Consolidating +2/+2 feats into one customizable feat?

[Jeph]

I use basically the same thing IMC. I call it Synergy, and the PCs must telly why the two chosen skills are synergetic.

 

[haiiro]

Most folks who've posted so far agree that the skills in question should be related, but I'm not convinced that they need to be.

The Versatile feat from Rokugan:

Versatile [General]

You are skilled in a variety of areas normally outside your profession's area of expertise.
Benefit: Select two cross-class skills. These skills are always considered in class skills for you.
Special: This feat may be selected multiple times. Each time, it applies to different skills.

Granted, the theme here is versatility, but I don't think being able to choose two wildly unrelated skills for Versatile is in any way unbalancing.

So how about it: why do the skills need to be related? How does allowing a player to choose freely make Talented the equivalent of something like Weapon Specialization (a feat that, IMO, nearly every fighter will take)?

Thanks in advance - I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.

 

[Khorod]

I think the idea behind related skills is that taking the feat involves building on a particular aspect of what the character does.

If they are not related, you're essentially saying that this feat is two mini-feats, each representing a small boost to a single skill.

While I don't have an objection to either viewpoint for mechanical reasons, for flavor/character development, I prefer them to be related. I use a +2/+2 with DM arbitration, and depending on the character many seemingly unrelated skills can be combined.

For example, a player with the right character could convince me of Alchemy & Forgery- the character focused on the inkmaking/dyes aspect of each skill. That is really weak, but in d20 even a non-munchkin, non-powergamer can come up with crazy but justifiable stuff.

 

[Hashmalum]

Ok, so maybe it isn't so unbalanced. I still don't like the idea of one feat doing two very different and unrelated things, though; it strikes me as being very clunky and inelegant.

 

[thalmin]

I use basically the same thing IMC. I call it Synergy, and the PCs must telly why the two chosen skills are synergetic.

I think that making the player justify the chosen combination, with the DM's approval, would work. The biggest bonus to this is no longer trying to keep up with every 2-skill feat that some publisher or other presents. Eventually every combo will be available, anyway.

As for "must have" feats, don't nearly all rogues have Improved Initative? Don't most fighters have Power Attack? So what if they do?

 

[haiiro]

As for "must have" feats, don't nearly all rogues have Improved Initative? Don't most fighters have Power Attack? So what if they do?

I just think must-have feats should be few and far between, and introduced very carefully into any campaign. They're not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

I think the idea behind related skills is that taking the feat involves building on a particular aspect of what the character does.

If they are not related, you're essentially saying that this feat is two mini-feats, each representing a small boost to a single skill.

Ehh, details details.

With so many direct power increasing feats (meta, item creation, combat, etc)- there is little reason to take a skill feat now as it is, except for a requirement to a PrC.

Granted, D20 Modern and Spycraft have gone far in increasing the use of skills, but d&d is still behind in those categories.

I think keeping the feat open makes it attractive.

As for a "must have" skill feat- a +2 to concentration & spellcraft? Are you serious? The wizard could just make magic items that give him up to, eventually, a +10 in each.

To keep the feat open I would just rename it from Talented to Background- with a flavor text that describes while growing up they were exposed to skill #1 and skill #2. If they choose an odd combination, then hopefully it will spur them to have a developed background. Which is all the better for dm inspiration.

SD

 

[Hashmalum]

As for a "must have" skill feat- a +2 to concentration & spellcraft? Are you serious? The wizard could just make magic items that give him up to, eventually, a +10 in each.

An item giving +10 in Spellcraft?! Now it's my turn to ask, are YOU serious? Do you realize that +10 in Spellcraft translates to, among other things, +5d6 damage on epic spells? And that an item that gives +10 Spellcraft checks for one purpose only--casting epic spells--is an epic magic item? If you're talking about an epic item, then the character is going to have to wait a very long time to get that bonus. If you're not, then you've got bigger balance problems than anything the Talented feat could possibly do.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

An item giving +10 in Spellcraft?! Now it's my turn to ask, are YOU serious? Do you realize that +10 in Spellcraft translates to, among other things, +5d6 damage on epic spells?

Do you realize that the epic rules are optional? And not used at all in my campeigns? In fact, it is a $14 paper weight.

An item of +10 to spellcraft is no different then a +10 to move silently from Boots of Elvenkind. In fact, the cost would be exactly the same.

SD

 

[Drawmack]

here is my version of Skill Focus

Skill Focus (general)
You are especially practiced in a single skill or a set of related skills.

Benefit: Choose a single skill to gain +3 to that skill modifier or two related skills to gain +2 to each skill.

special: DM has final say it what skills are considered related any arguments cause this feat to revert to the stardard feat retroactivly.