PDA

View Full Version : idea for an  feat



firepup
2005-12-29, 05:05 PM
okay this is just an idea for a feat i thought of in the middle of a session with my group, while we were talking amungst each other whiile the gm was working with a player, and i got an idea from the topic. i just want some opinions and some criticism about it.

name: idiot savant
requirements: 6 or below intelligence

effect: the character chooses one intelligence based skill, and has the bonus of int 18 for that skill. there is also a 10% chance he instead is treated as if int 20 for purpose of that one roll.

restriction: this feat may only be taken at level one, if the intelligence increases above six, the bonus is removed.

McBish
2005-12-29, 05:08 PM
i don't think you are suppose to have a score less then 3. Maybe make it 6 and below.

Ayana
2005-12-29, 05:14 PM
An intelligence of 1-2 is far worse than idiot, it's basically animal intelligence. Not to mention 3 is the lowest stat you can get by rolling. I would suggest "7 or lower" (meaning at least a -2 attribute penalty).

Gamebird
2005-12-29, 05:30 PM
I generally dislike feats that allow you to negate a stat disadvantage, but this one seems okay to me. (I mean things like "I take a 3 in DEX, but I take Zen Archery so I can apply my WIS modifier to missile attacks instead and ____ feat so I can apply my WIS modifier to my AC as well" - pretty much negating the two main combat effects of DEX. If a character has a lot of feats, this can be a very rewarding tactic in point buy games that allow splat feats.)

Your feat doesn't effect combat and it is limited to a single skill. That makes it fine for me. I wouldn't care too much if there were no INT maximum at all (it just isn't as good an investment for someone who already has an INT 15, for example).

Gralamin
2005-12-29, 05:32 PM
hmm I would say also give a chance (25%) they can be amazing smart at a time and make the int treated as 24.

firepup
2005-12-29, 06:01 PM
I generally dislike feats that allow you to negate a stat disadvantage, but this one seems okay to me. (I mean things like "I take a 3 in DEX, but I take Zen Archery so I can apply my WIS modifier to missile attacks instead and ____ feat so I can apply my WIS modifier to my AC as well" - pretty much negating the two main combat effects of DEX. If a character has a lot of feats, this can be a very rewarding tactic in point buy games that allow splat feats.)

Your feat doesn't effect combat and it is limited to a single skill. That makes it fine for me. I wouldn't care too much if there were no INT maximum at all (it just isn't as good an investment for someone who already has an INT 15, for example).


umm, your not allowed to get it if you have int 15.

firepup
2005-12-29, 06:01 PM
hmm I would say also give a chance (25%) they can be amazing smart at a time and make the int treated as 24.
what a good idea!

Gamebird
2005-12-29, 06:50 PM
I was saying I didn't see any reason to apply the max INT requirement that you did. No one in their right mind, who already has a decent INT, will buy this feat (specialized circumstances I can't imagine right now excepted).

I don't think a feat should allow you to take a stat you have a deficiency in and be better than humanly possible with that stat. Unless you were also going to balance it with:

Feat: Inspired Genius
Requirement: INT 15 or better
Effect: The character chooses one intelligence based skill, and has the bonus of int 30 for that skill. There is also a 10% chance he instead is treated as if int 40 for purpose of that one role.

Restriction: this feat may only be taken at level one, if the intelligence falls below 15, the bonus is removed.


Would you think that was fair? After all, it follows logically that a SMART person will be smartER than a dumb person. Yes, I know we've had idiot savants in real life. A) They weren't adventurers, and B) they weren't significantly more intelligent than the leading lights in their fields. They were anamolous precisely because they were morons otherwise, not because they routinely exceeded geniuses - but because they were the equal to a genius in only a limited area.

By the way, that roll for INT 24 that you added - is that once per character, or per use of the skill? What about retries?

firepup
2005-12-29, 07:50 PM
I was saying I didn't see any reason to apply the max INT requirement that you did. No one in their right mind, who already has a decent INT, will buy this feat (specialized circumstances I can't imagine right now excepted).

I don't think a feat should allow you to take a stat you have a deficiency in and be better than humanly possible with that stat. Unless you were also going to balance it with:

Feat: Inspired Genius
Requirement: INT 15 or better
Effect: The character chooses one intelligence based skill, and has the bonus of int 30 for that skill. There is also a 10% chance he instead is treated as if int 40 for purpose of that one role.

Restriction: this feat may only be taken at level one, if the intelligence falls below 15, the bonus is removed.


Would you think that was fair? After all, it follows logically that a SMART person will be smartER than a dumb person. Yes, I know we've had idiot savants in real life. A) They weren't adventurers, and B) they weren't significantly more intelligent than the leading lights in their fields. They were anamolous precisely because they were morons otherwise, not because they routinely exceeded geniuses - but because they were the equal to a genius in only a limited area.

By the way, that roll for INT 24 that you added - is that once per character, or per use of the skill? What about retries?

yeah, i'm not quite sure to do with stuff like this, this is my first try, and that's per use, retries? i dunno, i think i might remove that 10% chance.

valadil
2005-12-29, 08:10 PM
This isn't really the sort of thing that I feel qualifies as a feat. Now, I don't think theres anything wrong with playing an idiot savant character (except for the fact that most people would treat it as a joke instead of playing it correctly), but flavorwise, it just doesn't work as a feat. Your party's half orc barbarian isn't going to hit level 9, take a feat, and discover that he can appraise any gem with perfect accuracy. Maybe if it were required to be a first level feat...

firepup
2005-12-29, 08:12 PM
This isn't really the sort of thing that I feel qualifies as a feat. Now, I don't think theres anything wrong with playing an idiot savant character (except for the fact that most people would treat it as a joke instead of playing it correctly), but flavorwise, it just doesn't work as a feat. Your party's half orc barbarian isn't going to hit level 9, take a feat, and discover that he can appraise any gem with perfect accuracy. Maybe if it were required to be a first level feat...


it is.

Frank
2005-12-29, 08:41 PM
The thing with idiot savants...they're autistic. Autistic people have a whole lot of other problems than being below the IQ level...they feign intimacy, even freak out if someone they don't know touches them. A severely autistic person cannot interact socially...at all. They are skittish with their physical movements.

They'd need, in my opinion, to have low charisma too. And I don't see an autistic being able to fight with a weapon or with any accuracy.

Being an idiot savant, to me, would be its own class. And it couldn't be a useful PC...but I could see him being an NPC that has to tag along at times (On a side note: I hate convoy missions).

Just my personal opinion. Of course, this is fantasy, and you can easily negate our real world connections and make a hybrid to your desire.

-Frank

Ayana
2005-12-29, 09:32 PM
On second thought I see Gamebird's point about this.

This would probably work far better as a trait which imposes a -2 to int based skill checks 90% of the time, but a +8 bonus 10% of the time. (roll a d% also whenever making an int based skill check)

This would keep it from being abusable (since the player doesn't choose when or to what skill the bonus happens, it's simply random flashes of brilliance) or from specifically rewarding a low stat.

Everyman
2005-12-29, 09:59 PM
I have to agree with the others: this isn't really a "feat" sort of idea. Feats focus on small bonuses or potent techniques earned from working hard. This isn't either.

If you are interested in using this idea, check out my link in my sig (Pitied Warrior). I made a PrC that actually uses horrid stats to their advantage. This might interest you or give you some inspiration.

Soniku
2005-12-30, 11:16 AM
heh, I have a character in another system who so needs this feat. Even though she is a complete dunce she has saved a large number of planes of existance (wow) many times with her knowledge of the one place she cares about in the entire multiverse (large scale storyline here >.> thats what you get for so many sessions on the same campaign).

Its funny from time to time :D the rest of the party "oh no, the enemy will be able to mass-manufacture demi-gods or gods... and we dont have enough plainswalkers here to crush this place..."

Katt "I know where we can get about sixty or so plainswalkers >.>..."

Silivren
2005-12-30, 12:12 PM
Would you think that was fair? *After all, it follows logically that a SMART person will be smartER than a dumb person. *Yes, I know we've had idiot savants in real life. *A) They weren't adventurers, and B) they weren't significantly more intelligent than the leading lights in their fields. *They were anamolous precisely because they were morons otherwise, not because they routinely exceeded geniuses - but because they were the equal to a genius in only a limited area.

Actually, there was an interesting article in the December issue of Scientific American. It had to do with a Savant by the name of Kim Peek (actually, the film Rain Man was inspired by accounts of this guy). Kim demonstrates some decidedly superhuman mathematical and memory abilities. He has reportedly memorized over 9,000 books, when provided any date can immediately tell you the day of the week on which it fell, and displays a host of similar skills and abilities.

It was a pretty interesting article, actually.

MaN
2006-01-04, 11:02 AM
I think this would work fine as you have it now. Some people would find this very usefull. It seems more or less a matter of personal taste as to whether or not someone would want it in their game.

If you wished it to be a bit more realistic, I would limit the bonus to one Knowledge skill instead of one INT-based skill. Savants specialize in areas of trivial knowledge. They are experts at rote memorization but generally don't have the capability to utilize that information very well. A savant can spout off a great number of facts but not put them to any practical use.
As a father of two autistic children I can speak to this with a some authority. My older son (5 years) is very near to what would be considered a savant. At the age of three he was reading and understanding my D&D rulebooks as well as my machinist text-books (much math). He does algebra and is learning geometry in his free time in kindergarten, voluntarily!
The boy can even balance my checkbook better than I. The problem is that he cannot see the significance of any of those numbers. He can add everything (okay, subtract mostly) but he doesn't understand the concept of a budget or the reason why a positive balance must be maintained. The way he sees it is that if he can calculate negative numbers then checks can still be written because he can just keep subtracting.