Intelligence as extra 1st-level general feats

[Teridax]

As commonly perceived, Intelligence feels somewhat lacking relative to other attributes like Strength or Charisma. Whereas the latter two skills tend to provide consistent use as a fourth attribute due to their strong benefits in combat (Strength) or social encounters (Charisma), as well as other advantages, Intelligence doesn't feel like it has the same standout strengths, with its additional trained skills and languages feeling only situationally useful compared to the benefit of other stats. The proposal here is simple: rather than give the player additional trained skills and languages, what if increasing Intelligence gave more 1st-level general feats instead?

For example: Ezren the Wizard starts out with +4 Intelligence at level 1. Normally, this would let him know 4 additional languages and become trained in 4 additional skills, for a total of 7. Under this variant, he instead gains 4 1st-level general feats: if Ezren really wants more trained skills, he can take Skill Training 4 times and stay at 7 trained skills, though fewer languages known. If he wants to become a polyglot instead, he can take Multilingual a couple times for those 4 additional languages and still have room for some more general feats, such as Canny Acumen or Incredible Initiative. Perhaps he may want to master the arcane arts early instead, and take Arcana skill feats such as Quick Identification or Recognize Spell. As he boosts his Intelligence to +5 at 10th level, +6 at 17th level, and +7 at 20th level, he gains an extra 1st-level general feat each time, giving him additional benefits.

Effectively, the proposal here is to buff Intelligence's versatility, though not necessarily its direct power: as noted with the example of Skill Training and Multilingual, trying to replicate the exact benefits of Intelligence as currently implemented would leave you worse off. However, you'd have significantly more options as an Intelligence-based character, affording you much more character customization early on and the opportunity to build on your existing strengths too. As a side benefit, this would let Intelligence-heavy, skill-based classes like Investigators distinguish themselves significantly better from Rogues and their own large set of trained skills, as they'd have lots of flexibility and versatility but not necessarily lots of different skill proficiencies (unless they want those).

I'd be keen to see how this performs in playtesting, and would also be interesting in hearing preliminary feedback in case there are some standout abuse cases. Some thoughts:

This model makes it harder to handle a -1 Int mod, though in that case the easy workaround could be to just decrement the character's trained skills and known languages by one (down to the usual minimum) until their Intelligence mod increases.

This model can make it very easy for a level 1 Intelligence character to put all of their general feats into things like Armor and Weapon Proficiency, which would normally require a particular human heritage to acquire that early (and only once). This may not necessarily be a bad thing, however.

I think it would help to keep the general feats at 1st-level regardless of when you boost your Intelligence, that way there aren't any weird considerations around which level to boost your Int. That, and there are so many good 1st-level feats that it should feel good picking more even at high level.

[Finoan]

It is a power boost. But not a major one. People who don't think that Skill feats are powerful may not agree with that though.

Also, I would suggest a curated list. If you add level 3 General feats, then you can end up with things like Ancestral Paragon. While "I'm smarter, so I know how to fix things in a pinch" works fine narratively, it becomes more of a non-sequitur when looking at "I'm smarter so I am an Orc that was born with Tusks". But even keeping it at the level 1 General feats there aren't currently any that don't work well, but that doesn't mean that more won't be added later.

[Teridax]

Indeed, I feel keeping the bonus general feats at 1st level avoids most of the weirdness that would arise from picking higher-level feats, Ancestral Paragon being one of them. All of the level 1 feats seem to be about knacks you've picked up, and while future feats may be added that changes this, I do think that fits Intelligence's theme so far.

[thenobledrake]

Every time someone mentions the perceived lack of strength to Intelligence, I can't help but think of how much more work they are putting into downplaying the impact of languages and the benefits of skills even if they are redundant with other party members, and how that level of effort is already greater than fixing the problem being experienced but a solution that requires even more effort is sought.

I bet Finoan is onto something though. Many groups if given this proposal would be like "meh, those suck too" and continue not to care about Intelligence.

What I bet would be hilarious though is seeing how many people would take Intimidating Glare with a bonus feat granted by this rule.

[Ascalaphus]

I think if you can take general feats with it, actually a lot of people will be getting at least a 12 or so.

Every psychic, sorcerer, cloistered cleric and wizard will be considering taking Armor Proficiency.

And just about anyone will enjoy picking up Fleet, Uncanny Acumen, Toughness or Incredible Initiative for "free". Those are often better than a 5th+ skill trained.

[Captain Morgan]

I think general feats are too strong. You're basically upgrading everyone's amor training and saves with them more than a boost to another stat. (Beyond leveling out of relevance a la Uncanny Acumen but I don't think we need more awkwardness there.)

A boost in intelligence could nab you toughness, which is an interesting value comparison to a boost in constitution. Con gets +1 fortitude saves while Int gets better dying checks and skill checks. That's maybe comparable. But I don't love the idea of giving wizards and witches 4 feats to blow on armor proficiency or whatever.

I actually think intelligence is a great stat on intelligence based builds. Intelligence skills are super important in most campaigns, and they have strong skill feats to let you replace charisma in urban scenarios. I think this rule makes fully invested intelligence too strong.

The problem is that intelligence isn't a great skill if you're not fully invested in it. I think people undervalue how well trained skills keep up with DCs when you factor in additional bonuses, and languages can be super clutch (if you have the sign posting to pick the right languages.) But if you're playing a monk or other particularly MAD class it just does less as a tertiary stat.

I also don't think it thematically makes as much sense. Having higher intelligence leading to faster initiative, quicker feet, or more hit points just feels wrong.

IMO additional skill feats feels more appropriate and balanced. Maybe keeping the additional languages and skill trainings as well.

[Teridax]

Captain Morgan wrote:

But I don't love the idea of giving wizards and witches 4 feats to blow on armor proficiency or whatever.

This to me is actually one of the pluses of the above: witches especially suffer quite hard if trying to go for a Witch's Armaments build, in part because the class doesn't really have room to build Strength without sacrificing far too much elsewhere. Being able to opt into heavy armor from the start would ease that burden significantly and enable more build diversity, even if the result still wouldn't be an amazing gish.

With that said, I can agree with you that restricting the bonus feats to skill feats might be the safer bet. I do think there is thematic validity to Int giving more general feats, in that 1st-level general feats are often knacks a character picks up, but skill feats frame that even more tightly, and have the benefit of still allowing for Skill Training/Multilingual builds to imitate the original benefits.

[Ascalaphus]

Captain Morgan wrote:

The problem is that intelligence isn't a great skill if you're not fully invested in it. I think people undervalue how well trained skills keep up with DCs when you factor in additional bonuses, and languages can be super clutch (if you have the sign posting to pick the right languages.) But if you're playing a monk or other particularly MAD class it just does less as a tertiary stat.

I feel like DCs scale just a bit too fast for trained-only skills to really keep up. It's not so bad at low level, but by the time Master skills roll around it really becomes noticeable.

At low level Int is actually a pretty okay stat. A few extra trained skills makes a big difference at levels 1-6. But it starts to taper off when the difference between Trained and Master skills shows up, and gets even worse compared to Legendary. Because you're just kinda falling behind the DCs tuned to challenge people with better-than-trained proficiency, who also collect items and other bonuses.

So I think a change should rather be that high Int also gives you some proficiency bumps later on. For example something along the lines of (rough sketch):
+1 => get an extra Trained->Expert skill at level 5
+2 => get an extra Expert->Master skill at level 9
+3 => get another extra Trained->Expert skill at level 11
+4 => get another extra Expert->Master skill at level 13
+5 => get another extra Expert->Master skill at level 10
+6 => get another Master->Legendary skill at level 17
+7 => get another Master->Legendary skill at level 20

Well. Needs a bit more tuning, maybe not quite as much as that. But you get the general idea.

[thenobledrake]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like DCs scale just a bit too fast for trained-only skills to really keep up. It's not so bad at low level, but by the time Master skills roll around it really becomes noticeable.

Level-based DCs go up by 25 in the span that proficiency goes up 19 from level alone.

That means 6 points to make up between attribute boosts and item bonuses to stay equally relevant, which is fairly easy to manage if you make it a priority since that's just 2 boosts and a typically mid-level item.

[Captain Morgan]

thenobledrake wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like DCs scale just a bit too fast for trained-only skills to really keep up. It's not so bad at low level, but by the time Master skills roll around it really becomes noticeable.

Level-based DCs go up by 25 in the span that proficiency goes up 19 from level alone.

That means 6 points to make up between attribute boosts and item bonuses to stay equally relevant, which is fairly easy to manage if you make it a priority since that's just 2 boosts and a typically mid-level item.

Yup. A hand me down item from the specialist, a couple of boosts, an Aid or Follow the Expert, Mutagens, spells... A high level party just has so many more ways to boost even tertiary skills than a level 1 party.

[Captain Morgan]

Teridax wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

But I don't love the idea of giving wizards and witches 4 feats to blow on armor proficiency or whatever.

This to me is actually one of the pluses of the above: witches especially suffer quite hard if trying to go for a Witch's Armaments build, in part because the class doesn't really have room to build Strength without sacrificing far too much elsewhere. Being able to opt into heavy armor from the start would ease that burden significantly and enable more build diversity, even if the result still wouldn't be an amazing gish.

Why should witches benefit more than sorcerers with melee bloodline powers, though? Plus, there's a fine like between enabling more builds and creating an option that is so strong it redefines the meta. If all witches can get armor proficiency cheap, you'll start to see full plate witches as the norm rather than the exception. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot of you chose to play the actual cloth caster the class is meant to evoke.

If you want to make witches able to hang in melee, I'd prefer something like expert in unarmored proficiency or an in class way to enhance the Mage Armor spell. This change disrupts both balance and theme.

[Ascalaphus]

thenobledrake wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like DCs scale just a bit too fast for trained-only skills to really keep up. It's not so bad at low level, but by the time Master skills roll around it really becomes noticeable.

Level-based DCs go up by 25 in the span that proficiency goes up 19 from level alone.

That means 6 points to make up between attribute boosts and item bonuses to stay equally relevant, which is fairly easy to manage if you make it a priority since that's just 2 boosts and a typically mid-level item.

I don't really agree. 2+1 or 2+2 is not 6. Ability boosts slow down after getting to +4, and when you start picking up skill items you start running into the investment limit.

[thenobledrake]

Ascalaphus wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like DCs scale just a bit too fast for trained-only skills to really keep up. It's not so bad at low level, but by the time Master skills roll around it really becomes noticeable.

Level-based DCs go up by 25 in the span that proficiency goes up 19 from level alone.

That means 6 points to make up between attribute boosts and item bonuses to stay equally relevant, which is fairly easy to manage if you make it a priority since that's just 2 boosts and a typically mid-level item.

I don't really agree. 2+1 or 2+2 is not 6. Ability boosts slow down after getting to +4, and when you start picking up skill items you start running into the investment limit.

Because of how priorities work, it's rare that it's an ability someone isn't boosting at every possible opportunity that hits the partial boosts necessary to make what I said not true.

You're likely to already be planning on the boosts and skill increases to cover the +6 (and then some more on top) for stuff attached to the scores you're starting at +3 or +4 and running into those partial boosts with.

It's just the scores you start in the +0 to +2 range that fall into the "I could use a point of Int to get a skill training... but that would fall off in usefulness, unless" and you can use 2 full boosts on those, easy.

Yes, investment limit is a thing and you can run into it (though you can also just not depending on which items you happened to have prioritized). But that's still a matter of priority. You can, if you actually care to, invest an item or two to keep a trained-only skill relevant.

Like, genuinely. You can have your armor, a hat, some shoes, two rings, a cloak... and then still have 4 investment slots to stick items in. You might already have plenty of skills boosted just by the prior list of items, but you might also be limited there because those items are mostly for their special functions and not skill boosts, but we've got likely our apex and everything fundamental covered plus some fancy things for the heck of it and 4 items left just for "eh, why not?" selections. Plus you can get a few more slots for a feat.

So yeah, if you want a trained skill to stay relevant it's absolutely doable. Wanting other stuff more doesn't disprove that, it just shows you have some other thing you'd rather do.

[Teridax]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Why should witches benefit more than sorcerers with melee bloodline powers, though?

Because they use different stats? Why should the scrawny seventh son of a seventh son be better at intimidation than a debuff-oriented witch whose magic and familiar both derive from an unknowable eldritch horror? The point to different stats is that they leverage different strengths: Charisma influences some of the best skills in the game, and Intelligence ought to provide more versatility, as befits every Intelligence class in the game. Perhaps that versatility should limit itself to skill feats rather than all general feats, but the stat could certainly stand to provide a strong and distinct benefit.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Plus, there's a fine like between enabling more builds and creating an option that is so strong it redefines the meta. If all witches can get armor proficiency cheap, you'll start to see full plate witches as the norm rather than the exception. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot of you chose to play the actual cloth caster the class is meant to evoke.

I'm not sure spending three of one's four bonus feats for +1 AC and worse Dex saves is going to be worth it in most cases, particularly since even a Witch high on Strength, Con, Wis, and Int is still going to be a 6 HP/level caster with weak defenses. It would be more desirable if you wanted to attempt a melee Witch, but only that constitutes a small minority of builds. Even on skill feats alone, there are significantly more generally desirable options, like Trick Magic Item, Recognize Spell, or Battle Medicine, so while such a change would also change the meta, I'm not hugely worried about the game getting dominated by full plate casters.

Captain Morgan wrote:

If you want to make witches able to hang in melee, I'd prefer something like expert in unarmored proficiency or an in class way to enhance the Mage Armor spell. This change disrupts both balance and theme.

So accessing heavy armor on the same proficiency track is too strong... but having the Monk's unarmored defense proficiency on a squishy caster is okay? How is that any more appropriate for balance or theme?

[glass]

If four general feats on a Witch or Wizard is too strong, how about one feat per two points of bonus? Although then the question becomes what to do with the odd points.

Or maybe (thinking as I type) keeping the RAW rules, but you can swap two Trained Skills and/or languages for an extra general feat? But only once each for skills and languages, regardless of how high your bonus gets.

[Teridax]

I tried a version that limited the bonus feats to 1st-level skill feats, and that turned out completely unproblematic, so I think that could very well be the baseline for this kind of change. There's perhaps room to push that to 1st-level general feats still at a rate of one per Int boost, but simply having the option to pick lots more skill feats is already a big versatility boost for Int characters, so it may well be enough.

[shroudb]

In my campaign I simply give extra Additional Lore skill feats to Int.

Having a bunch of autoscaling lores, coupled with high int, makes them actually reliable enough to be used.

So far I feel it works great.

[WatersLethe]

shroudb wrote:

In my campaign I simply give extra Additional Lore skill feats to Int.

Having a bunch of autoscaling lores, coupled with high int, makes them actually reliable enough to be used.

So far I feel it works great.

Additional Lore is super under rated as a feat. Auto-scaling lore does a LOT to make your character actually feel like they know a thing or two about a subject.

I could see it also going a long way to making the character seem like they're actually highly intelligent.

An interesting house rule to be sure.

[Cyder]

Additional Lore is an awesome feat. I agree intelligence needs a little something extra. With how tight this games math is trained only level skills fall off fast and cease being all that relevant, especially with untrained improvisation.