Feats with negative requirements

[RigaMortus]

I just heard about a feat (in a 3rd party book; I think it was Ultimate Feat Book) called "Grotesque". Requirement is that you have to have an 8 Charisma or lower to take the feat. Bascially what it does is let you use your Strength bonus on Intimidate checks AND if you win the Intimidate check by 10 or more, your target is shaken as long as they are within your presense. And if you win by 20 or more, they cower. I think it also makes Intimidate a Class skill for you too, but I'm not sure on that one.

Anyway, this got me thinking. Why not add some feats that take advantage of lower stats? In 2nd edition, the person who rolled highest for attributes was reward, while the people that rolled mediocre attributes (10 to 14) did not. This was curbed to some extent in 3E. But if a player with a low attribute could take advantage of it somehow (like through a feat) it might add some more depth to the character.

I do not think this would be too overpowering because that low stat will hurt the character in all other aspects (lowers skill checks, could lower saves, could lower AC or to hit bonus, etc.). Also, most people will still concentrate on improving their strengths anyway (I have a high Dex, so let me take feats that take advantage of my high Dex). This just gives another option to a player for character custimization (I want to be an ugly Half-Orc that scares people when they look at him, but also Intimidates real well on account of his uglyness).

 

[Malicene]

Yes, but Low Charisma feat is something I can imagine easily, but for other stat it's not so clear.

Having a low Strength, Dexterity, Constitution can't give u an advantage (over a physical disadvantage)
low Intelligence ?? resistance to charm ??
low Wisdom , random/surprising action ??
low Charisma, Grotesque has you say (funny to see a french word )

 

[LokiDR]

No

I say this not because it is a bad idea, but because of game balance. If the only requirment to that feat is a BAD stat, what is the disadvantage of roll? It should take more than a feat to turn a weakness into a strength. Minimum ranks in intimidate at least.

What about a character with average charisma, but a high strength? Is he "too pretty" to intimidate by strength?

Requiring low stats only encourages min-maxing and a lack of advancement. This is not a road I want to see the rules go down.

 

[drnuncheon]

Anyway, this got me thinking. Why not add some feats that take advantage of lower stats? In 2nd edition, the person who rolled highest for attributes was reward, while the people that rolled mediocre attributes (10 to 14) did not. This was curbed to some extent in 3E. But if a player with a low attribute could take advantage of it somehow (like through a feat) it might add some more depth to the character.

This was considered for 3e - in the playtest, there was apparently a feat called "Too Ugly to Die" which they mention in the Dragon article on feats - but it was eventually decided against, as the designers did not want to reward people for having low stats. (It becomes even more problematic if you are using point-buy instead of random roll.)

J

 

[AuraSeer]

I always thought that was one of the stupidest feats ever written.

Charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness. An ugly old hunchback can be smooth and manipulative, while the winner of the Ms. Campaign Universe beauty contest might be unable to lie her way out of a wet paper sack.

If you have low Charisma, it means you lack the talent of communicating well. You can't lie, you don't know how to impress people, and you don't know how to be imposing. Compared to a high-Cha character, you suck at convincing people of anything. Why should that make you better at convincing them to be scared? Why should a gormless rube gain powers equivalent to a magical fear effect, if his more talented peers cannot ever learn the same trick?

 

[Nifft]

IMO Charisma is "Social Strength" -- your ability to make others see things your way, to dominate their personalities with your own, by whatever means -- intimidation included. Charisma isn't a measure of beauty, it's a measure of force of personality.

-- Nifft

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Feats with negative requirements

Charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness. An ugly old hunchback can be smooth and manipulative, while the winner of the Ms. Campaign Universe beauty contest might be unable to lie her way out of a wet paper sack.

If you have low Charisma, it means you lack the talent of communicating well. You can't lie, you don't know how to impress people, and you don't know how to be imposing. Compared to a high-Cha character, you suck at convincing people of anything. Why should that make you better at convincing them to be scared? Why should a gormless rube gain powers equivalent to a magical fear effect, if his more talented peers cannot ever learn the same trick?

I agree with the sentiment on the feat, but I don't think you are quoting rules with you concept of charisma.

Though it does not appear in the SRD, I believe the PH specifically mentions attractiveness as one of the factors of Charisma.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: Feats with negative requirements

I agree with the sentiment on the feat, but I don't think you are quoting rules with you concept of charisma.

Though it does not appear in the SRD, I believe the PH specifically mentions attractiveness as one of the factors of Charisma.

One of the factors.

And really, someone's personality can make them seem a lot more (or a lot less) attractive.

J

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Feats with negative requirements

One of the factors.

And really, someone's personality can make them seem a lot more (or a lot less) attractive.

J

Auraseer said

Charisma has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.

This is not supported by the rules.

Who would you rather listen to: an ugly old hag with a forceful personality or a beatiful young woman with a strong personality?

 

[Iron_Chef]

Why do some hideous monsters like harpies have such high charisma scores then?