Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 485726" data-attributes="member: 813">Quite frankly, for a Power Attacking, High Strength, Two Handed style fighter, no, none of those are useful feats. Sorry, they are useful, but they are not as good as running up the Cleave chain. My example fighter would take Great Cleave at 6th and Improved Crit at 8th. I don't know what he would take for his normal 6th level feat, perhaps one of the ones you mention, Imp Init.Don't get hung up on the example. You wanted to know why I thought adding in ranks was unbalanced. I gave a potential example. You never did answer me about the inverse, if a feat is worth 2 ranks in a skill, is 2 (or 4) skill points worth a feat? Explain your answer.Excellent hyperbole, but I only used my 1st level feat to improve my Blufff. I did not give up all of those feats, I merely delayed one of them.It's a fighter. Yawn.Only as they violate the class skill ceiling, you've stated that you do not think it does violate the class skill ceiling, so I'm fine with it. It's a great way to get some ranks in a skill you have to pay dearly in skill points for.That's not the question. It doesn't discuss making the character able to have more ranks than character level + 3 in the skill. Doing so would break the PrC balancing effect of skill ranks. The title of this thread is "Thoughts on the power of prestige classes". Along the way, one of those thoughts involved attaining ranks in skills set a minimum level for getting into the class. Your feat does not effect that process unless the feat is misinterpretted (see below). I have stated that I think a feat to make a skill a class skill and gives +2 bonus to the skill is as balanced as the Travel domain granting the Wilderness Lore skill to cleric along with a cool power.I had this argument with my editor and now I see how right he was. When a writer has the choice between assuming that the reader knows all the rules and does not need to be reminded how they interact and choosing to add a single line to clarify that interaction, the writer should err on the side of the reader forgetting to apply an obscure rule: add the line of text. Why do you think the feat descriptions in the PH have the normal: sections? Those sections just repeat text from elsewhere in the book. But by restating the rule and reenforcing it, it provides the reader with understanding about how the feat is useful and it provides the reader with another place to learn the rule.Max ranks in a skill is obscure. People still apply it incorrectly when multiclassing. Your "I please twice as many gamers" statement is false when the DM and the player disagree on the interpretation. Yet a line of text on your part and there is nothing for the DM and player to disagree on.Joe</blockquote>

Verification