|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In my game, there's a catfolk character who is a ranger/rogue/sleepless detective. She is obsessed with ancient thassalonian and azlanti cultures, finds them absolutely fascinating. She wants to be a skill-monkey type character, and has already taken the azlanti fanatic backgroudn trait to get knowledge arcana as a class skill, has a flaw that makes it hard for her to not run up and go "OOOH!" when she sees stuff from those cultures, and also for all her extra languages, took thassilonian and azlanti and such. Now, she wants to take the feat breadth of experience, to show her character's habit of studying a little bit of a bunch of topics. the problem is, it has a prereq of being a dwarf/elf/gnome and being at least 100 years old. now i understand that requirement, but she has backed up this idea with a trait, a flaw, and several languages, as well as sinking skill points into stuff like knowledge history. she is asking for GM fiat to take the feat even though she's not an elf. she COULD be an elf, and make essentially the same character, she just really likes catfolk. Do you think it's reasonable to allow her to take the feat? i'm leaning toward yes. and here's the feat.
Prerequisites: Dwarf, elf, or gnome; 100+ years old.
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Knowledge and Profession skill checks, and can make checks with those skills untrained.
I'd allow it. But then again, I'm a pretty permissive GM. I usually allow anything that is not gamebreaking or OP.
I don't see how a +2 to Knowledge/Profession skills could be problematic. I'd probably think twice before allowing it if the feat granted said bonus to skills like Perception, Spellcraft or UMD, but even then, chance's are I'd allow it.
I'd allow it, on a case-by-case basis.
that was my inclination, she is backing it up with a fleshed-out backstory, a flaw, a trait, skill ranks and languages. and if she was optimizing the character, she'd be human.
As far as RAW is concerned, she cannot take that feat unless she has a class feature (or whatever) that allows her to denote requirements of certain feats.
But as far as RAI is concerned, I believe a character being over 100 years old in general is a strict enough requirement, since not many human beings (especially back in the days of old) live to be that age, and many other races for that matter, even including natural causes of death, and excluding deaths via combat and confrontation and the like.
I mean, if I am a Human Monk of the Four Winds (or whatever archetype it is) and I have immortality (in that I can't die through natural means) and live to be close to 200 years old, yet I can't take that feat because I'm not one of those races? It's a little bogus looking at it from that perspective, and I think it is a permissible requirement, since those races mentioned are some of the few that can even live that long to begin with. If other races can live that long and can't take a feat they have base requirements of double times over because of a simple racial factor (which isn't even concretely mentioned or implied as to the reason why, except the age requirement which can be permissible through other races/methods), it's pretty stupid as a feat pre-req, unless it is something that can only be tied to that race, which it can't.
Long story short: I don't see why not. Nothing ties the feat to specifically make it for Gnomes, Elves, and Dwarves, especially when other races can live just as long through natural (or magical/supernatural) means.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'll voice the opposite opinion. That feat doesn't really fit.
Breadth of Experience accounts for every Knowledge skill under all circumstances. The 100 years of experience is the basis or this. "Yep. I reckon that's a magma troll. A battallion of 'em pretty much wiped out the left flank of Khadon's forces in the Battle of Splitmist Pass. Don't know what they'd be doin', this far south, though."
I'd offer the character a increase to her Favored Enemy bonus; that seems to fit her focused concentration on that culture. That seems more appropriate than a bonus on everything from orcish religions to restaurants in Druma cities.
I'd say go ahead as long as she was old enough... the APG was out before the ARG or other races were considered core or mainstream enough to be considered, so any race that would have suitable life expectancy should be able to be qualified.
I don't think Catfolk even live that much...
But hey, it's not breaking the game, it's no stealing the thunder from anyone on the party (unless you're friends with a very, very possessive Bard or something) and it's probably not a question of optimization.
IMO, fluff-based prerequisites should be only suggestions. After all, fluff should not go against fluff.
If there was a rule saying "only orcs can be barbarians" or something, I'd still make human and half-elf Barbarians.
I'd say go ahead as long as she was old enough... the APG was out before the ARG or other races were considered core or mainstream enough to be considered, so any race that would have suitable life expectancy should be able to be qualified.
But a catfolk has a human-like lifespan -- meaning that one who is 100+ years old would take the physical penalties of being venerable and more than likely already be dead of old age, unless you provide some way to halt or slow that character's aging.
On the other hand, this feat looks like a natural for races with base ages of 40+ -- they can easily reach the age of 100+ and still be young and healthy enough to keep adventuring.
|
|
So it would not be attainable through training and serious scholastic study. hmm ironic thing is. she likes the look and mental image of the character as a cat, but she would be more optimized as a host of other races that live 100+ years easily. so i gotta tell her to do what she wants, she has to take a better race. xD i'm loathe to do it, i'll see if she could possibly be another race.
So it would not be attainable through training and serious scholastic study. hmm ironic thing is. she likes the look and mental image of the character as a cat, but she would be more optimized as a host of other races that live 100+ years easily. so i gotta tell her to do what she wants, she has to take a better race. xD i'm loathe to do it, i'll see if she could possibly be another race.
C'mon, just let her have her +2 bonus.
It's a harmless houserule that'll make the game more fun for the player. And isn't that the whole point of the game? ^^
|
|
well, she could be a tiefling, Rakshasa-Spawn and LOOK like a catfolk. she'd lose scent and the rerolled reflex and the climb speed. gain darkvision, immunity to 'people' effects, natural armor, instead of claws she'd have a bite attack, some better skill bonuses and other such things. i'm still deciding, because doing this is a slippery slope, make one allowance for one character, another asks for just a little more, so on and so forth. mechanically it's strictly a better race. and she'd still LOOK the same. could be her secret shame that she's descended from a Rakshasa.
I'd allow it if the character is 100+ years old.
Another option which is hardly a competitor but similar is: Dilettante
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.....
Gosh, as a RULE, i usually favor 'flavor' over RAW.... But honestly, that is a VERY powerful Feat.
It essentially gives +2 to ELEVEN skills... and more importantly gives them the ability to use them untrained.
That's pretty epic in a lot of circumstances. IF the character was longlived and had done what the Feat implies of job jumping for a century, I'd allow it based on the 'XXXX race wasn't around when the Feat was written'.... but hand-waving the 100 years too is a bit powergamey...
I don't know what the 'Sleepless Detective' is... but I would highly recommend dropping the Rogue aspect and going Bard... maybe Bard-Detective or actually, sounds like Bard-Archaelogist. Comparable Skill monkeyness, and ALL the Knowledge skills are Class Skills instead of only 4 of them... just giving an extra +3 to all of them... plus the 1/2 her level and trying untrained that Bards get...
If the goal is knowledge/Historian... Bard is the best route. If they want to go Rogue for whatever reason (Sneak attack??)... I'd have a hard time just 'giving' the abilities that Bards get...
I agree that to take this feat the character should have to have an age of 100+. Keep in mind that not only does it give a bonus on all knowledge's but also on all professions. It also allows you to use the skill untrained. I can't see that someone less than 100 years old spent enough time learning every trade under the sun.
That being said there is a feat that is a better fit anyways. Scholar gives a +2 to any 2 knowledge's and the bonus increases to +4 if you have more than 10 Ranks. This is a much better fit for the character.
An Archeologist Bard may be a better fit than Rogue class. I would allow the player to rewrite the character replacing the Rogue levels and maybe even the Ranger levels with Bard.
You could easily rewrite the prereqs to something like "training in 4 knowledge skills and 4 profession skills."
|
I'd allow it for any race (I once played a Doppleganger with it, actually), but I'd never lower the age restriction. Violates the whole flavor of the Feat.
I would probably allow a similar Feat (call it 'Broad Study' or 'Academic' or something) with lower prerequisites that only applied to Knowledge skills and only gave, say, a +1, though. Or maybe just made all the Knowledges (or maybe just 4-5 Knowledges of your choice) Class skills. That ought to still help out the concept without being quite as...is excessive quite the right word?
There is also always Cosmopolitan, which is a lovely Feat, and seems appropriate for the character.
I'd say Yes, allow it, just because the racial preq and age requirement is a really silly way to balance a feat. Its just saying "you can't have it because you aren't X race" rather than actually giving some valid balance reason. (I mean really - does this feat shore up some weakness of the dwarves or elves that it needs to be limited for balance?)
If it had some actual mechanical requirement then I'd enforce that, but the fluff stuff it has is just like the Aracne Archer being Elf only. Red pen it out and keep moving.
-S
If you're polling, I'll strengthen the voting body that says this is off base for races/characters that don't/haven't live 100+ years. The RAI is that the character has a century of compounded experience to justify all those bonuses. If it was just about commitment to study, every wizard in the house could argue the same bonus... and it's a rabbit-hole you as a GM shouldn't go down.
Scholar is better in this situation, and there are lots of other lore plussing things. Have her get Pathfinder Chronicles that give bonuses to the knowledges she likes best and otherwise encourage her to get other things that buff those skills (mossy discs, etc.) ...
...This character is a BAD fit for breadth of experience.
Eleven? No.
So she's a multi-class Ranger/Rogue/Sleepless Detective. None of with are considered OP (in fact, most people will say rogues are pretty weak)
She makes a character based on skills and lost knowledge. She chooses extra languages that are very rarely used, not the standard "elven/draconic/celestial/infernal" that I see in most characters.
She wants a feat that while good, is far from broken, and she wants it 'vause it fits the characters personality and background, not a optimized build.
Still, just cause the big book says "nope, elves and dwarves only." people are in favor of actually forbiding her to take it... I wonder if they'd say the feat is "powergamey" or "too good" if the fluff text instead said "Bookworm: You spent lots of time studying old tomes: prerequisite: must live near a library.". Is it any more balanced because it's only allowed for a few races?
It's kinda sad that people stick to RAW so much as to reduce the fun of someone who doesn't even seem to be powergaming.
It's a freaking fluff feat!
Let the girl fluff her character!
What is the worst that could happen? She'll indentify a creature that she'd otherwise not be able to 'cause her rolled value is 2 points higher? Maybe recognize an old archtecture style? Oh, she can roll Profession(sailor) untrained and try to steer a ship... How often does that happen? And how successful will she likely be if she hasn't invested the skill ranks?
Will it make the game more fun for someone? Yes.
Will it make the game less fun for someone? No.
IMO, that's all that matters.
Xavier, let her get the feat. You know you want to...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will it make the game more fun for someone? Yes.
Will it make the game less fun for someone? No.IMO, that's all that matters.
Xavier, let her get the feat. You know you want to...
Depends on the group.
Honestly, If I was playing a Bard I would have less fun knowing that the Ranger gets to try all his knowledge skills untrained too...
If I took Skill focus in something for a +3 to a skill... I would be annoyed if another character got a +2 to 11+ skills for the same cost.
If I spent 11 skill points to gain the right to ROLL all those skills... and for the price of a single feat they were already better at them ALL then I was...
YEah, it COULD make it less fun others. This is NOT a given, and if the rest of the party is fine with it, then go for it. It's not 'broken'... but it IS a little unfair.
In fact It's an AWESOME feat, and frankly without the Prereq, I'd consider it a 'must have' for All characters....
Seriously picture a paladin or Sorcerer with a free 22 skill points!!!
Not to mention what the 'cat person' gets for racial abilitis that the dwarf/elf/gnome does not. I'm not a fan of Catpeople... but I imagine claws and such are probably a given.
Frankly, I really don't like the swarm of prerequistes Feats have to begin with... But I'm also leery of just tossing them at random intervels. I assume these things were playtested for a reason...
What I would suggest, is maybe nerf it a little.
Call it 'Scholar' or something similar... Give her +2 To any knowledge skill she has ranks in.
Cut out the profession stuff, since that doesn't seem to be the focus of her interests, and cut out the 'try anything unskilled' part.
Especially for a roguish type who wants to be 'skill monkey'... I would expect they have plenty of points to USE on those slots.
Now Even with that errata its' STILL better then a LOT of knowlede/skill based feats out there, but it doesn't intrinscaly step on other people's toes...
How about if the prereq is middle age?
Well, if there are no knowledgey types... no bards or wizards or anything of the sort spending their hard earned skill points to only be adequate at someting....
I'd be MUCH more lenient ;)
The goal is for EVERYONE to have fun, not just ONE player. If everyone else is cool with it, I'd probably let it fly. If it's gonna take away from the enjoyment of anyone else... tread careful.
Personally I LOVE this feat. I planned out a Sherlock style Elf for Crimson Throne based around this thing! Bard-detective all the way and he would have been awesome.
But if you let other races take it on a whim.. then humans can have... and with their bonus feat they basically get ti for free... and if everyone can do it than it isn't special anymore.
Slippery slope.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why a feat called "Breadth of Experience" means that only Elves, Gnomes, and Dwarves are the only races who actually have worthwhile experience? Prejudice much, Pathfinder Developers?
But seriously, saying a race is a requirement without some sort of logical tie to it is a stupid (and pointless) requirement to have. There are ways for characters to work around the age limit and not have to be the race listed, and now there are races that can age at an approximate, competent rate to that of the races required for this feat.
I'll FAQ this; I will agree that the character has to be over 100 years of age (it's the main reason why the feat is called what it is called), but saying that they must be that race when there are other equally powerful and aged races that can qualify the same as what is listed is very bogus.
Age doesn't instantly grant knowledge or expertise, skills are already covered in the existing mechanics--class and level, intelligence, racial bonuses. If you want your aged character to have +2 to a few skills, there are feats for that. There is no feat for +2 to eleven skills (or whatever the number actually is) because it is OP.
Age doesn't instantly grant knowledge or expertise, skills are already covered in the existing mechanics--class and level, intelligence, racial bonuses. If you want your aged character to have +2 to a few skills, there are feats for that. There is no feat for +2 to eleven skills (or whatever the number actually is) because it is OP.
It shouldn't. That's why it's a feat. It also has age as a pre-req because the feat is supposed to symbolize that your character has tens of years of experience with the knowledge of the world as you have grown with it.
While I have no problems with Elves, Dwarves, or Gnomes being able to have the feat, I see no reason to make it exclusively for them (at least especially since the new release of races from the ARG book), because the only thing they have that can tie to the feat is something that many other races and workarounds can accomplish.
|
I'd also drop the racial requirement. I'd allow a 100yr old human to take it. It's the kind of thing you expect on liches and vampires too.
I wouldn't drop the age requirement, because then I'd feel compelled to come up with a new feat to simulate the advanced general knowledge of an old character - reinventing this exact feat, really.
I admit the feat is powerful, but I'm not convinced it's OP. Most profession skills are irrelevant, and on knowledge checks the DC will (after some levels) be high enough (for identifying higher-CR creatures) that doing them untrained won't have a high chance of success anyway.
What's sad is your dramatic and needless posturing. Opinions expressed on a message board thread carry ZERO veto power over a home GM's decisions. IF the GM is going to base his decision on what our scribblings that's his lookout and responsibility.
First things first... I apologize if I sounded overpassionate about the topic. It happens sometimes. You can ask VM Mercenario, he knows I occasionally get carried away in discussions that are not that important. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
On the other hand just because something is "cool" or "neat" or "it's for this cute friend of mine", isn't a good reason to just break rules willy nilly. Or if you want to do so anyway, don't come to a rules forum looking for justification, just DO IT.
Well, I never asked for any kind of justification, although I do ask for advice/opinions on a variety of topics here. Mostly so I can see different PoVs and hopefully realize things I failed to see before.
I actually defend that something being "cool" or "neat" is usually enough to be ruled in favor (unless it upsets someone else, unbalances the game or makes it less fun for anyone, which didn't seem to be case (for me, at least).
The only thing I would ask if that's the kind of feat you're going to give to a young Human, what about the players who are actually playing 100 year old elves and dwarves?
I dunno... One that they wanted? Not every 100 old dwarf or elf character wants a +2 bonus to Knowledge skills. What if their build/class needs lots of feats or have different priorities? What if the player wants to play someone dumb as a rock?
If there is conflict (let's say, two different players are making know-it-all characters) I'd stick to RAW to solve the issue. But if I were, let's say, a elf Ranger or dwarf Fighter and didn't care to put any ranks in more than 1 or 2 Knowledge skills, I'd not be upset if the half-orc rogue wanted to have this feat.
Just fluff it differently. Humans are short lived, but live more intensely than elves/dwarves. Notice how they get the same advanced age bonus to Int/Wis/Cha even though they are about 300 years younger than the venerable elf?
Again, sorry If I seemed to overreact, it was not my intention to offend anyone here, I just honestly felt it'd be a harmless houserule that would make the character fit the player's idea more closely, so I decided to defend it.
If she asked for something like "allow Weapon Finesse to add Dex to damage too" I'd be against it, as that would be power-gamely strong and very likely to upset other players.
Do you see what I meant? Did I sound more sensible this time?
|
|
How about two new rogue talents? If I understand things correctly, a rogue talent should be about equivalent to a feat, but Breadth of Experience is a powerful feat. I might suggest:
Jack of All Trades: The rogue can use any profession untrained (Maybe with +2 bonus?)
Diligent Study: The rogue can use any knowledge untrained.
I'd be fine with it for any race that's over 100 years old.
Age + backstory.
It would make a great ability for a wandering human 'Sage'/Scholar for example. I don't think having to roll up an Elven bard as the ONLY viable wandering academic really fits as well.
At the end of the day this feat is a PARTY asset, it benefits the group, it is not necessarily as sexy for the player because once he makes a check they ALL reap the reward. It just allows the group to spend their resources elsewhere.
If your character is old and has learned a lot about the world, why not take skill focus: a knowledge?
Why should someone that ages gain a bonus in all knowledge? That is a lot of spread out interest and a lot of multi-disciplinary work. This reminds me of the threads that say elves should be brilliant at this, this and this, because they are all old. Well if you want to be good at something, take focus and use your skills. The system to represent this already works as is without bits of bonus all round feats.
Meh, its just mopre fun for the party when they can actually get all the info they need.
Lets also consider that in order for this to shine then the player really needs to consider a decent Int score. Given the freakish abilities of the high physical stats, would it be out of place for the truly amazingly gifted humans to be a bit the same? a 20 Int human rolling about might be a bit of a Tony Stark, or the winner on some brainiac game show.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would have no problem ignoring the race prereq, but the age prereq would need to be met with an appropriate background to be waived. In this case, I don't see a big problem with it. Maybe take out the professions aspect, but even with the professions it would be fine. I've seen too many games where no one bothers with knowledge or profession skills, so having someone actually trying to use them should be encouraged, and even if there was a bard in the party already, having some duplication in that area never hurts given the chance to roll low always exists.