Simple variants? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Simple variants? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Salrantol
05-05-07, 07:57 AM When taking a UA simple variant, swapping one class ability for another, does doing something that would cause you to lose the ability you traded away cause you to lose the ability you gained?

Specifically, could a variant barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#barbarian) become lawful without losing favored enemies?
SilvercatMoonpaw
05-05-07, 08:45 AM The example you described is a flavor issue, not a rules question. A DM could allow barbarians to be lawful in core without upsetting anything.
IronMouse
05-05-07, 09:13 AM When taking a UA simple variant, swapping one class ability for another, does doing something that would cause you to lose the ability you traded away cause you to lose the ability you gained?

Basically, I would say yes.

However, that would indeed not make much sense in your barbarian example. Flavor indicates that barbarians must be nonlawful because of their rage abilitiy, and the rage is the only thing they lose when they become lawful (beside the ability to gain levels in barbarian, of course).

If you give them the ranger stuff, then it's perfectly fair to assume that they can become lawful, or that they're even able to start lawful.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Salrantol 05-05-07, 07:57 AM	When taking a UA simple variant, swapping one class ability for another, does doing something that would cause you to lose the ability you traded away cause you to lose the ability you gained? Specifically, could a variant barbarian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#barbarian) become lawful without losing favored enemies?
SilvercatMoonpaw 05-05-07, 08:45 AM	The example you described is a flavor issue, not a rules question. A DM could allow barbarians to be lawful in core without upsetting anything.
IronMouse 05-05-07, 09:13 AM	When taking a UA simple variant, swapping one class ability for another, does doing something that would cause you to lose the ability you traded away cause you to lose the ability you gained? Basically, I would say yes. However, that would indeed not make much sense in your barbarian example. Flavor indicates that barbarians must be nonlawful because of their rage abilitiy, and the rage is the only thing they lose when they become lawful (beside the ability to gain levels in barbarian, of course). If you give them the ranger stuff, then it's perfectly fair to assume that they can become lawful, or that they're even able to start lawful.