| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like a very permissive, perhaps overly permissive, GM.
Without seeing his exact build, I have no idea of the "legality" of it -- well, aside from the blatant illegality of taking a "fighter" and getting 8 bonus feats out of it instead of things like armor proficiency. I'm not sure what set of 8-10 feats would give you +16 to damage at level 4, but it's certainly possible, especially if you allow third-party feats.
Having said that, I think that it's a bad idea and your GM is being railroaded. It also sounds like this player is making the game less fun for everyone at the table (including the GM). So some restructuring might be in order.
Yeah, typically you can't trade proficiencies for other feats, not even with reatraining, since you are getting the proficiencies directly, and not the actual feats themselves.
|
There are archetypes that can allow you to gain additional abilities at the expense of some armor proficiency like Lore Warden, Brawler, or Unarmed Fighter, but you cant just retrain a proficiency granted by your class for a feat RAW.
Of course, the GM can allow anything they want, and this sounds like a player trying to manipulate the GM in to applying GM fiat in his favor.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A couple of things:
First, swapping out class features for an extra 8 feats is pretty wacky.
Second, 2d8+16 damage at 4th level is very doable. In fact, a barbarian wouldn't even have to try very hard. Just take Power Attack, have 18 STR at 1st level (or even 17 at 1st, and bump it up to 18 at 4th), get a +1 weapon, and enter rage. Boom, +16 damage. That's basic.
Similarly, a fighter (if he has the Weapon Master archetype or similar, to get Weapon Training at 3rd instead of 5th) with 18 STR to start, Weapon Training +1, a +1 weapon, Power Attack and Weapon Specialization would have +16 damage. Also pretty standard.
As for the 2d8, my best guess is maybe he has a large-sized bastard sword; with 8 feats at 1st level, he could certainly afford the proficiency.
As for his attack bonus:
+5 STR (based on what you listed)
+4 BAB
+1 enhancement (assuming he has at least a masterwork weapon by now)
+1 Weapon Training (maybe?)
-2 Power Attack <-- Probably negated by Furious Focus
+1 Weapon Focus
-2 large weapon
---------------------
+10 total to hit
So it looks to me like he managed to build a really basic, straightforward fighter only without any armor. What the heck did he spend all those feats on?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If trading out your weapon and armour feats was legal, we'd all be doing it (at least, all the martial PCs, anyway).
Level 1: trade away all your weapon and armour feats, big whoop, since you can't afford good weapons and armour anyway, right?
Level 2: multiclass into a different martial class, and get all those feats straight back!
Some feats are simply not all that good, and are not designed to be swapped out, 1 for 1. The fact that they give them away for free, with so many classes, is a good indication of that.
There's very good advice given by Steve Jackson, admittedly for GURPS, and not D&D/PF; and that is
"A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage, isn't a disadvantage."
He was referring to the ability of a GURPS player, to take character flaws, in exchange for more building points toward advantages, but this applies to any game where the player suggests losing something in exchange for something better elsewhere.
If the thing you're losing was something you never intended to use, then its loss is not of any value to you, therefore, it doesn't need to be compensated for.
This kind of point-whoring minmax has been parodied in cartoons and webcomics lots of times.
In Darths and Droids, Pete (R2-D2) takes a laundry list of disadvantages, in order to pump up his engineering skills, to the point where he can jack into any ship, and take over its functions. The 'disadvantages' include irrelevant allergies like hay fever, which 'hay presto!' no longer apply, when he trades away his skin and sense of smell, etc. At least the GM in this strip enforced R2's inability to speak, leaving Pete a seething ball of frustration, whenever the other players' tactics went downhill.
In Knights of the Dinner Table, Brian makes a character who is virtually quadriplegic, sacrifices all his physical stats, then uses those points to start the game with a personal battlemech, which just so happens to compensate for all his physical stats...see also the 3rd Edition druid wildshape ability, which allowed one to dump all physical stats, then walk around in animal form all day. You could tell which druids had been legally played from level 1, and which had been created new at level 5+.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then some said, can we really do that? He said in general no but the dm allows it. By then, we had all made out characters and the dm is new to pathfinder so she let it go not knowing more about it.
I am asking to you, as dm and players that are into this game alot. What do you all think about this?
Mostly, I think that a person who knows something can't be done by the rules, but asks the DM to allow it anyway because he knows the DM is new and expects him to know what should and shouldn't be allowed, is pretty much not really a "friend", at least in terms of playing a cooperative game.
I'd suggest that the DM asks him to retire the character and create a new one, built according to the rules. That way everyone can have fun, rather than only this one person.
Also, by the book, XP is not awarded according to damage dealt. The GM is well within rights to play it that way if they want, but they need to let everyone know that is the expectation going in. However, they also need to realize that they just guaranteed that no one will cast a non-damage offensive spell like hold person, color spray, sleep, etc, etc, etc. Those spells can end a combat in a single shot, but they don't do damage, so how is the XP going to be awarded? That's a question you're going to have to ask the DM. Being a new DM, she may look up the rules and just go with that, which is to everybody's advantage.
This kind of point-whoring minmax has been parodied in cartoons and webcomics lots of times.
In Darths and Droids, Pete (R2-D2) takes a laundry list of disadvantages, in order to pump up his engineering skills, to the point where he can jack into any ship, and take over its functions. The 'disadvantages' include irrelevant allergies like hay fever, which 'hay presto!' no longer apply, when he trades away his skin and sense of smell, etc. At least the GM in this strip enforced R2's inability to speak, leaving Pete a seething ball of frustration, whenever the other players' tactics went downhill.
In Knights of the Dinner Table, Brian makes a character who is virtually quadriplegic, sacrifices all his physical stats, then uses those points to start the game with a personal battlemech, which just so happens to compensate for all his physical stats...see also the 3rd Edition druid wildshape ability, which...
Let's not forget the outrageous min-maxing of Red Mage Statscowski of 8-Bit Theater, who took so many disadvantages for stat boosts he ended up writing himself insane.
|
|
It also seems that xp is base on damage.
This is arguably the stupidest thing I have ever heard of in all my years old tabletop gaming... trading in his proficiency for 8 feats (when that is only 7 feats anyways) is pretty up there too. I would have laughed in a players face, honestly thinking he was joking, if somebody suggested that. At most trading a single ability for a feat such as wizard's scribe scroll for spell focus (as per PFS).
You're playing with a manipulative min-maxer and a GM who just doesnt care about keeping the game fun for everybody. Nobody likes to be the lackey for another player. I recommend either finding a new group or asking for some more ridiculous s~$# yourself.