Feats with negative requirements
- Thread starter RigaMortus
- Start date
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Very bad idea. Give them another reason to have a bad charisma. Until now they could just ignore their bad cha score and put the points into other scores, but now they acutally profit from a bad charisma. I'd never allow such a feat in my campaign.
Bad idea to reward players for bad scores, especially charisma.
Bad idea to reward players for bad scores, especially charisma.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
There's one in the Freeport Campaign Setting... "Filthy", I think. Chr 9-.
It's not a particularly powerful feat, from memory - something like a +2 Intimidate and saves vs Poison, or something similar.
But even so, I don't like the mechanic.
-Hyp.
It's not a particularly powerful feat, from memory - something like a +2 Intimidate and saves vs Poison, or something similar.
But even so, I don't like the mechanic.
-Hyp.
It'd be fine if there were parallel feats for ALL the attributes, and if each feat was written to NOT be as desirable to people who're inherently low on such attributes.
IOW, no combat-boosting, low-charisma feats.
No rogue-task-boosting, low-intelligence feats ("dumb luck" or whatever).
But a few feats predicated on some negative feature or other, I can see as a workable premise. Carefully done, it might prove a good addition to the game ...
IOW, no combat-boosting, low-charisma feats.
No rogue-task-boosting, low-intelligence feats ("dumb luck" or whatever).
But a few feats predicated on some negative feature or other, I can see as a workable premise. Carefully done, it might prove a good addition to the game ...
Skinwalker
First Post
Malicene said: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)
How about one for INT 9- called "Idiot Savant", allowing the character to ignore maximum ranks in a craft or profession skill. lol.
Using feats to get around a disadvantage is a good idea. But look at a prime example: Weapon Finesse. It requires BAB +1 and proficiency with the weapon. Obviously, you would only take this if your dex was higher than your strength, but there is no reward for a BAD strength. If your strength climbs higher than your dex, you can just choose not to use the feat. This is the way feats like those under discussion should be implemented.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
I agree.
I do allow the key ability for Intimidate to be Strength, largely because I like the idea of inarticulate thugs being able to induce irrational fear in people, just like they do in real life. It doesn't stop rogues and other "charm characters" IMC from taking ranks in Intimidate; in fact, these folks usually have the skill points to spare and more to gain from avoiding combat by scaring prospective opponents silly, so it works out. However, using the swappable ability rule does encourage barbarians to take Intimidate, which I like.
I do allow the key ability for Intimidate to be Strength, largely because I like the idea of inarticulate thugs being able to induce irrational fear in people, just like they do in real life. It doesn't stop rogues and other "charm characters" IMC from taking ranks in Intimidate; in fact, these folks usually have the skill points to spare and more to gain from avoiding combat by scaring prospective opponents silly, so it works out. However, using the swappable ability rule does encourage barbarians to take Intimidate, which I like.
Will
First Post
A side issue, but I think I finally have a ruling that I'm happy with for dwarven and half-orcish intimidation. Both have a -2 Cha... the dwarf for being 'reserved' and the half-orc for being crude.
The more I think about it, the more dissatisfied I am with that.
I would prefer something along the lines of: -2 when grace, charm, and civilization is important in social interactions
Given that mitigates the penalty's effect with sorcerers and paladins, it changes balance a bit... maybe make the penalty -4?
The more I think about it, the more dissatisfied I am with that.
I would prefer something along the lines of: -2 when grace, charm, and civilization is important in social interactions
Given that mitigates the penalty's effect with sorcerers and paladins, it changes balance a bit... maybe make the penalty -4?
I don't know that any two people deal with Charisma exactly the same. Ask 10 people the whys of what it means and why some races have penalties to it, and you will get 11 answers.
A few things to remember: D&D was meant to be relatively simple, so it doesn't represent things perfectly. Simple tends to be more fun to more people. Also, an ugly character would learn from experience people don't deal well with them, and would avoid these intereaction (Charisma penalty). Likewise, characters from a very stoic culture or race would grow up learning not to force their will on others (Charisma penalty).
The easiest solution lies with the intimidation skill itself, by racial bonus or feat. The more complete solution would be a re-write of the attribute system ala 2e Skills and Powers.
A few things to remember: D&D was meant to be relatively simple, so it doesn't represent things perfectly. Simple tends to be more fun to more people. Also, an ugly character would learn from experience people don't deal well with them, and would avoid these intereaction (Charisma penalty). Likewise, characters from a very stoic culture or race would grow up learning not to force their will on others (Charisma penalty).
The easiest solution lies with the intimidation skill itself, by racial bonus or feat. The more complete solution would be a re-write of the attribute system ala 2e Skills and Powers.
Similar Threads
