PDA

View Full Version : Brawn over Brain [Feat] (P.E.A.C.H.)



DracoDei
2008-06-27, 10:27 PM
Wikipedia-like cross-indexing:LINK TO HOUSE RULE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6896468)

EDIT: This is an old post and, as such, it is against the forum rules to respond to it. If you have comments, then please PM me, or start a new thread with a link in it to this one. For a different approach to the same problem see Random832's work HERE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124289).

If this seems underpowered, increase the 1 to a 2 or a 3 or something, or make it a trait instead of a feat.

Brawn Over Brain[General]
Some people use their understanding to gain greater insight into how to perform better physically... others don't let having the attention span of a squirrel on a sugar rush stop them from having the acrobatic skills of one.
Prerequisites:
Intelligence 11 or lower (minimum 3)
Strength greater than Intelligence OR size Tiny or smaller
Constitution greater than Intelligence
Dexterity greater than Intelligence
Benefits: Replace your intelligence modifier with a 1 when calculating the number of skill points you get each level.
Drawbacks:
You may not put skill points into or take feats that give bonuses to NORMALLY cross-class Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma based skills, and such skills that NORMALLY are class skills count as cross class (but never exclusive to another class). This means (for example) that a Rogue with this feat can still put skill points into Use Magic Device, but he only gets 1 skill rank per 2 skill points he puts into it and a can have a maximum number of ranks in the skill of (Character Level +3)/2.
For the above purposes, "Speak Language" is considered to be an Intelligence based skill. Which means, for example, that a fighter with this feat can't put skill-points into "Speak Language" and a bard with this feat would treat "Speak Language" as a cross-class skill. There are still no skill rolls involved and still no such thing as "partially fluent" in a language.
Normal: The number of skill points you get each level is affected by your intelligence modifier.
Special: A fighter may take this as one of her bonus feats. A Monk may take this feat as her first level bonus feat instead of Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist.




EDIT May 2011: Added clause "OR size Tiny or smaller" to strength requirement line. Now it really DOES work for awakened squirrel monks.



Just so you can have a (probably NPC) Rogue or Monk or Barbarian with a 6 Intelligence who can still jump, swim, and climb very very well... what do you all think?


Edit: Here is a 2nd level 22 point Half-Orc Tumble -> Flank -> Sneak Attack specialist (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=14583) built around this feat just for an example.

Debihuman
2008-06-28, 09:50 AM
Can I assume that you mean that the Intelligence of the creature taking this feat has to be less than Str, less than Dex and less than Con and not less than all of them combined.

Prerequisites: Int 11 or lower (minimum 3); Str, Con, Dex greater than Int.




You may not put skill points into or take feats that give bonuses to NORMALLY cross-class Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma based skills, and such skills that NORMALLY are class skills count as cross class (but never exclusive to another class). For these purposes, "Speak Language" is considered to be an Intelligence based skill.


Well that's about as clear as mud. I'm breaking it down as best I can.

1. You may not put skill points into skills that are cross-classed skills based on Int, Wis or Cha. [That's clear]

2. You may not take feats which would give you bonuses to cross-classed skills based on Int, Wis or Cha. [that's clear]

3. Such skills that are normally class skills count as cross-class skills (but never exclusive to another class). [What are you trying to say here?].

4; Treat Speak language as Int based. [Nope. Either it can speak a langauge or it can't. Making it Int based is silly. It speaks badly? How badly? How in the heck is a DM going to adjudicate that?].

It can either learn new languages or it can't and it is either literate or illiterate. I'd go with it can speak it's standard langauages but cannot learn new ones. If it has an Int of 5 or less it cannot speak but can understand a language. Maybe it has to spend skill points to become literate (like a barbarian). There are other things you can to do to limit learning language, but making Speak Language Int based isn't the right way to do it.

I like Brawn over Brain as the name of the feat.

Debby

DracoDei
2008-06-28, 04:57 PM
Can I assume that you mean that the Intelligence of the creature taking this feat has to be less than Str, less than Dex and less than Con and not less than all of them combined.

Correct... have now reformatted for improved clarity (Hopefully).



3. Such skills that are normally class skills count as cross-class skills (but never exclusive to another class). [What are you trying to say here?].


This means (for example) that a Rogue with this feat can still put skill points into Use Magic Device, but he only gets 1 skill rank per 2 skill points he puts into it and a can have a maximum number of ranks in the skill of (Character Level +3)/2.



4; Treat Speak language as Int based. [Nope. Either it can speak a langauge or it can't. Making it Int based is silly. It speaks badly? How badly? How in the heck is a DM going to adjudicate that?].


The key phrase here is "For these purposes,...", which means that a fighter with this feat can't put skill-points into "Speak Language" and a bard with this feat would treat "Speak Language" as a cross-class skill. There are still no skill rolls involved and still no such thing as "partially fluent" in a language. I will try to edit this to make it more clear.

Actually, both the Shadowrun and TriTac systems actually have rules for partially fluency, so it is actually at least somewhat possible to do... but that would be a topic for a completely different thread.



I like Brawn over Brain as the name of the feat.
Ok, I will change it. (Note for those reading this later, it was originally called "Physical Training Focus").


But, clarity issues on relatively minor points aside, what do you think of the feat?
Underpowered? Overpowered? Just right?
Was I right about "PCs would only take this in very rare circumstances..."?

DracoDei
2008-07-05, 06:36 AM
Bumping for more feedback.

While I am at it, have a joke feat
Vapid Shot
Some people achieve supreme accuracy by entering a state known as "No Mind", their judgment and inner peace helping them reach this state (Zen Archery Feat)... You take a rather different route to this same state, never having had a mind to begin with.
Benefits: Subtract your intelligence modifier from all your ranged attack rolls (so a negative INT MOD gives a bonus to hit).
Normal: Being a moron doesn't make you a better shot...

Evard
2010-07-25, 08:31 AM
Vapid shot actually makes sense! Seriously I personally know some idiots that can shoot because they are not thinking of anything else or how the bullet will travel or this or this or this... But some smarter friends who have been hunting for a longer time take to much time to think everything through and miss their target lol

I would allow vapid shot and other similar joke feats in my game :p

Distracting Shot:
"You so ugly that your mother had to put a pork-shop around your neck so the dog would play with you"
Your ugliness pays off in your adventuring years, you are soooooo ugly that it distracts your foes. You gain a bonus to hit by subtracting your Charisma modifier from your attack roll. This works only when you are within 30 feet of a target and they can see you well.

Morph Bark
2010-07-25, 10:07 AM
Vapid shot actually makes sense! Seriously I personally know some idiots that can shoot because they are not thinking of anything else or how the bullet will travel or this or this or this... But some smarter friends who have been hunting for a longer time take to much time to think everything through and miss their target lol

I can actually attest this for my own personal experience with archery. I normally took too long trying to take a good shot, and when I was told I shouldn't overthink it, I either shot way too fast and much crappier or I hit the target better.