Is Bardic Knowledge = to a feat ?
- Thread starter Sqwonk
- Start date
cheshire_grin
First Post
Different people learn differently. Some people learn (and remember) words visually; these people tend to be good spellers.UltimaGabe said:
Other people learn (and remember) words phonetically, in which case Croft-to-Kroft is a simple error to make (as is Xykon-to-Xycon). These people tend to not be particularly good at spelling, even if they're otherwise intelligent.
Rystil Arden
First Post
I have to agree with Piratecat. In one of my games, the PCs had no Bard and they needed what basically amounted to a Bardic Knowledge check, so they had to butter up a mid-level Bard by paying for the most expensive box seats and sitting through his torrid opera about the star-crossed love of an Elemental Duke from the Plane of Fire and a Lady of the Elemental Plane of Water.Piratecat said:
It was rather expensive, so it would have been strictly better to have Bardic Knowledge than loot in that situation. I encourage players to use Bardic Knowledge on anything that sounds interesting, and it is often a key aspect in unraveling complicated plots or becoming informed when they begin the situation rather clueless.
Hammerhead
Explorer
You could take Factotum levels from Dungeonscape, and just pick up lots of Knowledge skills. That allows for a Knowledgeable character far better than a Bard, since you get more bonuses than just your class level (and you can leverage those same Knowledge skills into bonuses to attack and damage via the Knowledge Devotion feat).
Nyeshet
First Post
I'm not sure, but I would be willing to let you trade out Sneak Attack 1d6 for it.Sqwonk said:
You would still get Sneak Attack; it just wouldn't start until level 3. Some later rogue specials and some few feats (I think) have minimum SA requirments (SA 5d6, etc), so your roguish ways in that direction would be limited (or, rather, delayed) a bit, but otherwise I think it would work out rather well. As a more trap / skill oriented rogue it may even make a bit of sense for this type of lessening of stealth attack ability in exchange for more skill and ability in knowledge, etc.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Nyeshet's suggestion sounds fair, trading a class feature for another class feature sounds more balanced.
Though I'm always hesitant in a class based system of swaping class features or making them feats, as you do this enough and it dilutes the classes to being meaningless.
Though I do like classless systems.
Though I'm always hesitant in a class based system of swaping class features or making them feats, as you do this enough and it dilutes the classes to being meaningless.
Though I do like classless systems.
Moggthegob
First Post
I would say the educated feat covers a good bit of it and if you really want to have BK as an indiana jones play it as a bard with rogue levels and make a feat allowing SA and Bk to stack.
Ambrus
Explorer
For what it's worth, the Draconic Knowledge feat from the Draconomicon grants an ability not terribly dissimilar to the Bardic Knowledge ability. Although the flavor text makes it out to be different, the mechanics amount to largely the same thing. Its prerequisites limit it to true dragons with a 19 Int and some other knowledge skills, but there you have it; Bardic Knowledge in exchange for a feat.
Suggestions posted here to take up some other class miss the mark -- this guy wants to know if bardic knowledge is worth a feat, not how he can change classes to get the ability.
With that in mind, I'd say that yes, it is worth a feat. Consider other equivalencies that have appeared in supplemental material. ... The alternate class feature of "bardic knack" in the PH2, for example, can be subbed for b.knowledge, and the knack itself is equivalent to a feat. In Dragon 336, the halfling wizard substitution level gains b.knowledge (as "lore") and loses a wizard feat.
As for the argument that it's unbalanced because the knowledge bonus keeps improving from level (i.e. it's class-based), consider that the "obtain familiar" from Comp.Arc. provides a benefit that does the same -- you get a magical critter that keeps improving, just like the wizard's regular familiar.
Finally, consider the "obscure lore" feat from Comp.Adv., which provides +4 bonus to bardic knowledge checks, which is actually a bigger boost than "skill focus." That might imply (depending on how you look at it) that b.knowledge is somehow less valuable than a regular skill roll and thus needs a larger bonus to compensate. And we know of many feats that allow access to skills themselves. ... Obviously, this point requires sequential inference between several elements.
There are various other feats that provide access to "ability"-like benefits -- the main difference between an ability and a feat is that the former subsumes a feat's prerequisites within the class structure itself. ... So if you don't personally feel that another character should be able to do something specifically bard-like without doing other stuff like the bard class does, set a bardish prereq: max knowledge skill ranks in at least three fields (4 ranks at 1st level, for example) and/or a historic research language like draconic, would seem to justify that the PC in question does, indeed, have a thirst for lore.
With that in mind, I'd say that yes, it is worth a feat. Consider other equivalencies that have appeared in supplemental material. ... The alternate class feature of "bardic knack" in the PH2, for example, can be subbed for b.knowledge, and the knack itself is equivalent to a feat. In Dragon 336, the halfling wizard substitution level gains b.knowledge (as "lore") and loses a wizard feat.
As for the argument that it's unbalanced because the knowledge bonus keeps improving from level (i.e. it's class-based), consider that the "obtain familiar" from Comp.Arc. provides a benefit that does the same -- you get a magical critter that keeps improving, just like the wizard's regular familiar.
Finally, consider the "obscure lore" feat from Comp.Adv., which provides +4 bonus to bardic knowledge checks, which is actually a bigger boost than "skill focus." That might imply (depending on how you look at it) that b.knowledge is somehow less valuable than a regular skill roll and thus needs a larger bonus to compensate. And we know of many feats that allow access to skills themselves. ... Obviously, this point requires sequential inference between several elements.
There are various other feats that provide access to "ability"-like benefits -- the main difference between an ability and a feat is that the former subsumes a feat's prerequisites within the class structure itself. ... So if you don't personally feel that another character should be able to do something specifically bard-like without doing other stuff like the bard class does, set a bardish prereq: max knowledge skill ranks in at least three fields (4 ranks at 1st level, for example) and/or a historic research language like draconic, would seem to justify that the PC in question does, indeed, have a thirst for lore.
Last edited:
It's a great DM tool as well.
