Certain basic feats that should exist (IYO) but don't

[billd91]

The first one is a problem with PrC prereqs. That's why there will probably never be one.

I don't think it's a problem. So you convert the requirement from being a lot of skill points to half the number of skill points + a feat. That's still an expensive trade-off to get access to a prestige class.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't think it's a problem. So you convert the requirement from being a lot of skill points to half the number of skill points + a feat. That's still an expensive trade-off to get access to a prestige class.

It isn't the points--it is the level of entry. PrCs for Bards that require 3rd-level Arcane Magic and 8 ranks in Perform expect that you have to be a level 7 Bard or a multiclassed character who loses a Wizard casting level and grabs it at 6 (or a straight Wizard or Sorcerer who waits until level 13 and can never get the capstone). A Wizard with that feat grabs it at 5 and then gains all the benefits meant for a Bard (generally better HD, BAB, skills, *and* specials, plus spellcasting).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The Rogue's skill mastery (not achievable before level 10) coupled with the Savvy Rogue feat comes close. Savvy Rogue lets you take 12 on any skill for which you've selected skill mastery. I guess you'd also need to throw in 4 levels of Warlock to also be able to take 10 (but not 12, alas) on Use Magic Device.

What stops a rogue from taking UMD as one of his Skill Mastery choices? It says even skills that don't normally allow you to take 10. I consider it the biggest reason to take skill mastery as soon as possible. Well, that and Disable Device & Bluff. Would you stop a rogue from using Skill Mastery on a Knowledge skill?

Have to say, I love this thread! It's giving me many ideas (and straight-out providing many others).

 

[billd91]

It isn't the points--it is the level of entry. PrCs for Bards that require 3rd-level Arcane Magic and 8 ranks in Perform expect that you have to be a level 7 Bard or a multiclassed character who loses a Wizard casting level and grabs it at 6 (or a straight Wizard or Sorcerer who waits until level 13 and can never get the capstone). A Wizard with that feat grabs it at 5 and then gains all the benefits meant for a Bard (generally better HD, BAB, skills, *and* specials, plus spellcasting).

I really don't see that being a problem. The bard still has an easier entry into it because he didn't have to spend a feat to do it. I don't see earliest entry point for certain classes being a particularly major balancing factor when it comes to picking up a PrC.
But then, I don't really care much about party niches. If someone manages to qualify for a bard-oriented PrC before the party bard can without actually being a bard, it's no skin off my nose. More power to them for having a goal in mind. I'm far more concerned with making sure the minimum level for any character to qualify for a class is appropriate for the PrC. I always pretty much assume that a character will have the ranks in the shortest amount of time possible no matter how they background they approach the PrC from.

 

[Victim]

Although this may be mechanically balanced, it makes little sense that a sniper should suffer an attack penalty for what amounts to taking aim. You can swing or hurl a weapon with excessive force, trading off accuracy for impact, but the same concept doesn't apply to projectile weapons.

Rather, I would suggest a feat for aiming that allows a character to add Dex to damage by forfeiting his Dex bonus to AC.

Aiming for the head versus aiming for the chest?

 

[Felon]

Aiming for the head versus aiming for the chest?

There are number of issues I take with picking out a single location for a shot to hit. First, we're back to wondering why a character wearing a chain shirt should recieve an armor bonus if you're aiming for his head (and according to the PHB, chain shirts aren't accompanied by helms). Second, it relies on the popular assumption (perpetuated through other games that use hit-location tables) that the chest is a comparatively safe place to get shot with an arrow ("Don't worry about me, doc! It was only a chest wound! Tend to that poor guy who got hit in the cheek..."). And third, I wouldn't say that such a shot should be all-or-nothing; you can aim for the head and wind up hitting the chest anyway.

In general, I think it's just a bad idea for projectile weapons to have a power-attack option. I prefer to think a sniper sacrifices mobility while lining up a lethal shot.

 

[Felon]

I am in 4 campaigns and all 4 DMs use fumble rules. I would guess that fumble rules are popular enough among DMs that an "anti-fumble" feat would be worth it for players.

I'm not sure I follow. D&D should include a basic "anti-fumble" feat to mitigate a rule that it doesn't actually include?

 

[hong]

It isn't the points--it is the level of entry. PrCs for Bards that require 3rd-level Arcane Magic and 8 ranks in Perform expect that you have to be a level 7 Bard or a multiclassed character who loses a Wizard casting level and grabs it at 6 (or a straight Wizard or Sorcerer who waits until level 13 and can never get the capstone). A Wizard with that feat grabs it at 5 and then gains all the benefits meant for a Bard (generally better HD, BAB, skills, *and* specials, plus spellcasting).

Like I said, stupid PrC design. Die, stupid PrC design.

 

[Diirk]

It isn't the points--it is the level of entry. PrCs for Bards that require 3rd-level Arcane Magic and 8 ranks in Perform expect that you have to be a level 7 Bard or a multiclassed character who loses a Wizard casting level and grabs it at 6 (or a straight Wizard or Sorcerer who waits until level 13 and can never get the capstone). A Wizard with that feat grabs it at 5 and then gains all the benefits meant for a Bard (generally better HD, BAB, skills, *and* specials, plus spellcasting).

Bard PrCs generally have "bardic music ability" as a requirement. If in fact some instead have 3rd level arcane spells and 8 ranks in perform, it sounds like its a conscious design decision to potentially allow arcane casters into the PrC. Especially as bardic arcane spells aren't til 7th (or 8th depending on charisma), so if solely intended for a bard then 10 ranks in perform would be expected.

 

[Particle_Man]

I'm not sure I follow. D&D should include a basic "anti-fumble" feat to mitigate a rule that it doesn't actually include?

Actually, Wotc does include variant rules allowing fumbles/critical misses in the 3.5 DMG. Therefore, there is room for a WOTC feat along the lines of "if you use fumble rules, you could include this feat for players that wish to avoid suffering fumbles". In a perfect world, such a feat would have been placed right next to those variant fumble rules, so that DMs who use one would see the other and I wouldn't have to suffer so.