I don't see any roleplay benefit from it. I think they are just poorly designed talents.
If you take away the -2 to hit, then they at least become useful. Powerful Sneak increases the average damage per die from 3.5 to 3.67. Deadly Sneak increases it to 4.
At 19th level (10 sneak attack dice), that is an increase of 1.67 (powerful) or 5 (deadly) average damage per hit. So Powerful Sneak is slightly less powerful than weapon specialization (and requires that you are sneak attacking), while Deadly Sneak is slightly more powerful than WS and IWS. At level 1-14, both are less effective than a similar feat.
Since some talents are just feats, and a feat can replace a talent, it seems the benchmark strength for a talent should be a feat.
I already know why those talents are for: it's for roleplay reason, I guess. (Or at least, I guess that if I ask, SKR will answer that it's for roleplay).Therefore my question is: what does those powers add to the roleplay of a character? How is the character with powerful sneak more roleplay than the one without?
Same as Death or Glory users. You are so badass you like being punched in the face for attacking giants or trolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with it simply being of poor design. How can you RP with a combat talent? "I stab hard. HARD I SAY!" :/
There's a flaw in the argument that comes in around the edge cases; it's the "let's avoid the corners" that dooms the argument.
Consider a level 10 rogue, with BAB +7. Assume additional bonuses +B due to Dex, magic, feats, etc.; we're likely to see +B >= +6 or more.
Now assume a non-exceptional opponent. 1s always miss, but other than that the rogue will auto-hit any opponent of AC <= 17+B, so we're talking about autohitting opponents with ACs in the low 20s, even with the full Powerful/Deadly set, which only reduces it to AC <= 15+B.
So, for many opponents, the Powerful/Deadly set is in fact better. Not by a lot, sure, but with two attacks per round, that's +10 to your DPR at level 10, for no cost against low-to-moderate AC opponents.
Yes, the rogue will be hampered somewhat against higher AC opponents, but can't they just decide not to use the feat in those cases? I bet a truly dedicated min/maxer could determine the precise crossover AC for when to use/abandon the feats - and given that, it's definitely a win, because the damage is equal to the no-feat damage at higher ACs, and superior at lower ACs.
So the question is, how should they be changed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion: Don't change them. They're not broken, they're just not useful in every circumstance. Kind of like pretty much every other PC ability other than "hit thing with weapon."
No, wait, even that's not useful in every circumstance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remove the -2 to hit and let's all move along.
|
I suppose the calculus exercise given has made the point for a lot of you. Me, all I got was a frakkin' headache just trying to keep up.
That being said, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. The talents are fine for what they do. Given that 3.5 is the average result of a d6 roll (making 3s and 4s the average), having something that eventually will make it so that you technically never roll below average on the die is a good thing in my mind.
And as far corner cases go, of course there is one that I can think of: the knife master archetype and its sneak stab ability. When using anything other than a dagger, kerambit, punching dagger, starknife, or swordbreaker dagger, this particular build of rogue uses d4s rather than d6s. Knowing that I'm always doing at least 3 pts. per die makes me feel a lot better about having to deal with this. There is also the fact that I'm looking at doing a minimum of 3 per die using a d8 (they don't use d6s for their sneak attack), just below average on that particular die. That -2 to hit suddenly doesn't look all bad.
In regards to what it adds to RP situations, that should be left to the character and DM to decide. Maybe the character that took these talents is known for, among other things, his penchant for bloodshed, which means making 'aggressive negotiations' something that should not be taken lightly when dealing with him.
YMMV.
even if you didn't have a penalty to hit associated with it the first talent adds 1/6 damage per die, there are better ways to spend your talents
There's a flaw in the argument that comes in around the edge cases; it's the "let's avoid the corners" that dooms the argument.
Consider a level 10 rogue, with BAB +7. Assume additional bonuses +B due to Dex, magic, feats, etc.; we're likely to see +B >= +6 or more.
Now assume a non-exceptional opponent. 1s always miss, but other than that the rogue will auto-hit any opponent of AC <= 17+B, so we're talking about autohitting opponents with ACs in the low 20s, even with the full Powerful/Deadly set, which only reduces it to AC <= 15+B.
You autohit only an opponent with an AC of 9+B. if B = 6, you autohit only opponents with 15 AC. That's a very low AC at level 10.
Anyway, if rogues were autohit-machine, it would be a well-known fact - and they would have the highest DPR in the game.
Yeah, as I was driving later and thinking about it, I realized I'd include the base 10 for AC also in the to-hit calculation, but that doesn't nullify my argument.
Having only a +6 on top of BAB is really crazy low for a 10th-level character of any class. Heck, a first level rogue can easily hit +6 above BAB with a 20 Dex and Weapon Focus. In reality, that +6 at level 10 is a lot more likely to be +10 or more, especially for a character optimized in that way, and as such my base point is still entirely valid - the Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak pair are not trap feats and aren't worthless, given that the rogue can choose when to use them.
A moderately optimized level 10 rogue is more likely to look like: "20 Dex (+5), +4 belt (+2), Weapon Focus (+1), +3 weapon (+3)", giving them +11 before any buffs, and that's using only 34,000gp of their theoretical wealth. Tack +5 in buffs on there, and they're at exactly where I was talking about in my original statement - autohitting ACs of 23 or higher due to +7 BAB and +16 other modifiers (AC 23 with a roll of 2 when using Powerful Sneak).
Having only a +6 on top of BAB is really crazy low for a 10th-level character of any class. Heck, a first level rogue can easily hit +6 above BAB with a 20 Dex and Weapon Focus. In reality, that +6 at level 10 is a lot more likely to be +10 or more, especially for a character optimized in that way, and as such my base point is still entirely valid - the Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak pair are not trap feats and aren't worthless, given that the rogue can choose when to use them.
A moderately optimized level 10 rogue is more likely to look like: "20 Dex (+5), +4 belt (+2), Weapon Focus (+1), +3 weapon (+3)", giving them +11 before any buffs, and that's using only 34,000gp of their theoretical wealth. Tack +5 in buffs on there, and they're at exactly where I was talking about in my original statement - autohitting ACs of 23 or higher due to +7 BAB and +16 other modifiers (AC 23 with a roll of 2 when using Powerful Sneak).
You are forgetting your iterative attack. Powerful Sneak can only be used on a full attack, so it will always be there. Even with buffs it is only autohitting on an 18, a pitifully low AC. I think it is safe to say that any scenario where you are fighting an enemy with that low of an AC at level 10 is a scenario where your party is not going to be dropping the (by my count, at least three) buffs to get you to +5. So in all likelihood, we are back where we started: a -2 to hit reduces damage more than Powerful Sneak adds.
So you are only getting a bonus when you are heavily buffed against a very low AC opponent, and even then it is worth less than 2 points of damage if you hit twice. This is why people are calling it a trap. Anyone who doesn't do the math will be actively hurting themself with it, and those that do will only use it for a tiny benefit in extremely limited circumstances.
Of the 84 creatures in the CR range 8-12, 51 have an AC of 23 or lower, and none have an AC above 29. Of the 366 creatures at CR 12 or lower, 332 have an AC of 23 or lower. Meanwhile, 213 out of 366 have an AC of 18 or lower, meaning that even the iterative will auto hit.
Also remember that the rogue will be flanking, thus only +3 in buffs is needed, and that my example was not a supremely optimized rogue.
Plus, if he's not autohitting those 51 out of 84 creatures with the iterative attack; he's still hitting with a 7 or higher (instead of a 5 or higher), which is far from negating the iterative attack.
It's going to be a pretty dull campaign if the party is limited to only fighting creatures that negate the benefits of Powerful Sneak and Deadly Sneak. I suppose a GM could do it ... but why?
Of the 84 creatures in the CR range 8-12, 51 have an AC of 23 or lower, and none have an AC above 29. Of the 366 creatures at CR 12 or lower, 332 have an AC of 23 or lower. Meanwhile, 213 out of 366 have an AC of 18 or lower, meaning that even the iterative will auto hit.
Also remember that the rogue will be flanking, thus only +3 in buffs is needed, and that my example was not a supremely optimized rogue.
Plus, if he's not autohitting those 51 out of 84 creatures with the iterative attack; he's still hitting with a 7 or higher (instead of a 5 or higher), which is far from negating the iterative attack.
It's going to be a pretty dull campaign if the party is limited to only fighting creatures that negate the benefits of Powerful Sneak and Deadly Sneak. I suppose a GM could do it ... but why?
At level 10, the majority of creatures you are fighting that have less than 18 AC are going to be mooks. Mooks go down easily, to the point that I seriously doubt you are going to be getting the full-attacks necessary for Powerful Sneak against them (given that you have to move into flanking or use an action to bluff). If you do, the pitiful 1.67 damage you are gaining on a full attack is not particularly relevant.
On your second point, math says you are wrong. Let us use the numbers you just provided. Two attacks, one at 95% (only hitting on a 1), one hitting at 80% (hitting on a 5 or higher). A rogue with a +3 short sword will be hitting for 1d6+5d6+3 points of damage, or 24 average points of damage per hit (minimally). Adjust for hit percentages (24*0.95+24*0.8), and you are looking at 42 damage a round.
Now use Powerful Sneak. One hit at 95%, one at 70% (hitting on a 7 and up). Your damage per hit has gone up to 24.83. However, adjusting for hit percentages (24.83*0.95+24.83*0.7), you are now dealing 40.975 damage / round. You just lost damage because you didn't do the math. As others have shown, Powerful Sneak is a penalty in nearly any situation where ALL your attacks don't autohit. That is unlikely with a second attack, and basically impossible with a third.
Deadly Sneak is somewhat better, in that a you will deal 43.725 damage a round in this situation. That is right, two talents have given you an astounding 1.725 damage a round on a full attack, when you have absolutely no damage bonuses beyond weapon enhancement.
You said that a campaign where you only fight creatures that negate the benefits of Powerful Sneak and Deadly Sneak is dull. I would posit the opposite. A campaign in which every attack autohits would be painfully, painfully boring. And that is the only campaign where these will be a meaningful bonus.
it is useful for touch attacks that are usable with SA, also Coup de Grace and automatic hits (held opponents maybe) benefit from it. The -2 for the first might be a heavy hit, but the deadly sneak isn't so bad.
Ray of frost and flameblade spring to mind for some creative rogues..
The short answer is : Nothing. They add nothing to the role-playing experience...but then they aren't supposed to add anything to the role-playing experience, are they?
While the mechanics and the role-playing are utilized in the same game, they are vastly different things that have almost nothing to do with each other. The mechanics (all of them) do nothing more than organize a framework within which the role-playing experience (the actual point of the game...and our hobby) can take place in.
So the even better short answer is : Whatever the player wants those talents to add to the role-playing experience.
P.S. If you find the mechanics taking primacy over the role-playing experience, sell your RPG books and take up WoW...it's so much easier when the computer is doing the math for you.
Just to be clear, nobody is ACTUALLY arguing that Powerful Sneak does anything for roleplaying. The problem is, when people around here argue that something is mechanically terrible, others respond with "It is a 'roleplaying' option!" Or that "not every option has to be the most powerful," and accuse you of being a mechanics obsessed power gamer. The Sealegs feat and Geisha Bards come to mind. Also Death or Glory, the aforementioned "so badass you like being punched in the face" feat.
Now that I've said it out loud, let the spiral towards rageposts and locking begin!
...Except the talents don't work with coup de grâce or spells like ray or frost.
It's going to be a pretty dull campaign if the party is limited to only fighting creatures that negate the benefits of Powerful Sneak and Deadly Sneak. I suppose a GM could do it ... but why?Because the GM is like you: he didn't do the maths and he thinks the talents are useful.
I did the maths.
I just fail to agree that it is a "trap feat" and there's "no reason to take it ever."
In some circumstances it will be better, and in others worse. If that extra few points of damage takes down a tough opponent one round earlier, that's definitely worth a lot.
How valuable it is depends more on what kind of campaign you're playing in and what your opponents are like than any idealized DPR calculation here on the web, especially given that a single DPR figure is pointless given the variety in AC and hp that a player will run against.
In other words, if it takes that much analysis to show that the feats are worse something approximating half the time, I'd say that they're worth taking.
And yes, the GM probably is like me in that they don't make every single stinking encounter as hard as possible for the party given their current level. Some encounters are easy and some are hard. There's mooks and there's BBEGs. But the thing is, the faster you take out the mooks, the faster you can concentrate on the one remaining BBEG.
I will agree 100% that under controlled circumstance it can 100% be proven that Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak is better/worse than not having it. And that means that when you're putting a strawman character in the DPR olympics, we'll all know whether (or not) to include Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak based solely on the AC of the opponent.
The thing is, real encounters don't work that way.
I did the maths.
I just fail to agree that it is a "trap feat" and there's "no reason to take it ever."
Then please show your work. You just said that you would use it when you hit with your iterative on a 5. I showed that you were, statistically, hurting yourself.
Unless my math was wrong (entirely possible, I was really sleepy at the time), you just fell into the trap.
In some circumstances it will be better, and in others worse. If that extra few points of damage takes down a tough opponent one round earlier, that's definitely worth a lot.
Again, unless that "tough opponent" is being autohit, you are statistically making yourself worse by using this talent. Even with large penalties to damage, you are still hurting yourself. 1/6th of a point of damage per die is just not going to make up for the additional miss chance.
I will agree 100% that under controlled circumstance it can 100% be proven that Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak is better/worse than not having it. And that means that when you're putting a strawman character in the DPR olympics, we'll all know whether (or not) to include Powerful Sneak/Deadly Sneak based solely on the AC of the opponent.
The thing is, real encounters don't work that way.
You are right, in that in "real encounters" you don't know the AC of an opponent. That means that, until you hit on a 2, you will not know if you can use Powerful Sneak without reducing your average damage. Making it even worse than in our theoretical discussions, when you can at least get the tiny damage boost when you know you are in the corner case.
You make a lot of theoretical statements, but I would very much like you to post a "real" encounter in which Powerful Sneak is actually a good ability. Ideally, grab an encounter out of an AP and we can look at it. I seriously cannot think of a single encounter in which I had a rogue making repeated full-attacks that all autohit, and where 1/6th of a point of damage per sneak attack die would have mattered. But I can think of plenty where people are accidentally hurting themselves because of this talent.
I think the issue at hand here is that there are two ways to look at a character's stats. One is based on averages - over a length of time, statistically the die rolls will give a particular value. This is a useful guideline to know whether, for example, it may be better to have a +3 sword or a +2 flaming sword. The other is to note that in real gameplay, the averages don't work out that neatly. In this view you see that what's going on is that you're taking a penalty to hit to increase your damage some of the time. I'm sure you've seen that player who frequently rolls badly - the 15th level rogue who is consistently dealing 9 sneak attack damage. This talent is GREAT for that player. For the player who sits around doing math and optimises his numbers in the hopes that the laws of averages will make his character work out the best, this talent is demonstrably not as useful, as has been shown in the thread already.
TL;DR:
The thing is, real encounters don't work that way.
+1
Another useful corner case, these talents are useful when you Coup de Grace. It garantees higher damage, and thus a higher DC on the fort save. It doesn't start to get useful until you hit 6d6 of sneak attack or more.
In this view you see that what's going on is that you're taking a penalty to hit to increase your damage some of the time. I'm sure you've seen that player who frequently rolls badly - the 15th level rogue who is consistently dealing 9 sneak attack damage. This talent is GREAT for that player. For the player who sits around doing math and optimises his numbers in the hopes that the laws of averages will make his character work out the best, this talent is demonstrably not as useful, as has been shown in the thread already.
So you are arguing that superstitious players will like it? The problem is, the player who magically "rolls badly" is just as likely to roll a 4 when all he needed was a 5 on an attack. Since you are, at absolute most, gaining 9 damage as a 15th level rogue, missing with that second attack has again reduced the damage you have dealt.
The thing is, Pathfinder combat IS math. We know all the variables, we know all the mechanics. As such, we can mathematically deduce when something is strictly hurting you. That is what this talent does. It slightly alters the bell curve of your sneak attack damage, while making it more likely you are going to miss and lose much more damage. It is like a bizarro Martingale betting system, in which you hedge your bets while simultaneously making it more likely that you will lose big.
At the end of the day, all I'm really trying to get at is "this should not give -2 attack, and should be usable without a full attack." It still wouldn't factor into most "optimal" builds, but would help people who just haven't run the numbers. Most people who take this talent are going to assume that they are benefiting from using it, when in fact they are hurting themselves, statistically, 95% of the time.
I could go on, but I feel the urge to stop ranting before I make an ass of myself. I just want to know, can you honestly say that 1/6th of a point of damage, with a chance to lose out on entire attacks, is a mechanically solid choice? Is betting on a good (single) attack roll better than betting several sneak attack dice will come out around average? Should there be options that can seriously reduce a character's effectiveness in all but the most extreme of corner cases?
EDIT:
Another useful corner case, these talents are useful when you Coup de Grace. It garantees higher damage, and thus a higher DC on the fort save. It doesn't start to get useful until you hit 6d6 of sneak attack or more.
Again, doesn't work on a coup de grace. Full attack only. Yet another way an otherwise okay talent is being restricted to make it absolutely terrible.
99% of the arguments on favor of this talents are on the form of
"If the enemy is so much extremely weaker than the rogue to be whort any kind of consideration, than it become usefull"
Even if we assume this to be true (and is has been show to be not) it still remains a big trap.
Maths aren't hard. Maths are easy. I've just spent all the time I'm willing to spend arguing with people who know they're right :)
Rogues should just get a full BAB.
What is the use if you deal a "ton" of damage on higher levels theoretically?
Those guys have very high AC´s often, so you miss most times.
Then there is damage reduction.
And after you hit, probably they focus you, because you are in front and a nuisance, but you go down fast and easy.
So probably you will sneak attack only one or two rounds, three if you are lucky.
And what is that compared to babarians and fighters, or lately even monks?
The two rogue talents you need for that are too much to take the -2 to hit in my opinion. You´re better off with offensive defense or befuddling strike or something. Or bleeding strike. Best is crippling strike though.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak to the maths (really, I just won't, too lazy) but i'd rather have Deadly Precision.
I never noticed the -2 before. That does put a serious crimp in these talent's usefulness :(
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just to be clear, nobody is ACTUALLY arguing that Powerful Sneak does anything for roleplaying. The problem is, when people around here argue that something is mechanically terrible, others respond with "It is a 'roleplaying' option!" Or that "not every option has to be the most powerful," and accuse you of being a mechanics obsessed power gamer. The Sealegs feat and Geisha Bards come to mind. Also Death or Glory, the aforementioned "so badass you like being punched in the face" feat.
Now that I've said it out loud, let the spiral towards rageposts and locking begin!
Start out with a cynical nonsense attitude, then gripe that you get snarky answers. What sort of replies did you expect to get with a top-post like that?
|
What if, instead of turning 1s into 2s, the feat allowed the rerolling of 1s?
And the Deadly version allowed the rerolling of 1s and 2s, with a minimum of 2?
What would that do for the DPR? And would that be enough to compensate for the -2 to attack rolls?
I'd work it out myself, but I'm supposed to be working.
What if, instead of turning 1s into 2s, the feat allowed the rerolling of 1s?
And the Deadly version allowed the rerolling of 1s and 2s, with a minimum of 2?
What would that do for the DPR? And would that be enough to compensate for the -2 to attack rolls?
I'd work it out myself, but I'm supposed to be working.
I did the math at one point...
Normally, you average 3.5 on a 1d6 roll
Bumping all ones to two bumps the average roll up to 3.6666
Allowing the reroll of all 1 once, keep the result gives you an average of 3.92
Rerolling all 1 until you roll something other than a 1 bumps the average up to 4
So at level 10 flanking a target with an AC 24, you are looking at a +17/+12 or so to hit - +7(BAB) +4(strength) +1(weapon focus) +3(magic) +2(flank) for 1d4 + 4(strength) +4(magic) +5d6(sneak attack)
So normally, you would be looking at 33.4 DPR
The standard deadly sneak drops your DPR to 28.4
Reroll once drops you to 29.6 DPR
Reroll until you don't roll a 1 drops you to 30.0 DPR
No matter how you slice it, the -2 to hit just hurts the rogue too much. It needs to either be a -1 to hit with a boost to the damage in crease, or no penalty to hit.
In other words, if it takes that much analysis to show that the feats are worse something approximating half the time, I'd say that they're worth taking."Maths are hard. Your argument is invalid."
Huh.
And no, auto-hitting with the class with the lowest to-hit bonus in the game isn't happening "half of the time". It isn't happening at all in relevant combats, actually. Have you really seen a rogue in a game, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
Bolded parts are patently false.
I would happily take the reverse feat for my Rogue if it existed. Give me D4s on all my sneaks and +2 to hit on all my attacks
Bolded parts are patently false.In other words, if it takes that much analysis to show that the feats are worse something approximating half the time, I'd say that they're worth taking."Maths are hard. Your argument is invalid."
Huh.
And no, auto-hitting with the class with the lowest to-hit bonus in the game isn't happening "half of the time". It isn't happening at all in relevant combats, actually. Have you really seen a rogue in a game, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
True, but I think "lowest to-hit bonus of any character that's clearly designed to mostly hit things in combat" is fair.
And, honestly, I've seen campaigns in which tons of buff spells on the party hitters were a matter of course, but the rogue still couldn't hit on a roll of 2 with his last iterative attack, which is what auto-hitting would amount to.
[sarcasm]HFS, something in print isn't fully optimized! Someone burn down the building before it spreads to surrounding areas. [/sarcasm]That's not what I ask for. My only question is: what do those talents add to the roleplay?
If you don't know, please don't post.
I don't suggest they add anything. It is an option that was added to the game, and yes, it is sub-optimal. You already knew that though, didn't you, you clever guy!
Your pre-supposition that all inferior options were added for RP reasons is incorrect. This whole thread reeks of trollbait.
True, but I think "lowest to-hit bonus of any character that's clearly designed to mostly hit things in combat" is fair.
That is much more subjective so I'll not argue with it. Personally I think a large part of it is the same issues most people have with monks: "I got to do it this way."
Like people always wanting to two weapon fight with rogues -- it honestly isn't worth it when you consider feat costs, attack bonus costs, opportunity costs, likelihood of use, ability requirements, etc.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
[sarcasm]HFS, something in print isn't fully optimized! Someone burn down the building before it spreads to surrounding areas. [/sarcasm]That's not what I ask for. My only question is: what do those talents add to the roleplay?
If you don't know, please don't post.
You are the one that set up this false dichotomy of "It's either for roleplay or for optimizing". It's a poor QUESTION based on a mistaken assumption.
You are the one that set up this false dichotomy of "It's either for roleplay or for optimizing". It's a poor QUESTION based on a mistaken assumption.
Well, it theoretically could be for both, one, or neither.
Since its not for optimizing , its not for both. That leaves the ever popular "role playing" as an option.
I think this was a good general idea that just wasn't well thought through. There were a LOT of feats in UC , mistakes happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the worst part of these talents isn't the fact that they give you a -2 penalty to hit. The worst part is that in many cases, using the talent gives you no benefit at all.
I think the talents should instead provide a blanket +1 per die and +2 per die, rather than "1s become 2s" and "1s and 2s become 3s". Then, I'd consider using them. I don't think they'd be "must-have" talents even with that change.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You are the one that set up this false dichotomy of "It's either for roleplay or for optimizing". It's a poor QUESTION based on a mistaken assumption.Well, it theoretically could be for both, one, or neither.
Since its not for optimizing , its not for both. That leaves the ever popular "role playing" as an option.
I think this was a good general idea that just wasn't well thought through. There were a LOT of feats in UC , mistakes happen.
*shrug*
Is the conversation about balance? I'd have never guessed through the sarcasm and 'wit'.
And as far corner cases go, of course there is one that I can think of: the knife master archetype and its sneak stab ability. That -2 to hit suddenly doesn't look all bad.
So when you find yourself in a very stupid situation, you might suck less? It's a stone cold certainty that if you're without your normal gear, and fighting enemies where it matters if you do 15 or 17 damage, you're not going to hit on a 0+, so the DPR reduction is going to happen.
In regards to what it adds to RP situations, that should be left to the character and DM to decide. Maybe the character that took these talents is known for, among other things, his penchant for bloodshed, which means making 'aggressive negotiations' something that should not be taken lightly when dealing with him.YMMV.
Well, if people knows he took those talents, they're going to go "aaaw, look at the retarded knife-boy. He thinks he's people!". If you want to be a hair-trigger psycho, act like one. A path in life where those talents don't help you at all, BTW.