Magic Items that Grant Skills (merged)

[Coredump]

Seraphna... we *know* the rules. Believe it or not, we can read too.

And if this was the Rules forum, I would quote the rules also, but it is the House Rules Forum, and I like the House Rule that not all +X skill bonuses work the same. And may not give full bonus.

Arthur, it is great that you feel so strongly, but if your DM really wants the 'enworlder opinion', it seems to mostly back his decision.

I don't see what theproblem is, if you want that skill so badly, dump some points into it. Or don't, and work around it.

 

[Scion]

Definition of Competence Bonus: A Bonus that GRANTS SKILL to a character that otherwise is not as skilled as before.

In this case it grants a bonus to a skill, but not greater than the skill already present. Just a slight stretching of what is already there.

NO WHERE in the book does it even SUGGEST that magic items require a rank or 10 in ANY skill to use.

Hence the houserules forum, and everyone saying that it is a house rule.

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

IMO the change in my campaign actually works much, much better. It is great, the players liked the change, and there is a certain flavor that goes along with it. Sure not everyone will like it, but then I absolutely hate the new rules about improved crit and keen not stacking. To each their own

 

[Coredump]

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).

DM, good point about the ability boost. But as I posted in the other thread, I would treat different items differently. And would allow the spells to work normally. It mostly comes down to a DM type flavor decision.

 

[Seraphna]

That however is still kinda denying the reality of the magic aspect, you're saying that complete illogic can only be powered by logic.

I realise it's a house rules thread. That's what irks me!

And as for this...

"IMO the change in my campaign actually works much, much better. It is great, the players liked the change, and there is a certain flavor that goes along with it. Sure not everyone will like it, but then I absolutely hate the new rules about improved crit and keen not stacking. To each their own "

Sure, not everyone will, and if your players aren't enjoying the game, isn't that a BAD thing?

And let me point it out again, if you're going to change that have them grant a bonus other then competence, becasue otherwise you're sort of breaking the definition of the bonus. The magic GRANTS a level of expertise in that skill, as if they had the ranks. It's not a +X skill bonus, it's a +x competence bonus to a skill.

Anyways... I suddenly remembered most of this game makes my head hurt. Not complications, but what some players manage to think up. <.< Good luck on this rule thing.

 

[AuraSeer]

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

Balance is a matter of opinion. In your DM's opinion, skill items as written were unbalanced. That means the change wasn't needless.

Not to be rude, but you really do seem to be looking for only supporting arguments. If posters who disagree with you will be dismissed out of hand, why bother asking the question at all?

 

[Scion]

That however is still kinda denying the reality of the magic aspect, you're saying that complete illogic can only be powered by logic.

Or perhaps it is making the reality of the magic aspect more apparent. Only magic can exactly determine what your skill is after all, at least at that speed.

All in all it is a good change, as several people have said.

I realise it's a house rules thread. That's what irks me!

Then.. umm.. why are you reading the houserules thread at all if they bother you?

And as for this...

"IMO the change in my campaign actually works much, much better. It is great, the players liked the change, and there is a certain flavor that goes along with it. Sure not everyone will like it, but then I absolutely hate the new rules about improved crit and keen not stacking. To each their own "

Sure, not everyone will, and if your players aren't enjoying the game, isn't that a BAD thing?

Did you miss the, 'my players like the change' and 'the change in my campaign actually works much, much better.'?

Just because you may not like it doesnt mean that everyone will dislike it. It is a great change for flavor, and it helps flesh out several parts of the system. In the end it makes skills more important, which is always a good thing, and keeps players who are good at something in the spotlight for that particular skill. I also said that I had items that still granted the bonus even if you didnt have the skill, but they costed more. Which makes sense as they are more generally useful.

And let me point it out again, if you're going to change that have them grant a bonus other then competence, becasue otherwise you're sort of breaking the definition of the bonus. The magic GRANTS a level of expertise in that skill, as if they had the ranks. It's not a +X skill bonus, it's a +x competence bonus to a skill.

You have to change nothing. The magic GRANTS you a bonus UP TO your level of expertise. That is a limitation placed by the item itself. Just like staves can gain bonuses from the person useing them, but this is in reverse. You can only gain as much skill from the item, in a bonus, as you already possess. It solves a lot of headaches. Believe that or not as you will, but it does.

 

[AuraSeer]

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.

A large bonus to one aspect is much harder to balance than a small bonus to many aspects. Giving, say, +10 to a single skill is much more powerful than giving +2 to 5 skills.

Compare: a standard Dex-boost item can give +3 bonus to AC, intiative, ranged attack bonus, and Reflex save (four aspects). But an item that granted a +12 Dex bonus to AC would be very unbalanced.

 

[Piratecat]

I really like your DM's rule; I may adopt it for my own game. It's especially elegant because it means that other classes won't out-rogue the rogue just by picking up an item. Even better, you can hand out powerful items at relatively low levels that improve as the character does. I think that's great.

Thumbs up from me.

EDIT: this is a house rules issue. I'll merge this thread with your other one.

 

[Beholder Bob]

I like your DMs rule - and am adopting it myself! If I (as DM) modified a rule in mid-game, I'd make all prior owned items function as they had prior to the rule change - so as not to fudge up a player - but that is the only concession he need make. I also like Scion's items that still grant the full bonus to anyone, but at higher price.

Is your problem with it that it impacts an item your PC owns? A fellow PC owns? If not, what is the problem? As is, the +5 skill items are overly powerful (what wizard wouldn't want a +5 concentration item?) and can easily overshadow the skill monkeys in the group - and this change partially reverses it. Nothing stops a PC from developing his skill points in the area the item grants - eventually gaining full use from it.

Bb

 

[HarryFlashman]

Not to be completely off topic but can magical items also grant feats? Saya Sword that allows its wielder to use the experties feat?

Whats the cost for such an item?