I'm thinking about allowing characters to give up armor proficiency class features in exchange for certain feats and am wondering what kind of effect this may have on my game. If relevant, this will be for the Legacy of Fire adventure path; with desert themed sidequests including adding in the Desert of Desolation from 1st edition. Will this be like a bag of worms, or have very little effect?
Examples:
Fighter gives up Heavy Armor Proficiency for Ironhide
Paladin gives up Heavy Armor Proficiency for Dodge, and Medium Armor Proficiency for Acrobatics.
Characters would lose that feature for every class in the case of multiclassing and PrCs.
Exception example:
Cleric gives up Medium Armor Proficiency but later takes a level in fighter. He gains Medium but not Heavy armor proficiency.
I'm also going to houserule that an armor's Armor Check Penalty is applied to Fort saves for hot environments instead of the blanket -4 penalty.
Yes, I want to encourage the use of light armor.
|
Assuming you are talking about the ACP to fort save being just the saves for being in hot weather (and not for every fort save), then I think you're fine. What about the ACP for carrying a shield? Carrying a medium or heavy load?
Sure you can offer them to feat exchange, though you may not see very many of them do it. Especially for Ironhide, since that is only available to halforc and dwarf. Id suggest letting them switch for a feat they think is suitable, per your approval, of course.
Yes, ACP penalty for just hot environment not including shields. I would not change anything about loads. I basically want to add an option, but not one that feels like it is a "must have".
Dodge is, in a number of ways, a better replacement than Ironhide. It is a prereq for some useful feats, whereas armor proficiency and Ironhide offer nothing beyond their own benefit. Not to mention that Dodge bonuses are better than Nat. Armor bonuses.
I think that trading a feat for a feat is fair in theory. In practice, be careful. It's easier to give your players nice things than it is to take them away after it breaks the game.
If I do this I would come up with a very specific list since technically, what is being replaced are class features and not feats. Dodge and Ironhide are just easy examples, and not as good as wearing a breastplate or full plate. Non of the choices will be, but some players might want to play dex based warrior who wears light armor, but not a cad or urban barbarian, so they might just say "why not?".
In case of Fighter you mignt want to come up with replacement for their ability to move at full speed in heavy armor. Or just remove it as a tax for the exchange.
Weren't there some lightly armored fighter archetype somewhere? I'll look throug prd next year.
I'm thinking about allowing characters to give up armor proficiency class features in exchange for certain feats and am wondering what kind of effect this may have on my game. If relevant, this will be for the Legacy of Fire adventure path; with desert themed sidequests including adding in the Desert of Desolation from 1st edition. Will this be like a bag of worms, or have very little effect?
Examples:
Fighter gives up Heavy Armor Proficiency for Ironhide
Paladin gives up Heavy Armor Proficiency for Dodge, and Medium Armor Proficiency for Acrobatics.
Characters would lose that feature for every class in the case of multiclassing and PrCs.
Exception example:
Cleric gives up Medium Armor Proficiency but later takes a level in fighter. He gains Medium but not Heavy armor proficiency.
I'm also going to houserule that an armor's Armor Check Penalty is applied to Fort saves for hot environments instead of the blanket -4 penalty.
Yes, I want to encourage the use of light armor.
does that mean if they take iron hide then they can take the monster feat improved natural armor? each time you take it the natural armor moves up by+1
does that mean if they take iron hide then they can take the monster feat improved natural armor? each time you take it the natural armor moves up by+1
Only if in that particular game monster feats are available for PCs - not every GM allows monster feats.
does that mean if they take iron hide then they can take the monster feat improved natural armor? each time you take it the natural armor moves up by+1
Yes. I'm also allowing gnolls as a PC race and will allow them to qualify for Ironhid as well.
In case of Fighter you mignt want to come up with replacement for their ability to move at full speed in heavy armor. Or just remove it as a tax for the exchange.
I hadn't thought of that, but probably just as you've said. This is only something I thought of as I was going to sleep last night. I figure I would allow fighter armor training to offset the heat penalty as well.
does that mean if they take iron hide then they can take the monster feat improved natural armor? each time you take it the natural armor moves up by+1Yes. I'm also allowing gnolls as a PC race and will allow them to qualify for Ironhid as well.
In case of Fighter you mignt want to come up with replacement for their ability to move at full speed in heavy armor. Or just remove it as a tax for the exchange.I hadn't thought of that, but probably just as you've said. This is only something I thought of as I was going to sleep last night. I figure I would allow fighter armor training to offset the heat penalty as well.
my new dwarf fighter just got super tough ....
Here is a list I just came up with that I feel can thematically replace armor proficiencies.
Acrobatic
Athletic
Agile Maneuvers
Combat Casting
Combat Expertise
Endurance
Fast Crawl
Defensive Combat Training
Dodge
Fight on*
Fleet
Ironhide*
Imp. Natural Armor
Low Profile
Nimble Moves
Run
Shield Focus
Skill Focus (acrobatics, climb, escape artist, perform [dance], stealth, swim)
Toughness
TW Defense
