Magic Items that Grant Skills (merged)

[Scion]

I have actually used effectively the same rule in the past.

It definately helps out those characters who have invested something of themselves into a certain skill.

Sure there were still items that could grant a skill without having the necissary ranks, but they costed more (sometimes much more, it depended on the skill)

Not all skills are created equal, some are simply far superior, so I got to leave the price alone on the regular ones (required buying ranks, this is a cost) while for the others I was able to adjust them to minor, medium, and major and adjust the cost as needed to make better skills cost more (for those who had no ranks). It worked out incredibly well actually.

I also had a rule that you had to have at least half the ranks in a skill for an item you wanted to make (ie if you wanted to make a hide +10 item you had to have at least 5 ranks in hide) or you had to work with someone who had at least as many ranks as the plus (they paid half of the exp for the item and so did the creater). This also worked out incredibly well.

Of course these changes were in effect from the beginning and everyone knew. This, along with, removing the double cost of cross classed skills (still had the max rank req though) made character creation much more interesting. You want to be really good at hiding but it isnt a class skill? pick up as many ranks as you can, grab an item to boost yourself.

Beautiful system

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Skill Magic Items

Ok. My DM decided to impose a rule restriction on magic items that grant competence bonuses.

He feels that regardless of the bonus of the item, it wont grant the full bonus if you dont have as many ranks in the skill.

Example. If you have 4 ranks in concentration, and an Item that grants a +8 Competence bonus, you only gain a +4 bonus since you only have 4 ranks.

If you have 0 ranks, you cannot glean a bonus from the item.

He wants the opinion of enworlders.

Lets assume that the item in question wont be granting a bonus in a skill that requires training. In which case the bonus wouldnt mean anything, since you cannot preform the check to begin with.

I'd like some of you guys to help explain how this defeats the purpose of skill bonus items to begin with, and gives an unfair advantage to those with ranks.

(Its kinda like the increasing seperation of rich and poor. Its a rule that gives the rich more money, and restricts the poor from attaining any. Not balanced IMO.)

Can the nice posters here at the rules forum help me show him why this is both unbalanced, and unfair? Nevermind the fact that it was a rule sprung in the middle of the game, not at the beggining.

 

[D20 Addict]

I think that if an item rants a +8 bonus, than you should have at least 16 ranks in the skill. I have incorporated the following formulae into my game: Character that use magic items that grant skill bonuses must have a skill rank (in said skill) of twice the skill bonus in order to fully benefit from it.

I hope this helps!

 

[Korak]

Frankly, I detest skill bonus items. In the campaigns I play in they are limited to +5. In my upcoming game, they will also be heavily regulated, probably limited to just what is in the DMG + 4 or five others that I design.

In my opinion, they horribly cheapen the skill system. So, from that perspective I don't think your DM is being unreasonable at all. I would restrict skill bonus items in a different way, but the spirit of the change is similar.

 

[Coredump]

Let me get this straight...

You post the exact same thread in the HR Forum for 'advice'

People there mostly agree with your DM

So You get mad and run to the Rules forum.


Look you wanted advice, and you got it. You don't like it, sorry.

Yes, it is against the rules. You know that, I know that, your DM knows that. So there is not much reason to post it in the *rules* forum at all. There were half a dozen people telling you it was pretty balanced, and some thought it was *more* balanced than RAW.

The Rules forum is not for showing something is unbalance nor unfair. But what the rules say. What you really want is the HR section...but you didn't get the answer you wanted. What is next....?? Do you go from board to board until you finally find people to agree with you?

edit: HAHAHAHA.... the opinions here are even MORE harsh than the ones in the HR. So, now where will you run to?

Tell your DM I said Hi

 

[DarkMaster]

I personally don't see any problem with skill enhancing magic items, as I don't see any problem with the various item increasing the ability. Increasing your dex by 4 virtually gives you 2 rank in a lot of skills so why not have one items that provide a big bonus to one skill.

Also following your logic, spider climb and the like would be useless to all but some arcane caster/rogue of at least mid level. What is the difference between the bonus provided by a spell or by an item (the source is the spell for both).

 

[Planesdragon]

Ok. My DM decided to impose a house rule restriction on magic items that grant competence bonuses.

Skill-enhancing items are one of the things that is "broken" about third edition. (Look for Ryan Dancy's notes on Living X gamers routinely having +30 to their skill checks.)

IMC, skill items have ranks in the skill. That
Cloak of Elvenkind has +10 to hide, letting a n00b hide at +10, but not giving more than +2 (a'la Aid Another) to a l33t elven ranger.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

I never asked for advice. The entire time i was seeking opinions against his imposed rule. My post makes that clear.

I didnt "run" anywhere. I dont agree with your opinions in House Rules, so i decieded to try the opinions of those in the RAW forum.

I'm quite dismayed that people make needless and unbalanced changes to the RAW. Well, changes that IMO are needless and unbalanced.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Though I respect Ryan, i dont agree with him.

You're forgetting a that a n00b cannot afford a 10,000 gold peice item. (it costs 10,000 gp to grant +10 to a single skill).

 

[Seraphna]

Definition of Competence Bonus: A Bonus that GRANTS SKILL to a character that otherwise is not as skilled as before. This bonus is either granted through technical (a +1 or +2 bonus granted for forging the weapon or for using a skill or item for a long period of time.) OR Magical, gifting the character with a level of skill they do not otherwise possess. NO WHERE in the book does it even SUGGEST that magic items require a rank or 10 in ANY skill to use.

A magic item is a magic item is a magic item. This idea of a variant rule suggest magic is LESS POWERFUL then as it was created if someone is not innately skilled in it's benefit. And as for cheap... HAS ANYONE READ 3.5 YET??? Past +5 Competence... pricing for skill items has become rediculous.

And as for the "One person worked for 7 levels to gain this skill, the other bought a cloak..." did you bother to think about that the first person might have bought the cloak too? If Person 1 and Person 2 are both wearing Cloaks of Elvenkind, yet person 1 has 10 ranks of skill, that person is going to be at LEAST twice as skilled in hiding as the second.

And as for 10 ranks of jump not being good? Where do you get your crack from?

Let's assume that a player has a +3 STR Bonus, 10 Ranks in Jump, and Boots of Striding and Springing. Now, let's add that together, GASP! A +23 to Jump checks! That doesn't seem good at all! Wrong. The human move speed is thirty feet, correct? With a 5 foot head start, a character in this situation can long-jump 24-43 feet, and as striding and springing boots remove the jump height limits, the character can also LEAP THAT HIGH.

I don't know about you, but the ability to leap over a lot of climb checks, do a falling charge, and avoid most pit traps known to mankind is pretty damn impressive compared to a skill that oooooohhhh allows one to hide under heavy limitations and only until you strike at your enemy once, if they haven't already seen you.

Call me a purist, but I stick to the rules that Wizards of the Coast wrote. Wanna keep balance? Stop messing with the rules.