One of my players asked me to home-rule that you can switch a feat every few levels. How would you see it and do the rules mention anything like that?
One of my players asked me to home-rule that you can switch a feat every few levels. How would you see it and do the rules mention anything like that?
That's a fighter (and cavalier) class feature in the Pathfinder RPG. They treat it like a sorcerer retraining spells.
If you're willing to use 3.5 rules I believe there were re-training rules in the PHBII and the DMGII.
One of my players asked me to home-rule that you can switch a feat every few levels. How would you see it and do the rules mention anything like that?
Look in the 3.5 Players's Handbook 2, there were rules for retraining in there. You could swap out feats, and even levels, but it took time and money.
That's a fighter (and cavalier) class feature in the Pathfinder RPG. They treat it like a sorcerer retraining spells.
So it is.
|
In 3.5/PFRPG you cannot switch a feat once you take it. In 4th Edition they have a retraining rule which lets you change one feat when you first hit a new level. The idea was to make it easier for characters to use new material from splatbooks. However, as a house rule you could do something similar. The caveat is that you can only change one feat and it cannot be a prerequesite for another feat that you are keeping. That should satisfy your players.
|
I myself have no problem with allowing one choice to be swapped at each level up. Sometimes things don't work out the way you thought it would. That feat turns out to be of very little use to you, and you feel unfulfilled.
Unless you want your players to start planning out their characters from level 1 to 20, I suggest giving them a little leeway, even if it is only once per four levels like every other mention in the game. (Fighter feats, wizard spells)
In 3.5/PFRPG you cannot switch a feat once you take it.
Er...except for the PHB II retraining rules and the Core Rulebook fighter bonus feat rules, of course.
I have always aloud players to freely change their character in any way between sessions. I have been lucky that this has never been abused. Usually, the changes only happen after the first or second session as the players get a better understanding of how I run a game and what the campaign world is like.
I know, as a player, if there were something I did not like about my character, it would nag at me and detract from my enjoyment of the game.
|
I'm of a mixed mind here. I do think that someone should be able trade if a feat just isn't working. For example, it is not what they thought, it turns out to be useless because of gm style, or if there was something that the player didn't know earlier, but their character probably should have, (such as there is no chance to lose a spell in combat, combat casting is useless).
On the other hand, I am generally against characters wanting to switch out feats later on that have become less useful by that point. I'm not completely against it, but in this case, I would usually require the character to "quest" for it. Maybe to find a master (related to the feat type in question), to train them, or possibly through magic, (altering their mind to rewrite the new feat in instead).
On the other hand, I am generally against characters wanting to switch out feats later on that have become less useful by that point.
That's exactly my impression. They are not asking it for storytelling/roleplaying reasons, but clearly to maximize their characters. Some feats have been rewritten to grow with the characters, but some become clearly less useful with the character growth (much less than in 3.5 - in am referring to skill bonus feats - but some of them are still more powerful than others at certain levels.
I consider feats as part of your story, like ugly tattoos. Maybe they were great when you made them when you were young, but now that you have more and more beautiful ones, you can choose to cover them, but I think you shouldn't if you understood the spiritual meaning of a tattoo, as they were part of your youth, they were an impression of your life at the moment.Looking at your character sheet you can make up his growth somehow, instead of having the same characters minmaxed to the hair split with just 5 foot square combat in mind. But that's me probably.
|
|
On the other hand, I am generally against characters wanting to switch out feats later on that have become less useful by that point.That's exactly my impression. They are not asking it for storytelling/roleplaying reasons, but clearly to maximize their characters.
Well, as the gm, you can always find ways to make them more useful. Some to a lesser extent than others. What are the feats in question, I might be able to give a few tips. In generl, I like (both as a player and a gm) to try this rather than to remake the character. It is also part of the gm's job to use what the players have. To allow them to use their resources and strengths, so to speak.
I consider feats as part of your story, like ugly tattoos. Maybe they were great when you made them when you were young, but now that you have more and more beautiful ones, you can choose to cover them, but I think you shouldn't if you understood the spiritual meaning of a tattoo, as they were part of your youth, they were an impression of your life at the moment.
True, but even tattooes can be removed later, or changed. So I think that feats should have a chance to change if that is what the player really wants, it shouldn't just be an easy on/off switch. If they really want it, let them work for it, and enjoy the road to that destination.
|
I prefer a limited ability to change feats as well. sometimes the campaign changes quite significantly and the choices you made for a character no longer made sense. I created a cleric for a game that was short on fighters, so I sacrificed some spellcasting ability to give her basic fighting ability - we had three fighter types join the group, and now need spellcasting to be better - and my stat and feat choices are a real hinderance now.
the rules from 3.5 phb2 work just fine.
i think they allow to retrain one thing (feat, skill, spell...) when you level up, there are some costs involed
It helps if someone made a choice and later finds out that the choice isn't working or is not fun to play but it is to restricted to really abuse it (but as Dm you should make clear that it is for that purpose only, if my players would start to use it to optimize the rule would be gone, and they know that)
|
Besides allowing the PHB2 retraining rules, I've always ruled that a character that has never exhibited the use of a particular feat can swap it out on the spot, at no charge (as long as it isn't a prerequisite for something else they've used.) I figure if the character has never displayed the ability listed in the feat, who's to say they ever had it at all?
Besides allowing the PHB2 retraining rules, I've always ruled that a character that has never exhibited the use of a particular feat can swap it out on the spot at no charge (as long as it isn't a prerequisite for something else they've used.) I figure if the character has never displayed the ability listed in the feat, who's to see they ever had it at all?
Yes, that's my usual policy, too.
They are not asking it for storytelling/roleplaying reasons, but clearly to maximize their characters.
To me, that is a completely different issue that requires a completely different approach. If you have a player min/maxing here, they are likely min/maxing everywhere. If min/maxing is a problem, not saying it is, but if it is, it needs to be addressed at the Player level. By that, I mean the GM should explain to the players what the GM's expectations are and the players have some responsibility to play within those parameters.
|
|
I prefer a limited ability to change feats as well. sometimes the campaign changes quite significantly and the choices you made for a character no longer made sense. I created a cleric for a game that was short on fighters, so I sacrificed some spellcasting ability to give her basic fighting ability - we had three fighter types join the group, and now need spellcasting to be better - and my stat and feat choices are a real hinderance now.
Just out of curiosity, what feats would you rather take instead? Cleric are kind of out-of-luck when it comes to choosing good feats, I think.
|
|
If your thinking of allowing it I'd definitely go with the Player Handbook 2's retraining option instead of just tossing it out freely. One of the bonuses fighters got was being able to do some feat retraining and it wouldn't be fair to just let everyone do it all willy nilly.
Personally I'm not a fan of retraining feats. It's too easy to take good low level feats and then switch them out for feats that at the time would have been worthless at lower levels like a lot of the metamagic feats.
It's too easy to take good low level feats and then switch them out for feats that at the time would have been worthless at lower levels like a lot of the metamagic feats.
What is so bad about that?
Besides allowing the PHB2 retraining rules, I've always ruled that a character that has never exhibited the use of a particular feat can swap it out on the spot, at no charge (as long as it isn't a prerequisite for something else they've used.) I figure if the character has never displayed the ability listed in the feat, who's to say they ever had it at all?
This has happened to me. The Abjurer player in my Runelords campaign took "Improved Counterspell". Seemed like a good idea at the time. Seven levels later, I couldn't face myself if I were to force him to stick with it.
Usually I allow players to freely swap out things after the first session or two. Sometimes characters dont play the way you want it to. We all are still relatively new to pathfinder, so there will be hickups. For instance a player took spring attack and vital strike thinking they would go together, when I told them it wouldnt (early in the first session), they decided to go two weapon fighting instead.
After that I do it on a one off basis. Why do you want to change the feat, do you feel you arent getting use of it? Do you think it was a mistake? I let the player explain why and make a call. Generally I dont allow it to happen frequently but I definately allow it to happen.
Why should fighters be special? They are the only class that doesn't really need retraining.
Normally I see the opposite argument--that Fighters should be even more flexible with their fighting styles.
The reason is similar to the reason why Sorcerers can learn spells to replace old spells on their spell list. There are abilities that make a lot of sense at low levels that don't at high levels.
For Fighters, since all they are are... well, fighters... the ability to "update" their fighting style via retraining feats makes them a little more flexible and easier to play from level 1 to 20. The ability is limited--it can only be done every few levels and with fighter bonus feats only. No one can retrain the feats you get every other level as part of leveling (unless the GM allows the aforementioned retraining rules from 3.5's PHBII). I suppose you could institute a ruling that any class that has bonus feats could do it though, if you wanted it to be more widely applicable. As it is it's one of the things that helps the fighter not be too static, a problem the other classes have less of.
|
|
I prefer a limited ability to change feats as well. sometimes the campaign changes quite significantly and the choices you made for a character no longer made sense. I created a cleric for a game that was short on fighters, so I sacrificed some spellcasting ability to give her basic fighting ability - we had three fighter types join the group, and now need spellcasting to be better - and my stat and feat choices are a real hinderance now.Just out of curiosity, what feats would you rather take instead? Cleric are kind of out-of-luck when it comes to choosing good feats, I think.
I got permission to change my feats. I'd taken power attack and imp sunder to try to help out with combat - I'm a cleric of cayden cailean with strength and travel domains. But I got permission and switched those out for spell penetration and Selective Channel.
|
|
Why should fighters be special? They are the only class that doesn't really need retraining.Normally I see the opposite argument--that Fighters should be even more flexible with their fighting styles.
The reason is similar to the reason why Sorcerers can learn spells to replace old spells on their spell list. There are abilities that make a lot of sense at low levels that don't at high levels.
That is the thing though. Sorcerer's get less spells know, as oppossed to Wizards. Fighter's get the most feats, senough to waste a few. It is everyone else that gets really hurt when they take a feat that doesn't work so well, for whatever reason. It makes sense for Sorcerer's, and other classes that do not get bonus feats. it doesn't make sense for Wizards (spells) or fighter's (feats).
I'm less saying that is the way it does work, and more that is they way it should work.
|
|
I got permission to change my feats. I'd taken power attack and imp sunder to try to help out with combat - I'm a cleric of cayden cailean with strength and travel domains. But I got permission and switched those out for spell penetration and Selective Channel.
Just out of curiosity, what feats would you rather take instead? Cleric are kind of out-of-luck when it comes to choosing good feats, I think.
Ok, I was just wondering. No right/wrong answer. I was just thinking one feat isn't that much better in regards to Clerics. I can see it much more though, with 3 fighter types.
"Besides allowing the PHB2 retraining rules, I've always ruled that a character that has never exhibited the use of a particular feat can swap it out on the spot, at no charge (as long as it isn't a prerequisite for something else they've used.) I figure if the character has never displayed the ability listed in the feat, who's to say they ever had it at all?"
****
This is a clever and intelligent approach I will certainly follow. It makes sense from a storytelling point of view.
"If min/maxing is a problem, not saying it is..."
****
I see it as a problem, even not a terrible one. Not becouse of power hunger, but becouse I'd like a more relaxed approach to the gaming session. I'd like it to be an immersive experience, and not just some anxious calculation and recalculation of bonuses. So you got a fighter with low strength or a wizard with no cobat spells... so what? I know we're entering a different ground here but honestly I find it annoying hearing my players always making the same maximized configuration of stats and feats to have maximum possible effect in combat. I don't think choosing feats and skills and classes should be a mathematical research only. When I personally create a character I start with a good story, and build up from there, not the contrary. If the story calls for a less than optimal configuratiom, so be it.
Anyway I have come to the conclusion that this is mostly a game design glitch. Every feats should be equally useful at all levels, if it isn't (take one of those old feats that gave you a +2 bonus to a skill check - relatively important at lower levels, almost useless at higher ones) then you're indirectly asking players to create unbalanced characters in virtue of role playing "ethics".
I have noticed the new PFRPG definitely handles the challenge better, but still some feats are destined to lose efficiency with levelling up.
I'm generally against retraining for fluff reasons: I just don't like the idea of 'forgetting' how to do things that you once knew. On the other hand, I have no problems with players exchanging a feat they have just recently selected because it didn't work the way they thought it did, or the campaign focus has shifted in a way they didn't expect. The retraining rules in the PHBII always struck me as a 'now you can min-max your character at any level!' cop-out. I'm of the philosophy that if you took the feat and used it to death at low level, you can't just 'forget' how to use it at high level.
I see it as a problem, even not a terrible one.
Then I think you need to express that to your players. Try to find a common ground everyone can enjoy. Find out why they min/max and see if there is somewhere else you can focus that energy/enjoyment on so they still satisfy that itch and you can run your game in a manner you enjoy.
|
|
Fighter's get the most feats, senough to waste a few. It is everyone else that gets really hurt when they take a feat that doesn't work so well, for whatever reason. It makes sense for Sorcerer's, and other classes that do not get bonus feats. it doesn't make sense for Wizards (spells) or fighter's (feats).
But see, those feats and a couple minor penalty removals and bonuses are ALL THAT DEFINE A FIGHTER.
A wasted feat is like a wasted class ability. If you tell a rogue after he's created his character as a trap specialist that you're not going to have any traps in the game, he'd be understandably upset. If you told a cleric that you don't like the flavor of channel and you're removing that class ability from them after they boosted charisma for it, they'd also be upset. A wasted feat for a fighter, whether due to changes in the campaign or changes in their understanding of the rules or changes in the role the fighter is adopting in the party all equal a character whose class abilities have been "wasted" - making the character unfun.
Some would rather just suicide the character. Some enjoy the challenge of keeping a character relevent despite issues with the character - I don't like that becuase it usually requires everyone else in the party to cover for their weaknesses too - and some may leave the game. I prefer a slight or gradual ability to "retrain".
I see it as a problem, even not a terrible one.Then I think you need to express that to your players. Try to find a common ground everyone can enjoy. Find out why they min/max and see if there is somewhere else you can focus that energy/enjoyment on so they still satisfy that itch and you can run your game in a manner you enjoy.
Well we came to an agreement. They are good players and roleplayers, experienced in problem solving etc. We all have been roleplaying for 20-25 years but took two different paths long ago, we just recently reunited and began playing Rise of the Runelords after years of playing in different groups.
Anyway when their pcs enter "the dungeon" they switch off the roleplaying mode and start "playing chess", if you know what i mean. They said it was perfect to completely split the game between out of combat situations of deep immersion role playing and "boardgame" style combat.So in the end we have everything we want. They have the math in combat, and I enjoy my storytelling.
I prefer the core rules without rules for retraining.
That way, they stay completely in my jurisdiction, without anyone even daring to suggest that the rules allow it.
Generally, if someone has taken some feat, never really used it, and asks me whether he can change it, I'll probably say yes.
But if someone takes, say, cleave, at 1st level, and then wants to switch it once he hits level 11 or so and thinks it won't be useful any more, I won't allow it. Feats are choices. Choices have consequences.
|
|
I prefer the core rules without rules for retraining.
That way, they stay completely in my jurisdiction, without anyone even daring to suggest that the rules allow it.
Generally, if someone has taken some feat, never really used it, and asks me whether he can change it, I'll probably say yes.
But if someone takes, say, cleave, at 1st level, and then wants to switch it once he hits level 11 or so and thinks it won't be useful any more, I won't allow it. Feats are choices. Choices have consequences.
What if they're a new player still learning the ropes, and they take a feat they used at low level, but realize it's awful? Do you allow for a system mastery learning curve?
What if they're a new player still learning the ropes, and they take a feat they used at low level, but realize it's awful? Do you allow for a system mastery learning curve?
Yeah, that's usually no problem, either.
It's not a set of rules set in stone (or, to use a more modern analogy, burned onto a ROM chip). The point is that if someone wants to use this for min-maxing reasons, they won't be able to lawyer me into allowing it because the rules say so.
I think it's very realistic. After all we all made mistakes in our lives. I for one have spent countless hours studying things that I realized were an absolute waste of time. I spent lot of resources learning job skills I will never use again, yet they were helpful for the time as I was young and needed quick money. You can be a nuclear physicist but then you could have worked as a waiter when you were in college. Sure that time you spent working could have been spent studying, yet that was necessary at the moment, and you probably would never forget how to serve dishes and drinks. Mistakes and wrong choices sometimes add realism to the table.
|
|
By the same token, when I was younger I could play through Super Contra without losing a single life. Now, I'm back to being lucky to make it to the second level.
Abilities come and go. Why can't I swap out a feat I've never used? Why can't I let some skill fall to the wayside while I train up in another area? This is just a realistic as not being able to get rid of something you picked up at the start of your career.
By the same token, when I was younger I could play through Super Contra without losing a single life. Now, I'm back to being lucky to make it to the second level.
Abilities come and go. Why can't I swap out a feat I've never used? Why can't I let some skill fall to the wayside while I train up in another area? This is just a realistic as not being able to get rid of something you picked up at the start of your career.
This.
It's really not that big a deal. Especially if you're looking at trading a weapon focus. Say you're been using a rapier all this time, but want to use a mace because you've seen some things that make you realize that a rapier just isn't as combat effective as a mace in certain situations.
I've had characters trade full levels away. One person took a level of paladin but it just didn't fit the story, so he swapped it for a level of cleric (he was lvl 9 cleric/1 paladin, went to 10 cleric) the other character was going to go for arcane archer, finally took the level of wizard and decided that arcane archer wasn't the way she wanted to go. (About the same situation, 8 ranger/1 wizard, went to 9 ranger)
One-zy two-zy stuff a campaign isn't a big deal. Sure if you're completely overhauling your character every session there's no continuity there. But if you've got in game adventure downtime, and your player announces that they're going to focus on training in a new weapon, why not award Weapon Focus for free?
This is all weapons based, but a free skill point and a free feat here and there isn't a bad thing. I'm not sure how you would word it in game, but a mage "training to maximize his spells" could earn maximize spell for free. Or maybe he had maximize spell and found out that heighten spell would be better, so he started studying heightening instead of maximizing.
As long as enough time passes between each use of ability it's fine in my book.
Retraining is not an optional part of the game, it is an integral part of the game. The reason for this is wizards, and to an extent, divine casters.
Way back in AD&D, wizards had limits on how many spells they could learn. Really! 18 Int got you a whopping 18 spells per level, out of the 50ish possible each level as the game progressed. You had to pick and choose the spells you wanted, and so a lot of spells never got learned.
Kinda like feats, right?
Come 3E. Wizards are unlimited in the spells they learn. If they learn a crappy spell, they can choose to never memorize it again, and it gathers dust in a grimorie on the shelf...but they can go back and grab it if they ever need it.
Wizards, in effect, became Divine casters, with potential access to the ENTIRE SPELL LIST. Wow. Every day, a spellcaster can COMPLETELY RETRAIN and in effect become a completely different person as far as their capabilities go. Feats? Feats are just window dressing.
This infinite spell ability is so powerful for versatility that they even integrated it into the sorceror class, and the bard.
But they never did it for melees. You play a melee, you were stuck with your choices. Spellcasters could adjust...some by the level (spon casters) and some by the day (wizards and divine casters). melees and rogues NEVER COULD.
That, my friend, is grossly unfair. Spellcasters can retrain daily, and you can't.
And guess what happened? They realized it,designing for 4E...and out came the Book of 9 Swords. Integral to every martial adept class is two things: MUCH more liberalized interpretation of pre-reqs, and the ability to 'swap up' a manuver every 2 levels.
There is NO reason not to allow retraining. People forget skills. I certainly remember almost nothing of Calc3 and 4 from college...I never use the skills, and they go away. Fighting styles change over time - you might whine and call it min/maxing, and I call it common sense and evolution of a character. People stop doing what doesn't work all the time...to not do so is the definition of insanity (well, expecting different results is, but still...)
I'm personally all for giving the Fighter the retraining ability of the Martial Adepts, but for feats, and the feat pre-reqs = School reqs, not this crazed cabal of ability scores and feat trees.
For instance...why would a Fighter have Vital Strike when he has Improved Vital strike? He has now wasted a feat. Why have Cleave when he has Great Cleave? Expertise when he has IMproved Epertise?
A Fighter should be able to 'swap up' his feats just like a Martial Adept can his manuvers, and the same way a wizard does his spells. A fighter only gets his 11 feats, and it would be absolutely silly for those feats not to be the absolute best they can be for his level. In this way, you also correct the power level of some feats by making them auto-scale, and stay appropriate and reasonable for the Fighter's level.
As for a cleric abandoning the physcial route of the meleeish cleric to focus more on channelling the might and power of her god...that's very much akin to a soldier becoming an officer and standing back to let others do the fighting, yet making them all the more effective for it. It's totally natural as anyone ages to do that.
==Aelryinth
That way, they stay completely in my jurisdiction, without anyone even daring to suggest that the rules allow it.Yes! Wield your unstoppable GM power to punish people for not planning 10 levels ahead!
If you had read my whole post instead of jumping right ahead to the sarcasm, you'd have learned that I don't punish people for making bad choices in character creation and advancement, but instead punish munchkins.
As many know, munchkins are often rules-lawyers who want to abuse the written rules, and by making this a non-rule issue, you show them right in the beginning that they have no case.
By the same token, when I was younger I could play through Super Contra without losing a single life. Now, I'm back to being lucky to make it to the second level.
Abilities come and go. Why can't I swap out a feat I've never used? Why can't I let some skill fall to the wayside while I train up in another area? This is just a realistic as not being able to get rid of something you picked up at the start of your career.
Because Pathfinder doesn't work that way. A ruleset that takes into account people forgetting things or abilities atrophying would be quite complex. Because you don't choose to forget abilities. You forget them for lack of use.
"So, you haven't used your climb skill at all on this level? Well, you lose 4 ranks. And you haven't done any bookreading or research or anything, so you don't get to put ranks into any knowledge skill."
I'd rather leave this particular piece of realism in the real world. It's all subsets of bike riding.
I let people swap stuff they never really used, so they don't "waste" character resources, but they don't get to recreate their character to be optimal at every given level.
But then again, my usual campaigns span months of in-game time, not years. I.e. not nearly enough time to forget old skills during downtime (i.e. lose levels of experience, which would basically be the result of taking training and lack of training into account in a level-based game)
Retraining is not an optional part of the game, it is an integral part of the game.
I have a big fat rulebook that disagrees with that. All it mentions about retraining as integral part of the game is a couple of classes getting it as a special ability, namely fighters and sorcerers.
Wizards, in effect, became Divine casters, with potential access to the ENTIRE SPELL LIST.
There is a huge gap between "you get your whole list for free" and "you get two spells per level for free, everything else will cost you time and money". The wizard needs to get access to the spell in question (usually involving getting a scroll, unless he finds a spellcaster that lets him peruse his spellbook), then needs to understand the spell, and finally needs to spend time and money to put it into his spellbook.
A wizard getting all the spells that exist has spend quite a bit of time and money on his collection - money that could have gone to magic items enhancing his versatility or raw power.
Wow. Every day, a spellcaster can COMPLETELY RETRAIN
No, they can't. They can change the subset of spells they want to use today. They cannot say "I'll get rid of magic missile completely, but want to put ray of enfeeblement in there now." The actual training is the sum of their known spells.
Changing spells is more like changing equipment if you must compare it to anything (which you can't, really)
And remember that sorcerers and bards work completely different.
This infinite spell ability is so powerful for versatility that they even integrated it into the sorceror class, and the bard.
Sorcerers and bards get a very limited choice to actually retrain. Switching one spell every two to three levels is not complete retraining.
That, my friend, is grossly unfair. Spellcasters can retrain daily, and you can't.
Life's not fair. Life's logical. Spellcasters don't retrain daily. They merely change which spells they prepare out of those they know (which they can't change so easily). They still know the spells they prepare.
A warrior has trained his abilities all his life, he doesn't get to change his past just like that, just like an evoker doesn't get to decide that today, he's a conjurer.
There is NO reason not to allow retraining.
Yes there are.
For instance...why would a Fighter have Vital Strike when he has Improved Vital strike? He has now wasted a feat. Why have Cleave when he has Great Cleave? Expertise when he has IMproved Epertise?
Because they represent advanced knowledge. You cannot run when you cannot walk.
Munchkins being defined as anyone who tries to make their character more powerful than you think it should be, regardless of the impact at the table.
That's complete b~$*#!~! and you know it. Call off these personal attacks and start posting rationally, because this is getting ridiculous.
|
Maybe I am blind, but I do not see any personal attack in MiB's post. Unless you define personal attack as "help, somebody on the Internets disagrees with me !".
Back to the topic ... I allow swapping out feats that:
a) were never used.
b) were used once or twice, but both me and the player agree that they were horribly bad choices.
|
|
I also have never had an issue letting my players swap feats out if it didn't fit what they were after/it was a mistake. All these talks about players trying to do it just to cheat the system a bit I'm glad I've never had to deal with and I'm sorry for those who have.
I can see it being a problem with someone who takes toughness at level 1 for the boost of HP but then wants to trade it out at level 2 or 3. That being said, I've never run into this problem so I guess its a judgement call.
But heck, I've let players swap out whole feat lists. Had my brother as a two handed fighter one session and talked to me about it when it was done and said he really didn't feel it and wanted to do sword and shield. I had no issue with it and we all as adults at the next table just assumed it had always been that way for his character. No harm done and everyone had fun.
Courtfool said it best and I agree that if it were MY character, I know I'd be bugged about something I didn't like.