PDA

View Full Version : What's your opinion on the able learner feat?



Rev.Scarecrow
2009-12-01, 08:50 PM
ABLE LEARNER [RACIAL]
You have a great aptitude for learning.
Prerequisite: Human or doppelganger.
Benefit: All skill ranks cost 1 skill point for you to pur-
chase, even if the skill is cross-class for you. The maximum
number of ranks you can purchase in a cross-class skill
remains the same.
This feat does not affect the skill point cost to learn a
language or to gain literacy (for a barbarian or other illiterate
character).
Normal: Cross-class skills cost 2 skill points per rank.
Special: This feat may only be taken at 1st level.

I'm making a swordsage that will eventually become an assassin. It seems like I need a cross class skill to get there (disguise) and I need a few others for role playing (gather information and perform dance) is it worth the feat?

Thurbane
2009-12-01, 08:52 PM
Able Learner is a great feat for any Human who plans to multiclass. Do note, however, that the feat alone will not increase max ranks in a skill, just make it cheaper to buy.

Another option would be levels in the Human Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm) class.

Guancyto
2009-12-01, 09:01 PM
Able Learner is a great feat

Fixed that for you.

"Why yes, my wizard has ranks in Swim. Because he knows how to swim."

And yes, definitely worth the feat in this case.

Kylarra
2009-12-01, 09:01 PM
Able Learner is a great feat for any Human who plans to multiclass. Do note, however, that the feat alone will not increase max ranks in a skill, just make it cheaper to buy.

Another option would be levels in the Human Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm) class.
Although a level in factotum [+able learner] means all skills are class all the time!

Thurbane
2009-12-01, 09:07 PM
Fixed that for you.
Well, yes, if it's a skill you don't need to max out. Point taken.

Although a level in factotum [+able learner] means all skills are class all the time!
Indeed. :smallsmile:

Claudius Maximus
2009-12-01, 09:10 PM
The only gripe I have about the feat is that you can't apply it to your skill ranks at first level, making it useless until level two. Otherwise, it's pretty neat.

Douglas
2009-12-01, 09:14 PM
The only gripe I have about the feat is that you can't apply it to your skill ranks at first level, making it useless until level two. Otherwise, it's pretty neat.
That's what house rules are for. I expect most DMs would readily allow it to apply to level 1 skills if asked. Many might even be surprised to learn that it doesn't already apply to them by RAW and would require a detailed explanation of why.

erikun
2009-12-01, 09:14 PM
Why not? You're supposed to apply bonuses and such in the most beneficial way to the character. As such, a 1st level character will have the benefit of Able Learner when spending skill points.

Claudius Maximus
2009-12-01, 09:17 PM
There's a very explicit order for leveling up, which mandates that skills be bought before feats. This is why you for example can get Rapid Metamagic at level 9. Houseruling the feat to somehow change this is possible, but by RAW there's no changing the order.

Douglas
2009-12-01, 09:17 PM
Why not? You're supposed to apply bonuses and such in the most beneficial way to the character. As such, a 1st level character will have the benefit of Able Learner when spending skill points.
For determining the combined effects of things after you already have them, yes. The character creation and levelup process has a specific order laid out, however, and skill point expenditure explicitly comes before feat selection.

Kylarra
2009-12-01, 09:20 PM
The only gripe I have about the feat is that you can't apply it to your skill ranks at first level, making it useless until level two. Otherwise, it's pretty neat.The clear solution is to be a factotum at first level.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-01, 10:09 PM
"Why yes, my wizard has ranks in Swim. Because he knows how to swim."
Everyone knows how to swim in D&D 3.5. There is no penalty associated with making a Swim check untrained. Apparently it's instinctual knowledge, because even Barbarians and monsters have it, so it can't be that everyone is also made to take swimming lessons as part of the same mandatory education where they learn to read and write.

Bibliomancer
2009-12-01, 10:16 PM
Everyone knows how to swim in D&D 3.5. There is no penalty associated with making a Swim check untrained. Apparently it's instinctual knowledge, because even Barbarians and monsters have it, so it can't be that everyone is also made to take swimming lessons as part of the same mandatory education where they learn to read and write.

However, by the normal rules, the average player requires +2 water wings of puffedness (see Magic Item Compendium) to remain afloat in anything besides ideal conditions. Fighters at low levels sink like stones (and it doesn't help that Swim isn't on their class skill list).

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-01, 10:21 PM
Swim is on the Fighter class skill list. :smallconfused: As with Climb and Jump, Fighters can take ranks in it to help offset a high Armor Class Penalty.

Lord Thurlvin
2009-12-01, 10:26 PM
However, by the normal rules, the average player requires +2 water wings of puffedness (see Magic Item Compendium) to remain afloat in anything besides ideal conditions. Fighters at low levels sink like stones (and it doesn't help that Swim isn't on their class skill list).

You're joking, right? About the water wings? I'm terrible at recognizing stuff like that in print. (I'm probably going to end up looking like an idiot, but I just have to know)

Random832
2009-12-01, 10:57 PM
You're joking, right? About the water wings? I'm terrible at recognizing stuff like that in print. (I'm probably going to end up looking like an idiot, but I just have to know)

Flotation devices are described in Dungeonscape and the Arms & Equipment Guide, but they are not magical and are not "water wings".

Glimbur
2009-12-01, 11:01 PM
An average human can swim in calm water with no problems, assuming no distractions. Take 10+ 0(10 or 11 Str) = DC 10 check for calm water, no problem. Now, if there's a man-eating fish chasing you and you therefore cannot take 10... you might be in trouble.

If you're wearing any armor with a ACP at all, you'll need a Str bonus or ranks in Swim to get anywhere. You can flounder just fine unless your penalty is -5 or more... failure by 4 or less just means no progress. So a person in a Chain Shirt (ACP -2x2 for swimming for -4) who has fallen off of a boat can just tread water until those on the boat help.

nyarlathotep
2009-12-01, 11:09 PM
You're joking, right? About the water wings? I'm terrible at recognizing stuff like that in print. (I'm probably going to end up looking like an idiot, but I just have to know)

He means that people are unrealistically prone to sinking in D&D and would need some sort of random magic item to even float, not that there are actual magic water wings.

dang ninja'd, I didn't even know about the things in dungeonscape. :smalleek:

John Campbell
2009-12-02, 02:53 AM
I dunno. I'm probably not as dense as your basic 16 Str Fighter, say nothing about your typical four-foot, 150-pound dwarf, but even still, I don't float. I sink in fresh water, unless I make an active effort at swimming.

And that's without an armor check penalty. Though, one of these days, I'm going to try swimming in my hauberk just to see if I can actually do it...

Of course, it's not like density has anything to do with swimming in D&D. Greater stone golems are awesome swimmers.

Milskidasith
2009-12-02, 02:59 AM
The thing is, D&D skills are terrible at representing things. For example I, despite not being that strong, still have no problems swimming. I don't think people with below average strength are totally unable to swim (can't take 10 in calm water), are they? I mean, I can swim with my massive backpack on (I was pushed in the pool), which means that I've either got a ton of ranks in swim or, you know, D&D skills suck. I prefer the latter.

Draz74
2009-12-02, 03:11 AM
Able Learner is a pretty good feat. I have only one real complaint about it:

Cross-class skills shouldn't suck as much as they do anyway. :smallannoyed:

And if you fix cross-class skills to not be so terrible, then Able Learner starts being a little weak. But yeah, with standard rules for class skills, it's a good feat (but not too good).

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-02, 03:12 AM
I've known not-especially fit or good swimmers that could swim in chainmail. They were tired at the end, but it was doable, and they definitely weren't floundering.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 03:21 AM
I'm overweight and quite weak, yet I have no problem floating without active effort and a solid swimmer. The DC isn't correct and thats it..

In one of my former games I just ignored class skills at all.. They weren't optimizers so it didn't change much, but it is one of those rules that feels like favored classes.. Doesn't offer much, just takes away..

Satyr
2009-12-02, 03:29 AM
Able LEarner is a patch. It tries to compensate pretty badly written rules in the first place, and while it is a pretty good feat, it would be a lot more sensible to grant the effect to every single charakter, so that the whole cross-class skills work properly for once.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 03:35 AM
Cross Class is one of the reasons the wizard has more chances to know about the favored soul's deity then the favored soul himself.

MichielHagen
2009-12-02, 04:29 AM
I am currently building a Wizard/Swordsage/Abjurant Champion.
With the high INT and being human i had a lot of skillpoints to spend, but i was missing some class-skills i would have like.

3 levels of Human Paragon fixed the class-skill thing, it also netted me 2 spellcasting levels and 2 BAB and more hitpoints, which was nice to qualify for Abjurant Champion.

But i was spending cross-class points in the skills at Abjurant Champion levels. Able Learner fixed that, netting me an extra 12 skillpoints.

Yes, i like the feat.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-12-02, 04:40 AM
I like the Able Learner feat, I think it does something that's very necessary for many characters, and certainly nice to have for any character. I've played in games where certain skills were houseruled to be class-skills for everyone, regardless of class. In the games I run I've actually houseruled that there is no such thing as a cross-class skill, every character and monster can purchase ranks in any skill as though it were a class skill. It's never caused any problems, and has actually given quite a few characters a bit more depth, similar to Belkar's Profession: Gourmet Chef skill.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-02, 04:43 AM
My first D&D character was a Druid. I just finished running an Artificer, and am currently a Summoner with access to SNA, SM, and SU. On one occasion, I spent a feat on Able Learner not because I needed the skills, but to make figuring out what I could and couldn't afford easier.

The D&D skill system is busted. Unless you fix it, any character that does serious multiclassing needs that feat.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-02, 06:13 AM
I really enjoy the feat for any multiclassed character or trying to squeeze in a few extra skill points for things like Knowledge Devotion and prestige classes. I also find that houseruling its bonuses to be the norm does wonders to alleviate some of the built-in issues of the standard skill point system in 3.5 for all the non-humans out there.

The Pathfinder system does something similar with its system (and is one of the few changes I actually like), but it has some unintended consequences for getting into some PrCs and other effects, ruining the whole "backwards compatibility" thing they claim. That's neither here nor there.

TL;DR: It's a great feat and I personally believe its effects either shouldn't be limited to human only or just given automatically to everyone.