Is Inquisitive really broken
- Thread starter Michael Morris
- Start date
drnuncheon
Explorer
I've got to go with the 'overpowered' side.
As mentioned, it's got the same relation to Open Minded as Improved Toughness to Toughness - but Improved Toughness has a base Fort save requirement, and Toughness is pretty universally regarded as an extremely weak feat.
Or, to look at it another way, yes, it's one aspect of a +2 Int - but it's also half or more of the racial benefit for playing a human, which means (IMO) that it's worth a lot more than a single feat. To illustrate, let's compare humans and half-elves (since nobody accuses half-elves of being overpowered.) Since neither one has a favored class or stat bonuses, thos efactor out nicely, and we are left with the human's +1 skill rank and bonus feat equating to the following:
As a DM, I would not allow this feat. It seems too good for what you have to spend to get there, and it would dilute one of the main advantages of playing a human character.
J
As mentioned, it's got the same relation to Open Minded as Improved Toughness to Toughness - but Improved Toughness has a base Fort save requirement, and Toughness is pretty universally regarded as an extremely weak feat.
Or, to look at it another way, yes, it's one aspect of a +2 Int - but it's also half or more of the racial benefit for playing a human, which means (IMO) that it's worth a lot more than a single feat. To illustrate, let's compare humans and half-elves (since nobody accuses half-elves of being overpowered.) Since neither one has a favored class or stat bonuses, thos efactor out nicely, and we are left with the human's +1 skill rank and bonus feat equating to the following:
- Immunity to sleep spells and similar magical effects, and a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells or effects.
- Low-Light Vision: A half-elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. She retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
- +1 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.
- +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks.
- Elven Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf.
- Automatic Languages: Common and Elven. Bonus Languages: Any (other than secret languages, such as Druidic).
As a DM, I would not allow this feat. It seems too good for what you have to spend to get there, and it would dilute one of the main advantages of playing a human character.
J
Terath Ninir
Yog Sothoth loves you
Hmm. I thought there already *was* a feat like this, that applied retroactively. Must be in a FFG book, then, since that is the bulk of the rest of my D&D collection. 
As several other people have said, you don't compare a feat like this to a bottom-end feat like Skill Focus (that is usually only taken as a prereq).
I might make it a 1st level only feat, but that would mostly be for flavour.
As several other people have said, you don't compare a feat like this to a bottom-end feat like Skill Focus (that is usually only taken as a prereq).
I might make it a 1st level only feat, but that would mostly be for flavour.
drnuncheon said:
I would say that the value of an open feat is worth quite a bit more than +2 to two skills. Consider a race with the following skill modifiers:
+2 Gather Information
+2 Concentration
+2 Disable Device
+2 Knowledge: The Planes
+2 Forgery
+2 Survival
+2 Handle Animal
+2 Swim
How many open feats do you think this is worth? Not that many (probably 2), unless you can think of a character who likes to use all of these skills. If an ability is related to almost all of combat (AC, strength, hit points), having it be more powerful than equivalent feats is a problem. However, if an ability is related to something (like a skill) that not many characters use, having quite a few bonuses to skills is not going to produce an unbalanced character.
Almost all players are going to take a race with 2 open feats over this hypothetical race. If anything, the Rogue/Ranger/Bards out there will get a race that provides them with a much needed boost from this.
Iron Will is not a particularly good feat, but is still quite a bit better than +2 saves vs. enchantments and immunity to sleep spells. A feat also has the power to qualify a character for a chain of feats that rise in power (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot for a 1st level human fighter, for example).
For the feat in question, a character already has skill points without the feat Inquisitive; consequently, the value of the added skill points should be less than that of the skill points that the character already has. In most games, I would expect Inquisitive to remain a normally taken good feat.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Elric said:
I agree, thus my assessment of the open feat being worth somewhere between 1-2 feats, and the bonus skill ranks being worth the rest (which is to say 2-3 feats).
I'll note that while +2 to skills (or +1 to 3) is on the weak side for a feat, low-light vision is on the strong side, so it kind of balances out.
Also remember that Inquisitive provides open skill points, which by the same logic we apply to open feats are worth more than bonuses to fixed skills.
J
Thanee
First Post
You consider the +1 skill point higher than the free feat the human gets?
I really wonder about that.
I'm rather sure, that the bonus feat is the prime reason to pick human in almost all cases, if there is a mechanical reason the choice is based on.
Based on that, I'd say the free feat is worth quite a bit more than the skill points.
Bye
Thanee
I really wonder about that.
I'm rather sure, that the bonus feat is the prime reason to pick human in almost all cases, if there is a mechanical reason the choice is based on.
Based on that, I'd say the free feat is worth quite a bit more than the skill points.
Bye
Thanee
Since I'm the person who started this: I apologise for the instulting suprlative used in the description. I probably should have said: Wow, this feat is too powerful for my campaign.
I consider the comparison with Toughness to be somewhat off. To properly compare Inquisitive with Toughness, you should re-write Toughness to be: Gives +1 hp per level. This is the aspect of a +2 Con to compare with the +2 Int for Inquisitive. Is this new Toughness feat acceptable?
I also would compare this to feats like Skilled (4 skill points once) or Versatile (the same). These feats give a one time bounus of skill points, like Toughness and Improved Toughness.
This is a subtle difference, but I think an important one.
I consider the comparison with Toughness to be somewhat off. To properly compare Inquisitive with Toughness, you should re-write Toughness to be: Gives +1 hp per level. This is the aspect of a +2 Con to compare with the +2 Int for Inquisitive. Is this new Toughness feat acceptable?
I also would compare this to feats like Skilled (4 skill points once) or Versatile (the same). These feats give a one time bounus of skill points, like Toughness and Improved Toughness.
This is a subtle difference, but I think an important one.
Michael Morris
First Post
Thanee said:
Agreed. Besides, a human can be inquisitive too. I really tried to break this with a human rogue with an 18 INT and this feat (for a 1st level starting skill point pool of 56 points). It didn't feel broken, even then.
Anyway, I'll work to get the reply system fixed today guys - bear with me.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Thanee said:
Attractiveness of a particular ability is not necessarily an indication of that ability's power. Anyway, that's why I expressed it as a range, because the strict value isn't really that important. If you think the bonus feat is worth 2.5 feats, then that still leaves the +1 skill rank as being worth 1.5 feats. Are you suggesting, then, that a bonus feat is worth roughly three fixed feats?
Also remember that I deliberately picked what's regarded as one of the weakest races - almost certainly weaker than humans.
J
Similar Threads
