|
Does anyone agree with me that some of those are just odd, and frankly, I've rarely seen anyone picking them for their characters. I mean -- 'Atletic' gives you +2 on your Swim and *FLY* (?) skills (shouldn't that be Climb?) and Stealthy +2 on Escape Artist and Stealth. In my opinion they don't even add any flavour, since a character who takes Skill Focus o n Stealth or puts enough ranks in it is far more "stealthier" than a fighter or a low-level rogue who would pick this feat.
So, I'm suggesting that either the bonuses are more significant (i.e. worth burning a Feat on skill bonuses) and the Feats are tweaked a bit so the benefits match the flavour (i.e. 'Athletic' doesn't really bring flying to mind...) *OR* these Feats are cut from the game altogether.
Some of them might be redesigned as Racial/Background Feats, though.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
While I don't often see PCs use them, I think they should stay, since they're useful for monsters or NPCs - especially experts. They might see more use with the new feat progression, especially for fighters who also have their fighter bonus feats and can really afford to take a few skill related feats now - and this would go a long way to help out those that want a fighter that has better skills.
As for being worse than skill focus - that depends on if you only care about one of the two skills. Also, you can use both this feat and skill focus for a total of +5 on the skill.
with this current skill system though they almost make 2 trained non-class skills as powerful as 2 trained class skills. that still isn't too powerful, but what if you really want those skills upped for your character design, but don't want to worry about multi-classing for them.
I think all together they suck pretty bad, but they are more useful in this skill system than in the 3.x versions.
|
|
I'll be honest, I almost never see anyone take those.I give them to NPCs all the time. Charisma-based Rogues and Diplomat-oriented PCs take them as well. I find them exceedingly useful.
Rez
I've given them to NPCs, too, but in my experience players are not exactly fond of them, because that +2 bonus on two skills is hardly comparable to Cleave, Power Attack, Energy Substitution, Toughness (the new version), etc. In a campaign in which skills and "non-combat actions" play a more important role they might be worth burning a Feat or two, but I can't really recommend them to any players in a "typical" D&D campaign.
|
|
with this current skill system though they almost make 2 trained non-class skills as powerful as 2 trained class skills. that still isn't too powerful, but what if you really want those skills upped for your character design, but don't want to worry about multi-classing for them.
I think all together they suck pretty bad, but they are more useful in this skill system than in the 3.x versions.
At higher levels that +2/+2 is ridiculously low. Now, if the bonuses from those Feats "scaled" with your level (say, +1/4 levels) *then* it would be worth taking the Feat.
I've given them to NPCs, too, but in my experience players are not exactly fond of them, because that +2 bonus on two skills is hardly comparable to Cleave, Power Attack, Energy Substitution, Toughness (the new version), etc. In a campaign in which skills and "non-combat actions" play a more important role they might be worth burning a Feat or two, but I can't really recommend them to any players in a "typical" D&D campaign.
If it stay, It should be made somehow level dependent.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. You might as well come up with a new flavor of Skill Focus for every skill (Crafty Potter - Receive a +3 bonus to Craft: Pots; Frogger - Receive a +3 bonus to Jump).
The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped. There's nothing that irritates me more than receiving "20 new feats!" only to find out that 3 of those "new" feats are the same boring old stupid feats I've already seen a dozen times in the PHB.
Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills.Now that I agree with %100. :)
Indeed! Just call the Feat Skill Improvement, and let the player choose two skills to receive the bonus. Let them take the feat multiple times even, but never exactly the same pair. (Or even if you want to prevent min/maxing choose a skill twice.)
Then, I beg you, give Skill Improvement and Skill Focus feats a level dependant bonus. +1/4 levels, +1/5 leveles, anything. Because by tthe time you reach level 16 thru 20, these feats no longer make any difference at all.
|
|
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. You might as well come up with a new flavor of Skill Focus for every skill (Crafty Potter - Receive a +3 bonus to Craft: Pots; Frogger - Receive a +3 bonus to Jump).
The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped. There's nothing that irritates me more than receiving "20 new feats!" only to find out that 3 of those "new" feats are the same boring old stupid feats I've already seen a dozen times in the PHB.
Hear hear! I absolutely agree with this, and you actually said it better than I did. I, too, have sometimes poured through the books in order to find that one specific Feat for an NPC, and it's frustrating. Not to mention how much space these Feats take. Your suggestion is great, and I'm totally in favor of it -- why not just call that Feat 'Talented' or 'Background Skills' or something and let every played decide which skills the bonuses apply to.
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. You might as well come up with a new flavor of Skill Focus for every skill (Crafty Potter - Receive a +3 bonus to Craft: Pots; Frogger - Receive a +3 bonus to Jump).
The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped. There's nothing that irritates me more than receiving "20 new feats!" only to find out that 3 of those "new" feats are the same boring old stupid feats I've already seen a dozen times in the PHB.
You beat me to it!
I actually wouldn't mind getting rid of them either, except for one problem . . . too many PrCs have them as prerequisite, which then screws with backwards compatibility if you get rid of those feasts. I suppose if the rules had a "if a PrC had feat X as a prerequisite, the prerequisite is not feat Y or X number of skill ranks of skill Z," that would help alleviate this.
Yeah, I know, as a DM I could come up with alternative requirements, but part of the point is to make the conversion as fast and easy as possible. That having been said, honestly, I don't mind bumping these things (or at least putting them in some kind of context, such as when a regional feat gives bonuses to skills used often in that region).
what i don't get is that in this skill system, the only difference in your max bonus in a trained vs. class trained is a +3, so the +2 almost makes two non-class skills as powerful as two class ones. As long as you kept putting points in the skill anyway, as i presume you would since you want a high bonus in it, then at max your bonus is only 1 less than the max you could have gotten from a maxed trained class skill for your level. also take skill focus on that skill and it would have a +2 to the max (unmodified) bonus of a trained class skill at the same ranks.
I think the generic +2/+2 would just be a needless concession to power gaming. I mean they're kinda lame but their names are adjectives that are supposed to story-wise flesh out a character. But if I take the generic and add the bonuses to... hmm, sleight of hand and climb for whatever reason, it just seems lame, even if "mechanically" superior.
Leave them for backwards compatibility.
I think I've taken them all of once, for an Artificer to max out Use Magic Device, which is a terrible terrible example of a reason to keep them. But they do have uses of sorts, and shouldn't be tossed out of hand.
One plus - they're short.
Skill Focus is the feat that grants a bonus to skills. Is there really a need to make a whole host of other feats to do the same thing slightly differently?
|
Contributor
|
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills.
Yeah, that's how Monte Cook handled those feats in his game. Count me in as a proponent of the idea as well. :)
|
|
Well, how about creating a feat called Talented, and have sub-categories that are Athletic, Diligent, etc? It allows backwards compatability and seriously cuts down on space use in the rulebook.
I also imagine you could include a line about the GM allowing new +2/+2 combinations, warning them that the +2 skills should not both be high-use skills.
|
|
I also imagine you could include a line about the GM allowing new +2/+2 combinations, warning them that the +2 skills should not both be high-use skills.
This is why I see anything that keeps, amends, or "updates" +2/+2 as needlessly complicating things.
If it's a free-for-all of +2/+2, i.e., you pick, then that's practically better than one Skill Focus. More so, it's subject to abuse simply because of the need to track its use in game.
Again, since we are already going the way of condensed skills, I say, "Do it right." Condense the skills so that "similar skills" that would call for +2/+2 cease to exist. That way we can take a much more streamlined approach. You want to boost a skill? Get Skill Focus. End of discussion.
|
|
Well, how about creating a feat called Talented, and have sub-categories that are Athletic, Diligent, etc? It allows backwards compatability and seriously cuts down on space use in the rulebook.
Yep, that's my solution, too. As I've said before, I'm going to use LordZack's new and elegant synergy bonus system (as 'Aid Another' -- you roll against DC10 if you want use another skill for that +2 bonus) in PF. IMO a Feat called 'Talented' (maybe it could even be a Background Feat?) which lets you freely pick two skills would be consistent with that system. *And*, like you said, it would be backwards compatible, too.
|
|
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills.Yeah, that's how Monte Cook handled those feats in his game. Count me in as a proponent of the idea as well. :)
Maybe you could try selling this idea (of a Feat called 'Talented') directly to Jason? You could also Intimidate him, but I think his WILL save is probably too high for that (and didn't he pick Iron Will as a bonus Feat, too?) ;)
choose two skills that are based off of the same stat for the +2/+2.
how does that sound for an ability
|
|
choose two skills that are based off of the same stat for the +2/+2.
how does that sound for an ability
Again, it just seems like this is needlessly complicating what can be remedied by further condensing the skills and allowing only Skill Focus.
Below is my take on a comprehensive skill list that can survive without +2/+2.
Acrobatics: Balance, Escape Artist, Fly, and Tumble.
Appraise:
Athletics: Climb, Jump, [Run], Swim
Bluff (or Deception): Bluff, Disguise, Gamble.
Craft: (question - will these be broken down or combined? If broken down - what about condensing some into Smithing and also adding Mechanics)
Deft Hands: Disable Device (and Open Lock), Sleight of Hands
Diplomacy:
Drive: Drive and Pilot, including wagons, ships, etc.
Endurance: Concentration, [Endurance]
Handle Animal:
Heal:
Intimidate:
Investigate: Investigate, Research, Search
Know (arcana): Know (arcana), Spellcraft, Use Magic Device
Know (dungeoneering):
Know (engineering): Includes Architecture & Engineering and Demolitions
Know (geography):
Know (history):
Know (nature): Know (nature), Survival
Know (society): Know (art, business, civics, culture, local, nobility)
Know (planes):
Know (religion): Includes Theology and Philosophy
Know (sciences): Earth and Life, Physical Sciences
Know (tactics): Includes Behavioral Sciences
Know (technology):
Linguistics:
Perception: Listen, Spot and Sense Motive
Perform:
Profession:
Psicraft: Autohypnosis, Knowledge (psionics), Psicraft, Use Psionic Device
Ride:
Stealth: Hide and Move Silently
|
|
choose two skills that are based off of the same stat for the +2/+2.
how does that sound for an ability
That is actually how I meant it. In fact, I just realized that True20 (at least Blue Rose) has a Feat called 'Talented' which lets you pick two skills (at the DM's approval) and you receive +2 on both. :)
choose two skills that are based off of the same stat for the +2/+2.
how does that sound for an ability
Love it
I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills.Yeah, that's how Monte Cook handled those feats in his game. Count me in as a proponent of the idea as well. :)
I agree - a step better is making a generic +2/+2 feat to not waste valuable page count. But one step still better is the slimmer skill list and just Skill Focus.
|
|
At higher levels that +2/+2 is ridiculously low. Now, if the bonuses from those Feats "scaled" with your level (say, +1/4 levels) *then* it would be worth taking the Feat.
I disagree.
2 + 3 + 3 + 1 = +9 To Stealth for a level 1 rogue. Remember the rank system is limited to your level now, the +2 is effectively 2 more levels and consider a rogue gets 3 combat related feats for free via talents, as a human those first 2 feats you get are open for other things now.
Yeah, that's how Monte Cook handled those feats in his game. Count me in as a proponent of the idea as well. :)
I'm in on it.
I agree - a step better is making a generic +2/+2 feat to not waste valuable page count. But one step still better is the slimmer skill list and just Skill Focus.
Hey now, I'm all for it but a generic feat better have a damn good name because you're only saving about 20 lines in the feat section and that's about 1/4 a column on the page. That's not saving much on the page count.
I take these feats all the time, most always in combination with Skill Focus. I love them, perhaps pathologically.
Additionally, I agree than Athletic should be Acrobatics and Climb (or perhaps Acrobatics and Swim), as not every character will benefit from, or need, Fly as a skill.
|
|
I rather like the idea that was discussed elsewhere on the boards about making the skills class skills for you. That way it differs from Skill Focus, and you can keep those skills relevant for you.
This. It would actually be a much more useful (i.e. you get +3 to two skills) *and* it would not invalidate Skill Focus in any way.
Count me in for the generic Skilled (+2 to any two skills) as well.
|
|
Well let's not making it too generic.
I'd go for something like this..
------------------
Skill Adept
Benefit: Choice a skill group below. You gain a +2 bonus in both skills.
Acrobatic: Acrobatics and Climb.
Alterness: Appraise and Perception.
Athletic: Fly and Swim.
Deceitful: Bluff and Disguise.
etc. etc. etc.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. This bonus does not stack with itself. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new skill group.
------------------
Leaving it to the DM to bundle skills is stupid and leaving it to the player to choose how the skills a grouped is even worse. By leaving in the existing groups, you make this feat compatible with the old 3.5 feats that do the same.
It might require some playtesting.. but 3 skills in this design might not be too bad. Climb should be in Athletics too. Sleight of Hand could be in Deceitful. This COULD make this feat good at higher levels without increasing the bonus and introduce new combinations like "Presence: Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate" without breaking the system. :)
|
|
It still seems to me that the easiest way to keep track of this is to do away with the +2/+2 altogether. Skill Focus is enough, and if skills are condensed properly, then there's really no need for +2/+2.
I prefer having the +2 / +2 feats, it allows you to give a character an extra boost in specific skills. You can't take skill focus twice in 3.5 or Pathfinder for the same skill, but you can take skill focus and sneaky in both systems and be very good at hiding.
For a rogue, might not need both feats, might not need either, but say you have a fighter and you want him to be sneaky.. well giving up character feats to make him sneaky (and not mutliclass) is a great away to get around it not being a class skill. The +3 in Pathfinder and the extra skillpoints to spare in 3.5 make sure he's not as good as a rogue but still better then the average person. It might not be optimal, but you're not giving up fighter abilities just to become a skill monkey.
So yes, skill focus is better, but focus combined with these feats allow you to give a character flavor without forcing the character to multiclass.
Agreed they are not worth taking. What if instead of a static +2 they offered the possibility of a re-roll 1/day?