Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dagredhel" data-source="post: 4033717" data-attributes="member: 3421">Requiring a low Charisma is unnecessary and redundant.&nbsp; The feat would/should only be of mechanical advantage to a character with a low(ish) Charisma and high(ish) Wisdom, right?Requiring Wisdom 17+ is also a bad idea, IMHO.&nbsp; It translates into, &quot;you can only get a bonus if it is a big bonus.&quot;&nbsp; A cleric doesn't need any extra incentive to pump Wisdom... it's their primary characteristic, for crying out loud. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Other than that, I think it'd be fine, except for the &quot;side benefit&quot;.&nbsp; Allowing a Wisdom bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks has nothing at all to do with undead--- nothing to do with the feat description:Changing the &quot;fluff&quot; to include mention of these skills wouldn't help; they'd still be extras &quot;tacked on&quot; without any genuine thematic connection.&nbsp; And the ability to use Wisdom on key skill checks would be more of a feat in its own right, not a side benefit of a feat that grants a perfectly good &quot;primary&quot; benefit anyways.On the other hand, it might be cool to allow the Wisdom bonus (in place of the normal stat bonus) on skill checks related to undead.&nbsp; So, a character with the feat could use Wisdom to Bluff, Intimidate, or attempt Diplomacy when dealing with Intelligent undead (if he could get them to stop trying to kill him long enough to chat,) or when Gather-ing Information about undead.Note that a very important point should be made explicit.&nbsp; As written, the feat wouldn't grant extra turn attempts from a high Wisdom.&nbsp; Nor should it, IMHO.&nbsp; It'd be overkill to allow a single feat to completely replace Charisma with Wisdom for turning.&nbsp; Nearly every cleric would take it.&nbsp; It would fail the &quot;too good&quot; test. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dagredhel, post: 4033717, member: 3421"] Requiring a low Charisma is unnecessary and redundant. The feat would/should only be of mechanical advantage to a character with a low(ish) Charisma and high(ish) Wisdom, right? Requiring Wisdom 17+ is also a bad idea, IMHO. It translates into, "you can only get a bonus if it is a [B][I]big[/I][/B] bonus." A cleric doesn't need any extra incentive to pump Wisdom... it's their primary characteristic, for crying out loud. :D Other than that, I think it'd be fine, except for the "side benefit". Allowing a Wisdom bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks has nothing at all to do with undead--- nothing to do with the feat description: Changing the "fluff" to include mention of these skills wouldn't help; they'd still be extras "tacked on" without any genuine thematic connection. And the ability to use Wisdom on key skill checks would be more of a feat in its own right, not a side benefit of a feat that grants a perfectly good "primary" benefit anyways. On the other hand, it might be cool to allow the Wisdom bonus (in place of the normal stat bonus) on skill checks [U]related to[/U] undead. So, a character with the feat [I]could [/I] use Wisdom to Bluff, Intimidate, or attempt Diplomacy when dealing with Intelligent undead (if he could get them to stop trying to kill him long enough to chat,) or when [B]Gather[/B]-ing [B]Information [/B] about undead. Note that a very important point should be made explicit. As written, the feat [I]wouldn't [/I] grant extra turn attempts from a high Wisdom. Nor should it, IMHO. It'd be overkill to allow a single feat to completely replace Charisma with Wisdom for turning. Nearly every cleric would take it. It would fail the "too good" test. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification