Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[Bastoche]

This may be true, but I like my fix for Skill Focus better: Skill Focus grants +2 bonus to a skill and makes the skill a class skill. How broken is that?

That's what we did. It's just like the "cosmopolitan" feat from FRCS. Worked well so far.

As the the PrC requirement argument, nobody in our game chose to waste a feat to get the requirements earlier. Skill rank required for a PrC are always class skill for the PrC, making the skill focus less useful. And nobody cares about a +2 to a single skill unless the player wants his character to be really good at it.

I agree that in principle it could be dangerous, but in pratice nobody that I know are willing to use a feat for skill rank requirement of a PrC.

 

[Zappo]

The biggest example of classes which are more powerful without question are the +1 to spellcasting level classes. Those are incredibly powerful classes, since any additional ability they have are layered over (usually) existing powerful classes. There's no real penalty for a sorceror, wizard, or cleric to join those classes.

I've noticed this problem too. Especially with sorcerers, who get everything they have (save familiar, boo-hoo) from their spellcasting level. There are many PrCs that are outright more powerful in all meaningful respects than their vanilla counterpart. IMO, that shouldn't be; PrCs should be powerful but not so powerful that there is no reason to stay vanilla.

 

[Psion]

In fixing the woefully underpowered Skill Focus, I presented three options:

+3 bonus to one skill;
+2 bonus to two skills;
+2 ranks in one skill.

As stated... looks fine. I consider a feat just as much of an investment as 4 skills points.

If you are implying that those ranks lie outside the class/level rank limitiations, then I would say that yes, it is very seriously broken.

And now to chuck some stones on the other side of the fence:

Originally posted by jmucchiello
I think Alterness is an aberration that should be fixed (+1 to Spot and Listen). Now, granted at this stage in the d20 universe, that swarm of cats is out of the bag of holding. And even in my own book, I created a feat template to handle the "Paired SKill Focus" bug-a-boo and provided 20+ examples.

If your paired skill focus fix is anything like your alertness fix, I really have to say I find your solution dubious. I do not see the double skill enhancers as especially strong for feats... weaking them to +1/+1 totally kneecaps them IMO.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Now I complain that Spell Penetration, Spell Focus, Ability Focus, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, etc, etc all of the +2 to something feats should also be +3 to something. (See below for my own solution in Joe's Book of Enchantments.)

I am not familiar with ability focus, but as to the rest, there's a balance issue. +2 to a skill is not equivalent to +2 to a save, +2 to your spell DC's, or to your spell penetration. (Well, maybe spell penetration...)

Now, what about ranks? As written, I have no problem with "+2 ranks in one skill". Does this +2 ranks in a skill violate the maximum # of ranks in a skill per character level? By your further comments, I'm guessing it does.

Actually, I was deliberately non-specific. As written there is nothing in the rule that allows you to exceed that limit. I concede that it is easily read that way, and I further admit that I am comfortable letting the individual DM decide.

How? For or against it?

They all felt as you did-- that it must somehow be broken. When pressed on the issue, nobody could point to a problem. We'll discuss...

Well, I don't see how you cavalierly throw out PrC balance. I mean, I'd probably bump the rank requirements of most of my PrCs up 1 or 2 if a feat could affect ranks.

I would say that if you have a prestige class whose entry requirements are based on a single skill, such that it can be overcome with one feat, that's a broken PrC.

As written, it by-passes the class/cross-class skill deliniation. Cross-class skill points are different than class skill points. But, ranks are ranks. Now my fighter can take Skill Focus (Bluff) and spend 4 skill points at first level to get 4 ranks in Bluff at first level. At 3rd level, he can get the synergy bonus from having 5 ranks in Bluff. That throws off all intra-class skill balance. Can you imagine a 3rd level fighter with Bluff feinting to throw away one critter's Dex bonus then increasing his Power Attack since it has less defense. Now throw in Cleave. Give up an attack one round to drop an opponent the next round because you can max out your Power Attack.

I'd call that an interesting fighter. He has defined an interesting fighting style for himself reminiscent of a gladiator. And he spent a feat to do it; good job for him. He doesn't have Great Cleave yet, or Weapon Focus, because he spent that feat on 2 ranks of Bluff, but to each his own.

Skill synergies are tied to ranks in a skill. They are also balanced based on character level. Tumble grants those defense bonuses earlier with bonus ranks. Bluff grants synergy bonuses to four skills. It's supposed to be available 2nd level characters, this puts it in reach of first level character Rogues, Monks, Bards, etc.

And you think it's worth a feat to get skill synergies at 1st level instead of 2nd level? You think that getting those synergies at 1st level is going to break your game?

This may be true, but I like my fix for Skill Focus better: Skill Focus grants +2 bonus to a skill and makes the skill a class skill. How broken is that?

Well, I don't think it's broken, but I would say it goes a lot farther towards breaking the class/cross-class skill delineation you were heralding earlier.

I agree that in principle it could be dangerous, but in pratice nobody that I know are willing to use a feat for skill rank requirement of a PrC.

That's basically where we netted up in playtesting.

Wulf

 

[jmucchiello]

If your paired skill focus fix is anything like your alertness fix, I really have to say I find your solution dubious. I do not see the double skill enhancers as especially strong for feats... weaking them to +1/+1 totally kneecaps them IMO.

Buy the book! (Hey, wait, that's Psion.) Maybe I'll send you a copy and you can review it. It's only been out for 3 months now.

Remember that swarm of cats escaping the bag of holding? I did not try to swim against the dam break. (Excuse my mixed metaphor.) Paired Skill Bonus is a Feat Template that says you pick two skills, say they are related for some reason, and grant them both a +2 bonus (like normal Alterness). In my appendix, I comment that there are 700+ combinations ignoring Craft, Knowledge, and Profession specializations, and I leave it as a task for the reader to figure out a name for all of the combination feats.

If Alertness were just +1/+1, feats in general would be less powerful, I think. For every uberfeat, you could say, "but that's much better than a +1 to two skills." Alas, we don't live in the universe where Alertness was minimized.

In any case, the double skill enhancers, as you call them, are not overpowered compared to the current crop of feats, except Skill Focus.

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com

 

[jmucchiello]

I am not familiar with ability focus, but as to the rest, there's a balance issue. +2 to a skill is not equivalent to +2 to a save, +2 to your spell DC's, or to your spell penetration. (Well, maybe spell penetration...)

Ability Focus is found in the Formian Taskmaster and the Nymph. It's +2 to a supernatural ability's DC. Spell DC's could use a boost too at higher levels. It's only +3 instead of +2.

Actually, I was deliberately non-specific. As written there is nothing in the rule that allows you to exceed that limit. I concede that it is easily read that way, and I further admit that I am comfortable letting the individual DM decide.

Intriguing use of vagueness. I don't like vagueness, though. Rules should be explicit so that when you change them you must also change them explicitly. "I know the book says X, but I'm changing it to Y." is better than "Oh, you thought the book said X and I thought it said Y. I'm going with my way."

I would say that if you have a prestige class whose entry requirements are based on a single skill, such that it can be overcome with one feat, that's a broken PrC.

I usually make my skill requirements something like 10 ranks main skill, 5 ranks secondary skill 1, 5 ranks secondary skill 2, random feat. I don't like PrCs that have 10 ranks in 3 skills because it penalizes the low Int character. Intelligence's affect on skill points should not be important to getting into a PrC. Under the rules, my sample PrC requirements can be met at level 7, assuming the three skills are class skills, by any character with a 10 Int and only 2 skill points per level.

I'd call that an interesting fighter. He has defined an interesting fighting style for himself reminiscent of a gladiator. And he spent a feat to do it; good job for him. He doesn't have Great Cleave yet, or Weapon Focus, because he spent that feat on 2 ranks of Bluff, but to each his own.

1st level: Wulf's Skill Focus (Bluff), Power Attack, 2nd level Cleave, 3rd level Weapon Focus, 4th level Weapon Spec. That one feat does not give up much compared to what it gains.

And you think it's worth a feat to get skill synergies at 1st level instead of 2nd level? You think that getting those synergies at 1st level is going to break your game?

No, but it contributes to the unrightness of the situation. Remember, I had no problem with the feat as long as it doesn't shift the class/cross-class ceiling. Psion agreed that was important. You left it vague and I find that disturbing.

I wrote about making skill focus grant class skill-ness.

Well, I don't think it's broken, but I would say it goes a lot farther towards breaking the class/cross-class skill delineation you were heralding earlier.

But that is how I see feats should break the rules: move a skill into a new column. The various cleric domain powers that grant class skill-ness to a skill usually have additional effects so this cannot possibly be too broken.

If you explicitly stated that the max rank ceiling is unaffected by the feat, I'd have no problem with it.

 

[Voadam]

Wulf,

So with your dwarf feat of +2 ranks of a skill you are still limited by max ranks per level and the class/cross class skill distinction for max ranks, correct?

So then it does not mean you can get to a prc prereq any earlier than you could with the Cosmopolitan or Joe's Skill focus feats or the song and silence and Traps and Treachery feats that make them a class skill. It just means you do not need to spend your limited skill points from advancement on it, you can spend them elsewhere, or it is easier to get four cross class skill points.

 

[Bastoche]

Wulf,

So with your dwarf feat of +2 ranks of a skill you are still limited by max ranks per level and the class/cross class skill distinction for max ranks, correct?

So then it does not mean you can get to a prc prereq any earlier than you could with the Cosmopolitan or Joe's Skill focus feats or the song and silence and Traps and Treachery feats that make them a class skill. It just means you do not need to spend your limited skill points from advancement on it, you can spend them elsewhere, or it is easier to get four cross class skill points.

The way we've handled it is that taking skill focus for a cross-class skill makes it a class skill in all regards. Max rank and cost of ranks. Only the +2 is not considered "rank" for PrC requirements. And as far as I understand it, it's the same for Wulf.

For example, a fighter with skill focus(tumble) could become a duelist at 6th level instead of 8th level (if the feat requirements are met). And like I said, even if in "theory" it could be broken, in pratice, nobody took advantage of the opportunity.

 

[Voadam]

Joe beat me to the post on my last one.

Wulf could you post the text of your ranks feat? does it break the cross class max ranks or not?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Intelligence's affect on skill points should not be important to getting into a PrC.

I agree. Because I am in the position of writing "multiclass" prestige classes, I base it on the skill points of the component classes. A wizard combo will generally have two wizard class skill requirements because wizards get 2 skill points per level. (It will also have some requirements from the second class.)

Writing the ELVES book recently was a challenge in that regard, because of the simple fact that I knew the elven wizard player would have more skill points, yet I felt it was unfair to design to that standard.

1st level: Wulf's Skill Focus (Bluff), Power Attack, 2nd level Cleave, 3rd level Weapon Focus, 4th level Weapon Spec. That one feat does not give up much compared to what it gains.

I can only infer from that statement that you don't consider any of the other fighter feats worthwhile: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Expertise, Improved Trip, Disarm, Improved Initiative, Ambidexterity, TWF, etc.

Do I think the ability to Bluff in combat is worth giving up Expertise or Improved Initiative or Sprint Attack? Not by a long shot.

And because Skill Focus isn't a fighter feat, you're spending a regular feat on it, which means you're also suggesting that bluffing in combat is more valuable to a fighter than Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, etc.

All those feats you're giving up just to be able to Bluff in combat at an early level. An 8th level fighter has exactly the same abilities as you do PLUS one more feat. Improved Critical, perhaps.

So, I maintain that it gives up quite a lot. It's a feat, man, a FEAT.

That is how I see feats should break the rules: move a skill into a new column. The various cleric domain powers that grant class skill-ness to a skill usually have additional effects so this cannot possibly be too broken.

I agree, it's not broken. But you've based an awful lot of your argument against "+2 ranks" on this premise that Bluffing in combat is a big deal.

So the question is really rather this: Which is more powerful to your Bluffing Fighter concept: a feat that gives you a one time bonus of +2 ranks to Bluff, or a feat that gives you Bluff as a class skill? By the time you are 2nd level, having Bluff as a class skill is the better deal and thus, by your argument, more "broken."

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think bluffing in combat is all that big of a deal, but you chose it to illustrate your point so I'm sort of coming back to that.

So with your dwarf feat of +2 ranks of a skill you are still limited by max ranks per level and the class/cross class skill distinction for max ranks, correct?

As written, it does not allow you to break the level limit on ranks, and there is no reason to assume that it does. As it is most often interpreted, however, it does-- and I'm ok with that.

Originally posted by Joe
If you explicitly stated that the max rank ceiling is unaffected by the feat, I'd have no problem with it.

I don't think it is the designer's responsibility to tell the reader which rules DON'T change with every new rule you introduce. If reading the rule the wrong way is a big problem, I will spell it out, but in this case I am happy to have the feat interpreted however the reader wants. I please twice as many gamers.


Wulf