Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DragonGhoula 12-06-07, 08:51 PM	is this a balanced option? I don't like my players wasting 1 of their few feats. Do you folks think five is enough too much our not enough? Or is it just completely imbalances?
Legdiwena 12-06-07, 08:53 PM	Is there any precedent for allowing skill points to buy feats?
wonlee76 12-06-07, 08:56 PM	There's no precedent for skill points for feats but there is a precedent for getting skill points from a feat (5 skill points for 1 feat I think in Complete Adventurer). Personally, I wouldn't allow it but different folks may disagree.
ObscureInfo 12-06-07, 09:08 PM	Not in my experience. As a DM, you could houserule a reason why they should allowed a free feat, (like racial familiarity) but otherwise, there is no way to use skills to get a feat. You CAN use a feat to get skill points, however. Just not the other way around. It was in Complete Adventurer, I believe. Feats are supposed to be better than skills. If skills could buy feats, rogues and bards would have more of them than a fighter at equal level as well as all their class abilities. EWP is a very interesting feat. It is the one feat that every class has to get in order to use that particular weapon. The designers decided that these weapons were too powerful to be allowed to characters without special training. If you disagree, house rule it. Allow each player a EWP at first level, if they want, in order to represent an addition to their training. I would have a REALLY hard time seeing that a wizard spend some time learning how to use a spiked chain as part of his wizardly training, but I could see a dwarf character learning waraxe or something or halfling learning skiprocks. but it's your game. Rule how you want, but be prepared for the consequences.
macfry 12-06-07, 10:00 PM	Normally, I wouldn't let skill points purchase a feat. However, this is one of the few feats I feel could be represented by skill points: You've learned to do something related to your course of study. A rogue trains with traps and locks, and gains ranks in disable device and pick lock. A wizard studies books and relics, and gains ranks in decipher script or learns a language. A cleric trains with bandages and sutures, and gains ranks in heal. I don't see why a fighter shouldn't be able to train with a sword and gain proficiency in it. Allowing it to non-martial classes is a stretch, but for a fighter or barbarian and possibly a ranger, I think this fits with other skill-based rules very readily. I will note, however, that there is no basis for this in the rules as written, and would be entirely house-ruled; I'm just pointing out that it makes sense, thematically.
wonlee76 12-06-07, 10:11 PM	Normally, I wouldn't let skill points purchase a feat. However, this is one of the few feats I feel could be represented by skill points: You've learned to do something related to your course of study. A rogue trains with traps and locks, and gains ranks in disable device and pick lock. A wizard studies books and relics, and gains ranks in decipher script or learns a language. A cleric trains with bandages and sutures, and gains ranks in heal. I don't see why a fighter shouldn't be able to train with a sword and gain proficiency in it. Allowing it to non-martial classes is a stretch, but for a fighter or barbarian and possibly a ranger, I think this fits with other skill-based rules very readily. I will note, however, that there is no basis for this in the rules as written, and would be entirely house-ruled; I'm just pointing out that it makes sense, thematically. The problem I see with this idea is it can justify a class to gain a feat that "makes sense" for their class. Sure, a rogue might not be able to pick up a weapon proficiency feat with skill points but something like Stealthy? Or a wizard picking up metamagic feats? It just sounds like an excuse to justify skill points for a certain set of feats could lead to other feats falling into that category depending on the reasoning. Just about any feat other than a small handful could be arguably "skill" related. Power attack, training/skill in hitting hard in exchange for accuracy. Just bad reasoning in my opinion...
macfry 12-06-07, 10:47 PM	The problem I see with this idea is it can justify a class to gain a feat that "makes sense" for their class. Sure, a rogue might not be able to pick up a weapon proficiency feat with skill points but something like Stealthy? Or a wizard picking up metamagic feats? It just sounds like an excuse to justify skill points for a certain set of feats could lead to other feats falling into that category depending on the reasoning. Just about any feat other than a small handful could be arguably "skill" related. Power attack, training/skill in hitting hard in exchange for accuracy. Just bad reasoning in my opinion... I see feats as things that require talent and training, as opposed to just rote training. Learning a language takes time, manipulating the fundamental properties of a spell (metamagic) takes aptitude as well as know-how. Stealthy represents your character having a particular knack for moving in a manner to avoid being seen and heard. I see power attack as something you need a natural aptitude to perform correctly, as well as the training. Learning not to hit yourself in the head or put yourself off-balance with a weapon (which is what proficiency represents) is a matter of practice, but learning to swing much harder without missing wildly is something that requires a certain amount of innate ability. Of course this is all my opinion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to make a variant rule where there are skill-point equivalents to certain "mundane" feats with access restricted by class. It would have to be very specific feats agreed upon ahead of time by both DM and players, though.
Jaxgaret 12-06-07, 11:39 PM	On a case-by-case basis agreed upon by the DM and player, I could see this houserule working quite well. As wonlee said, there is potential for abuse here, but if you stick to trading 5 sp for suboptimal feats such as EWP or the skill feats, you should be fine.
Darth Sephiroth 12-07-07, 02:40 AM	I'd say for the +2 to 2 skill feats rather than ones like Skill Focus there. Otherwise you end up with what basically amounts to dumping those skill points into a skill though more than should be there.
Rulebook 12-07-07, 10:29 AM	if your goal is to allow rogues, bards and rangers to become weapons masters... go for it.
RobbyPants 12-07-07, 10:38 AM	Skill tricks (Complete Scoundrel) are about the closest thing I've seen for getting a feat-like (but weaker) ability for Skill Points. I agree that a feat is more powerful than skills, and that the feat for 5 Skill Points trade isn't symetrical. There's no way I'd allow a player to buy X feat for 5 Skill Points. However, the OP's request isn't quite so bad. He's talking about getting a very specific feat for 5 Skill Points, which isn't so bad. I'm not sure I'd do it in my games, but it's certainly not super overpowered. On a related note, would you allow martial weapons to be learned in this way? It seems reasonable enough (assuming you were allowing exotic weapons to be leanred with Skill Points), although I would keep the cost at 5 points. What about armor proficiency? These are good questions to answer before implementing it in game.
narack 12-07-07, 12:17 PM	Advantage of the fighter is to have more feat than other. So it would make him useless because a mage have higher intel so could have more feat than a fighter plus his spell.
VampyresThrenody 12-07-07, 02:51 PM	I take this more as a way to gain proficiencies through a means other then wasting feats then seeing as a way to use skill points to gain feats. Sure some "exotic" weapons are invariably better then mundane weapons but it's all on how you use them. Is a spiked chain better then a greatsword for giving out damage? Not really. It's more for crowd control (AoO's, trip, disarm). Other exotic weapons aren't better at all. Look at the scourge? It has a cool flavor too it (can you see someone TWF these?) but at the same time you can TWF a martial weapon for equivalent damage. When I DM I usually use the weapon group alternative to proficiencies in the UA in addition to allowing players to spend money, time and skill points training for other weapons. For example if Jack the fighter wants to learn how to use a scourge he can spend 5x the cost of the weapon for training, one week of time spent doing nothing else of importance (shopping, talking, eating, etc. No spellmaking, crafting, fighting) and 4 skill points. This not only opens up plenty of exotic weapons to characters but cuts off other weapons also. A fighter may not necessarily know bows, swords and axes.
Lokathor 12-07-07, 06:59 PM	Completely fair. I'd also allow other feats for other skill points, but some feats I'd simply make so expensive that you'd only be able to purchase it at first level (which turns the trade into a very overpriced flaw). Also, If I really wanted to get into it, I'd make different feats cost different amounts for different classes (similar to class skills). Fighters pay 3 points to get EWP, rogues pay 5, and then wizards pay 7, for example. Such a system I'd only flesh out once I knew which classes my players were going to be; you obviously don't want to give prices for several feats to all classes ahead of time. For classes that get all martial weapons, EXP should almost be free in the first place.
ToastedAmphibian 12-07-07, 07:12 PM	Or, you could let characters who are proficent with all martial weapons at first level trade that for a single Exotic weapon proficency, and all simple weapons. That way they keep their feat but get their weapon proficency, but lose a measure of flexibility as a result. RP wise, they used thier time to teach themselves the best use of thier rare weapon instead of spending that time being taut the proper use of all the "Normal" weapons.
Bopple 12-08-07, 08:45 PM	Well, it can be abused. The easiest would be Tripper, Exotic Weapon Master or TWF route. You can save one feat, with it. That means you can make your build 3 lvl earlier. But the opinoin about the impact would differ, person to person. For me, I wouldn't allow it.
Scion of Coldshard 12-08-07, 08:55 PM	Making it 5 heavily favors certain classes being able to do it over others, which doesnt really seem to be the point. I could see giving up all of your base skill points for a level in order to pick up a feat from a limited list though. Of course that would then have a tendency to favor classes with less skill points, but then the classes with more skill points already get to pick up skill tricks easier anyway ;) I'd say that most likely it'd be very difficult to really make work though.. if you put decent feats on the limited list then classes with 2 skill points a level might just be picking up a bunch of them instead of skills while the other classes will most likely not use the option at all.
jaelis 12-08-07, 09:55 PM	Do you really want all the rogues to have spiked chains?
abyssalmole 12-09-07, 12:53 AM	Do you really want all the rogues to have spiked chains? and then jaelis heard from the people such a resounding "yes!" that his head spun and his eyes watered. The light was seen by him for the first time, and he was truly happy.
Habbalah 12-16-07, 01:22 AM	There's no precedent for skill points for feats but there is a precedent for getting skill points from a feat (5 skill points for 1 feat I think in Complete Adventurer). Personally, I wouldn't allow it but different folks may disagree. Well maybe if it was fighter only. I mean so many people love to give the fighter a hard time for being under powered.
CryoSilver 12-16-07, 01:24 AM	Just giving fighters Weapon Aptitude (the warblade ability) at first level would be a big boost for them, and help restablish them as the masters of combat and sheer martial skill they are supposed to be.
jaelis 12-16-07, 08:15 AM	Well maybe if it was fighter only. I mean so many people love to give the fighter a hard time for being under powered. Could make it a skill, and make it a class skill for fighters and cross-class for others. and then jaelis heard from the people such a resounding "yes!" that his head spun and his eyes watered. The light was seen by him for the first time, and he was truly happy. If I hear that resounding "yes," I'll be sure to let you know.
The_Shaman 12-16-07, 10:03 AM	Could make it a skill, and make it a class skill for fighters and cross-class for others. If I hear that resounding "yes," I'll be sure to let you know. I agree. Just as there is a skill that lets you know extra languages,there can be a skill for having more weapon proficiencies. It could even be one of the current skills - i.e. martial lore from ToB (which should then be a class skill for a few more classes, mind you).
Lord Psynister 12-16-07, 07:29 PM	I think setting up a new skill called something along the lines of "Weapons Training" would work out alright. Treat it like the Speak Language feat where there are no classes except Fighters that have it as a class skill, and instead of requiring 2 skill points per weapon, have it require 3-4. Thus, every non-fighter would have to spend 6-8 points to get a free weapon proficiency feat. Most non-rogue/rangers would have to spend points over multiple levels which would suite to represent the training that goes into learning how to use it.
Mr_Teapot 12-17-07, 10:46 AM	A straight trade of 5 skill points to one XWP feat would mean rogues get a lot of exotic weapons, and fighters (who are supposed to be better at this) don't ever have the skill points for it. The "have it a class skill for fighters" lessens this problem but doesn't eliminate it: it's still easier for your 14 Int rogue to acquire an exotic weapon proficiency than it is my 8 Int fighter, even if my fighter is human. It takes the fighter two (or more) levels of spending all his skill points to acquire the XWP whereas the rogue has skill points left over in a single level. The fighter would be better multiclassing out of fighter if he wanted to acquire the XWP. Basically, the skill points awarded to different classes are so extreme in their difference that you can't assign a given ratio, and a weighted ratio needs to be more weighted than the class skill/cross class skill, or else the fighter is worse at his own schtick than most other classes (which is true now, but there's no reason to aggravate the situation). I also think that you're trying to fight against the design of the D&D system, which keeps everything in neat separate categories that you can't easily convert between. If you want to have a conversion ratio between skill points and weapon abilities, it would need to have been planned into the system from the beginning, where it wasn't here.
Tordak 12-17-07, 11:09 AM	This might have been said already (I didn't read other posts, sorry). Your idea isn't bad, I don't think it would be bad or unbalanced if you allow it ONCE, and only for an exotic weapon proficiencies. It would be a bad idea to let any feat be bought by skill points, or allowing it more than once even if only for exotice WP. Usually the only interaction between feats and skills is the minimum required skill ranks in a particular skill to qualify for a feat.