I had a couple of questions about stacking.
1. Do feats that grant a bonus to skills stack? If you take a feat like Deceitful which gives a +2 bonus to Bluff and something else, does Skill Focus (Bluff) grant you another +3 or would it overlap (effectively making it not worth taking)? If they do stack, what's stopping you from taking Skill Focus over and over again (besides the fact that it probably says that you can't).
2. I noticed that the new feat Improved Turning increases the DC to resist channeled energy by 2. This is essentially the same thing that Ability Focus (channel energy) would have granted. Is Improved Turning just a rebranded Ability Focus to make the option more obvious or is it meant to stack for those who really want to get the DC as high as it can go.
As a sometimes DM, I'm not thinking that either of these stack but I want to make sure (and maybe even get a designers take on it especially if I'm wrong). The thing that throws me off is that the bonuses ar usually untyped, indicating that they stack but maybe there is a blanket rule like feat bonuses never stack or something.
Thanks for the input and sorry if this has already been covered before.
I had a couple of questions about stacking.
1. Do feats that grant a bonus to skills stack? If you take a feat like Deceitful which gives a +2 bonus to Bluff and something else, does Skill Focus (Bluff) grant you another +3 or would it overlap (effectively making it not worth taking)? If they do stack, what's stopping you from taking Skill Focus over and over again (besides the fact that it probably says that you can't).
2. I noticed that the new feat Improved Turning increases the DC to resist channeled energy by 2. This is essentially the same thing that Ability Focus (channel energy) would have granted. Is Improved Turning just a rebranded Ability Focus to make the option more obvious or is it meant to stack for those who really want to get the DC as high as it can go.
As a sometimes DM, I'm not thinking that either of these stack but I want to make sure (and maybe even get a designers take on it especially if I'm wrong). The thing that throws me off is that the bonuses ar usually untyped, indicating that they stack but maybe there is a blanket rule like feat bonuses never stack or something.
Thanks for the input and sorry if this has already been covered before.
Ok, let's see...
1: Feat bonuses, if untyped, will stack. As both of those examples are untyped then, yes, they will stack. Indeed, it could even argued that they are different bounses: Skill Focus being a bonus based on training and specialization, and (Deceitful) giving bonuses based on natural talent and background.
2: Again, if Improved Turning is untyped (I can't remeber if it is or not) then, yes, it will stack with Ability Focus. There is even a good example of this type of thing in Libris Mortis. There is a feat in there called Improved Paralysis that adds to the DC to resist a paralysis ability, and it says it will stack with Ability Focus.
Hope my humble rules interpretations help!
Yes.
They stack (+ are specifically intended to do so).
Nothing, besides the fact you can't take the same +2/+2 Skill Feat or the same Skill Focus more than once. :-)
What is Ability Focus? ...I'm presuming it's a non-Core 3.5 Feat from somewhere or another.
If "it's essentially the same thing", like you said, I'd say it's reasonable to say they ARE the same thing (and thus can't be double-dipped).
If there's plenty of other uses for Ability Focus besides this one, then it's probably more along the lines of taking Spell Focus: Evocation and another Feat granting +2 DC to Fire Spells only (which would stack).
In this case, it seems more an issue of whether or not you want to bring in 3.5 material to PRPG, that might be the same thing as Feats already in Core (but with a different name), or possibly just imbalancing with how it interacts with PRPG rules (which is the GM's call on what is 'legal' in their game). But in general, bonuses from multiple Feats DO stack...
It sounds like Ability Focus should probably be in the upcoming PRPG Bestiary,
so if nothing in it or Improved Channel precludes it, it should be good...
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that feats found in the monster manual were not available to standard player character classes or races. This because I have come across a few races that specifically grant access to certain feats from the monster manual.
Nope, they're just one that are usually geared towards monsters. There's nothing to stop some race that has wings from taking Improved Flight or Dive Attack. Almost anyone can benefit from Ability Focus and it even says under the Warlock that he can take it for his Eldritch Blast. They're all pretty much free game if they can be used by a PC. Of course a DM could rule otherwise but it's not inherently against the rules.
|
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that feats found in the monster manual were not available to standard player character classes or races. This because I have come across a few races that specifically grant access to certain feats from the monster manual.Nope, they're just one that are usually geared towards monsters. There's nothing to stop some race that has wings from taking Improved Flight or Dive Attack. Almost anyone can benefit from Ability Focus and it even says under the Warlock that he can take it for his Eldritch Blast. They're all pretty much free game if they can be used by a PC. Of course a DM could rule otherwise but it's not inherently against the rules.
Found the section I was looking for.
Chapter 6: Monster Skills and Feats - This chapter provides the descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters.
Emphasis is mine of course.
This to me does not say anything about being freely available to regular races and classes. Hence some races or classes specifically making certain individual feats available.
Such as Thri-Kreen
Multiple Limbs: Thri-Kreen have four arms and can take the Multiweapon Fighting and Multiattack feats (MM 304). These are not bonus feats
Or the warlock you mentioned above.
Since spell-like abilities are not actually spells, a warlock cannot benefit from the Spell Focus feat. He can, however, benefit from the Ability Focus feat (see page 303 of the Monster Manual), as well as from feats that emulate metamagic effects for spell-like abilities, such as Quicken Spell-Like Ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability (see pages 303 and 304 of the Monster Manual).
All of this tells me that unless a race or class specifically offers you access then they are indeed for monsters only.
Of course your GM can make exceptions for you if he likes, but thats something a player and his GM should talk over and decide on together.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I read in a WoC 3.5 FAQ that a Monk could take Ability Focus (stunning blow) and it isn't specifically mentioned in the class description. Like you said, GM is free to disallow anything they wish and could go that way with feats from the Monster Manual. I've never really run into any abuse with my group so I doubt that I personally would especially with Ability Focus. It's kind of a blanket feat like Skill Focus that can cover a lot of special abilities that would be quite cumbersom to write up individual feats for.
I wonder if the Piazo design team took that posible combo of Improved Turning and Ability Focus (channel energy) into consideration in their play testing or if it was something that they might have overlooked.
Found the section I was looking for.
Chapter 6: Monster Skills and Feats - This chapter provides the descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters.Emphasis is mine of course.
This to me does not say anything about being freely available to regular races and classes. Hence some races or classes specifically making certain individual feats available.
I could say that since it doesn't state that the monster feats are only used by monsters and therefore are open to normal PCs... Just saying ;-) What I mean is, that argument goes both ways....
"Typically" is another way of saying "usually". By definition it means "by common example".
For instance, a baseball is typically white. This means that more often than not you will find baseballs to be white. But there will be exceptions (such as a neon orange nerf baseball).
The thri-kreen example is not giving permission, per say, to take the multi-attack and multi-weapon feats, but rather reminding the reader that since they have more than two usable arms they qualify for them.
Indeed, the Craft Construct feat in Monster Manual is certainly available for player use.
|
|
All I was saying is it should boil down to a player asking the GM whether they can do it, rather than just assuming they can because it doesn't specifically state that they can't. There are quite a number of similar things in that category of "well it doesn't say I can't do it". As a GM who's come across players that like to abuse things in general it's a lot easier if they're open about what they'd like to do and ask me about it first. It prevents nasty surprises down the line where one player in the group ends up with a very broken character that outshines everyone else and causes party and player conflict.
From my own expirience its best to have the player and GM discuss these possibilitys ahead of time.
All I was saying is it should boil down to a player asking the GM whether they can do it, rather than just assuming they can because it doesn't specifically state that they can't.
Agreed. I always ask whoever id DMing about anything questionable. In fact, that part of why I asked these two questions. I apparently errored in my interpretation of the rules too.
All I was saying is it should boil down to a player asking the GM whether they can do it, rather than just assuming they can because it doesn't specifically state that they can't. There are quite a number of similar things in that category of "well it doesn't say I can't do it". As a GM who's come across players that like to abuse things in general it's a lot easier if they're open about what they'd like to do and ask me about it first. It prevents nasty surprises down the line where one player in the group ends up with a very broken character that outshines everyone else and causes party and player conflict.
From my own expirience its best to have the player and GM discuss these possibilitys ahead of time.
Oh, absolutely. Complete agreement.