so i had an idea, Feats that require low ability scores like below 10 or lower that give benefits for having a negative modifier.
like gaining a bonus vs enchantment and compulsions from having a low intelligence or something like that. just an option to gain something from having a bad ability score.
what are your opinions?
I think it could work as long as the benefits given don't offset the penalties from having that negative ability score. Eg, you shouldn't have a feat to give an attack bonus with a requirement of low strength.
Yeah i agree with that
From the How to Design a Feat article by Jonathan Tweet and myself:
In other words, if you can start benefitting from low ability scores, it gives players an incentive to pump their best scores higher and their worst scores lower, because the penalty can become a benefit.
I agree with Sean here - there should be very few circumstances in which a low score should be rewarded. Instead, consider how it works by having additional options to reward high scores in other areas. The best example for this is Intimidating Prowess in Core: add Strength modifier to intimidate checks. A great and flavorful way to combat crappy Charisma modifiers for melee types.
well im looking at it from the point of view of a bad ability score opening up options. i wouldn't think to make a feat that would give a better bonus the lower the ability score is but rather simply a static bonus to something for having a low ability score.
i have often wanted to give options for negative ability scores just as an option. not trying to negate the penalty but give them options.
If you want to do anything that might reward low ability scores, as a DM I would just roleplay them in interesting ways.
For example, Bob the Horrifically Deformed with his stunning 6 CHA might draw stares, gasps, and screams from people in town and they might not want to have anything to do with him. But, the main villain probably doesn't really want to scry on him either.
Or, Fred the Buffoon with a 6 INT has a hard time following directions of any sort. So when he gets a suggestion spell cast on him, unless the suggestion is worded in such a way for Fred's pathetic intellect he might not understand what he needs to do.
These really shouldn't be feats that allow a flat out bonus and they really shouldn't benefit the character in combat in anyway. They should only be used if it will make the game more interesting and enjoyable for you and your players.
That's just my 2 cents.
well im looking at it from the point of view of a bad ability score opening up options.
You shouldn't give a person an option just because they have a low ability score.
Lemme put it this way: We could have made Lightning Reflexes have a Dex 13+ requirement. Using your idea, that means we would present a Clumsy Dodger feat that has "Dex 7 or less" as a requirement. So really clumsy people can get better Ref saves, and really dextrous people could get better Ref saves, but people in the middle are just stuck with mediocre Ref saves. It's better to just have Lightning Reflexes not have a prerequisite, so everyone can take it--agile, clumsy, or in between.
To use your dumb-is-better-against-enchantment idea, if you created that thing, the high-Int person would say "how come there's no feat for me, I'm the smartest person on the planet, I should be able to think my way out of enchantments and compulsions!" You'd be rewarding a low stat in favor of the person with the high stat.
Low stats are supposed to be a penalty to a character. Let them be a penalty, not a way to get a reward that's not available to someone who's actually good at that stat. And if you make one for lows and one for highs, you may as well make it for everyone and not have low/high be a prereq.
It also would mean that if the person's stat improved, they'd lose access to the feat, which would mean they're worse off. "Don't make me stronger/smarter/more agile/etc., I'll end up worse off than I am now!" is a weird idea.
yeah i guess i see your point.
|
I think everyone here is making a valid point. And I don't mean to disagree with anyone. However, there is one thing to mention. All the examples given here have been about off setting a negative score with a feat directly. I.E. A negative INT gives a bonus to Will Save.
But what about the idea of a negative leading to a bonus elsewhere. For example, a low Strength is a prerequisite for a +1 bonus to Will. Something like, too sickly to play outside, he spent most of his life studying.
This still has the issues presented of, if you improve it to far, you lose it. But this would just be something the player has to pay attention to.
But what about the idea of a negative leading to a bonus elsewhere. For example, a low Strength is a prerequisite for a +1 bonus to Will. Something like, too sickly to play outside, he spent most of his life studying.
We call that "point buy ability scores, scrimp on Str to put more points in Wis."
To use your dumb-is-better-against-enchantment idea, if you created that thing, the high-Int person would say "how come there's no feat for me, I'm the smartest person on the planet, I should be able to think my way out of enchantments and compulsions!" You'd be rewarding a low stat in favor of the person with the high stat.
Isn't that what Keen Intellect is for?
Gotta side with Mr. Reynolds here.
I used to make characters with low stats in point buy, but my latest Paladin has no negative attribute at all (with a 15-point buy, no less!), and I love not having a big negative somewhere on my sheet. I took that balance so that I at least had a decent shot at completing tasks that I hadn't really invested skill ranks or feats into. This also means that I can complete nearly any simply task by just taking 10.
Negative modifiers bring about penalties - it defeats the whole purpose of the negative modifier if you give benefits only those with the penalties can access. Want better will saves? Don't have 7 Wisdom. Seems simple enough to me.
How about a whole class that gives bonuses for negatives?
A low ability score isn't worse than a high ability score, it's just 'differently abled'. :-)
I can quite see Charisma 6 NPCs being more likely to talk to a Charisma 6 character than the Charisma 20 character, who makes them feel even more insecure than they already are.
You could have a feat where if your diplomacy check is rubbish the other person doesn't get mad, they just look at you in an utterly condescending manner and walk away, or find you hilarious and just laugh at you. That way low charisma characters could contribute to social encounters as comedic interludes and it wouldn't take away from the high Charisma, trained diplomats getting the requisite information. The feat would limit the range of both success and failure, so whilst they couldn't fail badly, they couldn't succeed easily either.
Or another feat with a requirement of low strength that increases the drag capacity of a character, but not the lift capacity. The character has been so weak all her life she compensates by knowing how to drag, drop things or use leverage. Then you could pull armoured allies out of harms way, or open heavy containers by applying the right kind of lever. I'm not sure this is a feat worth taking, but it highlights how some people develop strategies to compensate for weaknesses. It doesn't directly compensate for the weakness, it provides a less effective work-around.
I think gaining a benefit from having a low ability really needs to be a side effect. For example, with enough Intelligence damage, the PC really can't understand some language-based magical commands. They are, however, only small bit more Intelligence damage away from being helpless.
Or it works best in comedy. A classic example was from Toon. If a character was too dumb to realize he would fall if he ran off a cliff, he wouldn't fall. I can see certain things working for Paranoia too.