on my character.

[Arkhios]

This is my take on optimization as well. I enjoy creating a strong build with a lot of synergy on a theoretical level, but in the end I will choose to play with a scimitar rather than a rapier if I think it looks cooler on my character.

That's pretty much it. While I know a Greatsword might've been better for my paladin, I chose Dual Wielder because in my books that's much more interesting concept than a great weapon paladin which are built on an assembly line.

[clash]

I would let him swap the feat for either medium armor mastery or heavily armored or should expert whichever direction he prefers. Just pretend he took the fighter level first once he multiclass all it all works out

[Arkhios]

I would let him swap the feat for either medium armor mastery or heavily armored or should expert whichever direction he prefers. Just pretend he took the fighter level first once he multiclass all it all works out

May I ask, why? Heavy armor proficiency is hardly the point. It's not like he would even use a heavy armor as a rogue (stealth is rather nice to have without disadvantage) and Medium Armor Mastery wouldn't be of much additional use for a long time with a 14 in Dexterity.
And with str 18 and ability to use medium armor already, I find it hard to believe improving dexterity was his top priority.

Besides, MAM doesn't even add a bonus to ability score while the now-useless feat does. And as mentioned, heavily armored would be nearly as useless. It's almost as if you wanted to punish the player for ...what? Being newbie?

That said, pretending the fighter level was his first would feel odd in regards to HP, as well as Save and Skill proficiencies. Seems rather convoluted to me.

Anyway, the player confirmed his choice today. He prefers Athlete, so that's it.

[clash]

I didnt mean pretending he took his fighter level as his first level, I more meant letting him take feats that required medium armor as if he already had proficiency upon taking that level. Athlete works but the reason I suggested the others was because what he was gaining was an increase in armor, and what those feats do is further the armor. Athlete works as well and is equally thematic.

[Tanarii]

Stop encouraging Adventurer's League play. It's pretty much the antithesis to DnD.
lol what? AL is one of the few way to play in the most grognardy way to play D&D. Pickup groups of players for a single adventure, with different adventures linked together by the DM(s) into what's effectively a campaign. It makes some adjustments for no single DM being in control of the campaign and player's needing to be self-policing.

Not saying that allowing a player to rebuild freely up to a certain level is the way to go, but the idea that AL is in any way the antithesis of D&D is ridiculous.