PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Skill-switching feats



LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 02:55 PM
Would a feat that allowed you to base Perception and Insight off Charisma seem reasonable? Would you make it be two feats, or would you allow it for one?

Shardan
2009-10-16, 02:57 PM
I could see int instead of wisdom. but charisma?... how would charisma improve your perception?

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 03:03 PM
I could see int instead of wisdom. but charisma?... how would charisma improve your perception?

Especially with Insight, part of Charisma is going to be reading body cues and reacting appropriately... pulling away from someone whose body language says "You're too close", a gentle touch to someone whose body language is "Get closer." While a lot of that goes into a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, it shows that awareness of small details is part of Charisma.

Part of it comes down to "I'm thinking about making a rogue. It seems like he should have a good Perception and Insight skill, but he's not going to have much Wisdom, or Intelligence. Charisma is the next most likely." After all, there's a feat to change your melee basic attack to Constitution or Charisma.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 03:06 PM
Would a feat that allowed you to base Perception and Insight off Charisma seem reasonable? Would you make it be two feats, or would you allow it for one?
Oh my no. This is just going to get us back into the One Stat To Rule Them All world of 3.5. IMHO Martial Training is bad enough, but Feats to substitute stats for Passive Skills is over the line.

Seriously. There's a reason that Stat Substitution effects are almost always Class Powers - they dramatically change the build mechanics.

So no, I wouldn't allow them at all. If you must have them, give them a WIS 13 Prerequisite - that way you'll at least minimize the SADness.

Also: what the heck is the fluff here? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Two things
(1) Charisma is not a sensory ability; it is your ability to influence others, not your ability to notice how they feel.


Wisdom (Wis) measures your common sense, perception, self-discipline, and empathy. You use your Wisdom score to notice details, sense danger, and get a read on other people.

. . .

Charisma (Cha) measures your force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership.

(2) Martial Training works conceptually because every stat is used as the base attack stat for some Class. So basically, the Feat is your further training in that style of combat; you adapt it into your most basic abilities.

For the very reasons you listed, you should not be allowed to do this. If you want good Perception, you need to bite the bullet and take the WIS.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 03:07 PM
Oh my no. This is just going to get us back into the One Stat To Rule Them All world of 3.5. IMHO Martial Training is bad enough, but Feats to substitute stats for Passive Skills is over the line.

Seriously. There's a reason that Stat Substitution effects are almost always Class Powers - they dramatically change the build mechanics.

So no, I wouldn't allow them at all. If you must have them, give them a WIS 13 Prerequisite - that way you'll at least minimize the SADness.

Also: what the heck is the fluff here? :smallconfused:

I'm not sure what you mean by "What is the fluff here".

Kurald Galain
2009-10-16, 03:07 PM
Would a feat that allowed you to base Perception and Insight off Charisma seem reasonable?
Yes, it would. For comparison, there's also a feat that lets you key intimidate off strength.

Having a feat that switches one of the skills would be rather low-powered; having a feat that switches both would be balanced. So yes, I'd allow it.

Indon
2009-10-16, 03:08 PM
Personally, I would require it to be two Heroic-tier feats.

A single heroic-tier feat grants a +3 to a skill, if I'm not mistaken, and this prospective feat could potentially grant +5 or more to two skills, that would stack with that +3. (even if I am mistaken and it grants +5, my argument still stands)

I would allow it to be a single Paragon-tier feat.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 03:12 PM
Yes, it would. For comparison, there's also a feat that lets you key intimidate off strength.
What feat is this? :smallconfused:

Shardan
2009-10-16, 03:13 PM
Insight is also 'detect magic' and 'pierce illusion'. your winning smile and daring good looks aren't enough. You're not pretty enough to make the orcs about to ambush you gasp at the sight of you so you can hear them coming easier. Your smile does not brighten the darkness so you can see better.

Oh.. and Melee training I don't mind because it ONLY works with basic attacks. basic attacks aren't worth alot.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 03:14 PM
Personally, I would require it to be two Heroic-tier feats.

A single heroic-tier feat grants a +3 to a skill, if I'm not mistaken, and this prospective feat could potentially grant +5 or more to two skills, that would stack with that +3. (even if I am mistaken and it grants +5, my argument still stands)

I would allow it to be a single Paragon-tier feat.

Actually, there are two heroic-teir feats... one (Skill Training) grants a +5 (because you become trained), while another (Skill Focus) gives you a +3 to a skill you already have trained. This feat is potentially good for a +6 at first level (If you have a -1 Wis bonus and a +5 Cha bonus), but only if your stats are arranged as noted, and it won't get you ahead of someone who has a +5 Wisdom.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 03:15 PM
Insight is also 'detect magic' and 'pierce illusion'. your winning smile and daring good looks aren't enough. You're not pretty enough to make the orcs about to ambush you gasp at the sight of you so you can hear them coming easier. Your smile does not brighten the darkness so you can see better.

Oh.. and Melee training I don't mind because it ONLY works with basic attacks. basic attacks aren't worth alot.
Arcana (INT) is actually Detect Magic.

I've never been comfortable with Insight penetrating Illusions, but looking at all the Skills (and Insight's Passive nature) I'm willing to take it on sufferance.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 03:22 PM
Insight is also 'detect magic' and 'pierce illusion'. your winning smile and daring good looks aren't enough. You're not pretty enough to make the orcs about to ambush you gasp at the sight of you so you can hear them coming easier. Your smile does not brighten the darkness so you can see better.

Detect Magic is based off Arcana. Charisma is more than just looking pretty... it's reacting, unconsciously, to details about people's actions, and the force of your own will... it is Strength to Wisdom's Constitution, and Intelligence's Dexterity, if you will.



Oh.. and Melee training I don't mind because it ONLY works with basic attacks. basic attacks aren't worth alot.

You're not playing with a leader who causes extra basic attacks, then.

Mando Knight
2009-10-16, 03:33 PM
Oh.. and Melee training I don't mind because it ONLY works with basic attacks. basic attacks aren't worth alot.

You've never played with a decent-spec Warlord, I assume? A TacLord and a Wis-trained Avenger is a rather lethal combination, as you've suddenly got two characters with a reliable at-will that rolls twice for the attack.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 03:36 PM
Detect Magic is based off Arcana. Charisma is more than just looking pretty... it's reacting, unconsciously, to details about people's actions, and the force of your own will... it is Strength to Wisdom's Constitution, and Intelligence's Dexterity, if you will.
But it's not!

Wisdom (Wis) measures your common sense, perception, self-discipline, and empathy. You use your Wisdom score to notice details, sense danger, and get a read on other people.
. . .

Charisma (Cha) measures your force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership.
Wisdom is what you use to react to other people. It says so right there!

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 03:50 PM
But it's not!

Wisdom is what you use to react to other people. It says so right there!

Yes, but you can't be persuasive or lead if you can't read other people's cues. You can't convince people to do what you want if you don't know how they're reacting to what you're saying... it's an inherent part of doing these things.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 03:52 PM
Yes, but you can't be persuasive or lead if you can't read other people's cues. You can't convince people to do what you want if you don't know how they're reacting to what you're saying... it's an inherent part of doing these things.
Yes you can - through sheer force of personality.

Or, more accurately for 4E, through Skills.

Diplomacy is for getting your point across
Insight is for noting your audiences' reactions

It's explicitly contemplated in the Skill, which is (appropriately) tied to WIS. I applaud the effort, but if I were the DM I'd just say No.

Myshlaevsky
2009-10-16, 03:54 PM
Yes, but you can't be persuasive or lead if you can't read other people's cues. You can't convince people to do what you want if you don't know how they're reacting to what you're saying... it's an inherent part of doing these things.

Frankly, that seems like more of argument to make sure your leader character has a good Wis AND Cha than an argument to make him key Insight off of Cha.

BlackSheep
2009-10-16, 04:01 PM
Yes, but you can't be persuasive or lead if you can't read other people's cues. You can't convince people to do what you want if you don't know how they're reacting to what you're saying... it's an inherent part of doing these things.

I don't think this is accurate. I think charisma is being able to make people comfortable with whatever you're trying to accomplish, not in determining what would make them comfortable and then doing that.

That is, insight can push you in the right direction while charisma pulls others with you.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-10-16, 05:21 PM
Yes, it would. For comparison, there's also a feat that lets you key intimidate off strength.

Having a feat that switches one of the skills would be rather low-powered; having a feat that switches both would be balanced. So yes, I'd allow it.

Which feat is this? I've always hated that intimidate was charisma only, as it gimps things which should be really intimidating but have terrible charisma, like, say, ogres, or rageblood barbarians. I was all set to just houserule and say "you can use str for intimidate if you can justify it", but if there is an actual feat that works better.

Indon
2009-10-16, 05:25 PM
It's explicitly contemplated in the Skill, which is (appropriately) tied to WIS. I applaud the effort, but if I were the DM I'd just say No.

If I can punch things with my raw healthiness, then I should be able to do all sorts of things with it, so long as the player can come up with a reasonable and/or awesome explanation.

Fax Celestis
2009-10-16, 05:34 PM
It says so right there!

I get the feeling I'm going to be getting a lot of mileage out of this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/darth-kitty.png

Just because it says it in the book doesn't mean you can't change it. Mark's points make valid sense.

tcrudisi
2009-10-16, 05:37 PM
Yes, it would. For comparison, there's also a feat that lets you key intimidate off strength.

Having a feat that switches one of the skills would be rather low-powered; having a feat that switches both would be balanced. So yes, I'd allow it.

Sure, but of all the cha-based skills, Intimidate is by far the worst. It's incredibly difficult to get monsters to surrender and it is useless in skill challenges. I've seen two skill challenges where Intimidate worked -- and a few where it gave you an automatic failure for trying to use it.

Plus, it makes sense to be able to use Str for Intimidate. I agree with Oracle Hunter in that it makes no sense to use Cha for Perception or Insight.

Kylarra
2009-10-16, 05:37 PM
As a custom feat I'd say probably you could switch one of them, but not both. 2 feats to switch both if it's really that important to you.

Flickerdart
2009-10-16, 05:45 PM
Wisdom is for figuring out what people want and then giving them that, Charisma is for making them want what you give them. Short of convincing reality that what you see is real, it wouldn't really work...INT for insight alt and DEX for perception alt make at least some sense, CHA does not without some heavy refluffing mojo. I can understand the desire to make CHA useful post-3.5, but my understanding is that INT is the new CHA. So use that.

Deepblue706
2009-10-16, 06:17 PM
Which feat is this? I've always hated that intimidate was charisma only, as it gimps things which should be really intimidating but have terrible charisma, like, say, ogres, or rageblood barbarians. I was all set to just houserule and say "you can use str for intimidate if you can justify it", but if there is an actual feat that works better.

As far as I know, there's at least an item that does as much, but I've never seen a feat.

Cincture of the Whats-it-called.

I have a Fighter who currently has one.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 06:18 PM
Just because it says it in the book doesn't mean you can't change it. Mark's points make valid sense.


:confused:

Are you advocating redefining the core attributes of D&D? I mean, you want to subsume WIS into CHA or something?

RANT
Because this isn't a matter of imagination or interpretative language - it says explicitly that you use WIS to "get a read on other people." We're not talking about "flavor text is flavorful" or something - this is redefining a term of art (Wisdom & Charisma here). Might as well redefine "attack" while you're at it. :smallannoyed:

Besides, as I noted in my first post, this particular "imaginative" alteration is towards an illegitimate end - breaking the rules to min/max a character. Here we're taking two very important Skills and re-tying them from one stat to another, merely to save on Build Points. If Mark wants to make a character who is good at Perception but has low WIS, then he should take Skill Focus (Perception) - that's one of the many reasons it exists. In order to compensate for a lack of natural giftedness, you invest a lot of effort to train a particular skill. This already exists in the rules and makes perfect sense; redefining CHA in order to add a homebrewed Feat to cheese-out a character - not so much.

Anyhow, I've said my piece, so I'll just summarize:

(1) The proposed feat breaks a couple of design goals (all attributes are important, limit SADness) purely for mechanical advantage.
(2) A rule-mechanic already exists to create the kind of character envisioned
(3) There is no room under RAW to justify this; you need to re-write the very definition of Wisdom (and possibly, Charisma) for it to make any sense whatsoever.

So add in the homebrew if you want, but these are my specific objections to the proposed feat. If your DM is reading this, I hope he takes my points under consideration before making a decision.

Kylarra
2009-10-16, 06:22 PM
As far as I know, there's at least an item that does as much, but I've never seen a feat.

Cincture of the Whats-it-called.

I have a Fighter who currently has one.
Cincture of the Dragon Spirit (lv6)

Noble Savant
2009-10-16, 06:27 PM
Quite frankly, I never understood how your ability to do backflips and juggle was going to help you spot an ogre sneaking up on you, and yet there is a feat that lets you use Dex for Perception checks. This isn't any worse.

The idea behind feats is that they change something from the norm. You've learned to do thinks differently. In this case, you've learned to pierce illusions with the force of your personality, and learned to harness the skills and abilities of diplomacy, noticing and adapting to the tiny nuances of a person's body language, to other uses.

It seems reasonable to me, both fluff and balance wise.

Indon
2009-10-16, 06:28 PM
Because this isn't a matter of imagination or interpretative language - it says explicitly that you use WIS to "get a read on other people." We're not talking about "flavor text is flavorful" or something - this is redefining a term of art (Wisdom & Charisma here). Might as well redefine "attack" while you're at it. :smallannoyed:
Compared to 3'rd edition, 4th edition has indeed redefined what an attack is with the power system.

Plus, you're on a forum where entire classes get reflavored into other classes with completely different mechanics for the sake of optimization. You're fighting the flow here.

Finally, skills optimization isn't the most stellar min-max option in 4th edition. There's no reason not to give it a little love.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 06:28 PM
Quite frankly, I never understood how your ability to do backflips and juggle was going to help you spot an ogre sneaking up on you, and yet there is a feat that lets you use Dex for Perception checks. This isn't any worse.
What is this feat?

The last one turned out to be a Magic Item.

EDIT:
@Indon - it saddens me a bit that I am "fighting the flow" (if this is true) but this is not a question of reflavoring. 4E is all about changing fluff to suit - provided it gives no mechanical advantage. This allows for people to tailor their characters' RP to their desires without affecting the fundamental order of the whole system.

What Mark Hall is explicitly asking here is permission to change the RAW for character optimization purposes. Maybe Perception & Insight aren't that important - but if they weren't, why not just use Skill Focus and be done with it? I'm all for homebrew - even homebrew that enhances optimization - but not for arbitrarily changing the rules to benefit a single player.

If he's just asking whether to split it into two feats or one, then I'd say two feats - it's what we do for Skill Focus, and that's way less powerful than what he's suggesting. The proposed feat allows him to assign his prime attribute to a Skill, while still allowing for later Skill Focus and Ability Pumping access. Skill Focus gives you a Static +3 Feat bonus, not a +X Untyped bonus.

Fax Celestis
2009-10-16, 06:39 PM
It's not a bonus, it's a replacement.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why Charisma can't or shouldn't be used in this fashion, short of stubbornness.

Mando Knight
2009-10-16, 06:47 PM
It's not a bonus, it's a replacement.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why Charisma can't or shouldn't be used in this fashion, short of stubbornness.

If you need an in-character justification, you can say that your hot-blooded personality boils away your opponent's attempts to conceal the truth. :smalltongue:

Deepblue706
2009-10-16, 06:48 PM
Personally, I believe that this is a silly concept. 4E might be full of silly concepts already, but I dislike arguing that absurdities ought to continue further because there was precedence for absurdity somewhere earlier. My response as a DM to a player's proposal would probably be friendly "stop whining". Although, I suppose if the player was very persistent, I would probably cave, because it doesn't really matter that much.

In solely judging the overall power of the proposed swap, I'd say it'd be one feat for one skill, as I would not like to see it grant significantly more benefits than perhaps Skill Training alone.

Sir Homeslice
2009-10-16, 06:50 PM
I'd like to point out that in MP, Rogues get a power for Cha to... Perception, at least. Not sure about Insight.

tcrudisi
2009-10-16, 06:54 PM
It's not a bonus, it's a replacement.

You say potatoe, I say potato. It is a bonus, or nobody would ever take that feat. Let's say you have Wis 18 and Cha 10. Would you take that feat? No. Now reverse it -- you have Wis 10 and Cha 18. Yes, you would take that feat. Getting +4 untyped to two skills is huge, as is evidenced by the fact that there is Skill Focus which gives +3 typed (feat) bonus to one skill.

And that's if you are only Cha 18 and only if you are level 1.

Cha and Wisdom both go to the same defense. The only benefit one has over the other comes with skills. So if you are a primary Cha character and you only care about two Wis-based skills, Perception and Insight, this means you can make Wis 8 to start off with. Right? Now, because you are primary Cha, you will start with either an 18 or a 20. For the sake of argument, I'll go low and say 18. This means at level 30 you will have a Wis 10 and Cha 26 (or 28 with Demigod). The difference there is 8 or 9 points. That makes Skill Focus look weak.

Well, that's not completely fair. Skill Focus is weak. But Oracle_Hunter is right: it is there for a reason. With all due respect, Mark, it smells like cheese to me as well. I, personally, would not allow it if I were the DM (short of bribes. I do accept bribes.)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 07:00 PM
It's not a bonus, it's a replacement.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why Charisma can't or shouldn't be used in this fashion, short of stubbornness.
Because it allows for more Single Attribute Dependent [SAD] Characters and reduces the importance of WIS.
. . .
I was going to go over this again, but I've already written enough about it. SAD characters are less interesting to build (e.g. fewer hard decisions need to be made) and, particularly with Stat Substitution, gain advantages that let them intrude into other Classes' areas. Normally, a Rogue isn't going to have as good a Perception as a Ranger - and if he does, he's paid for it in some other area. Here, Mark pays one feat to have his cake and eat it too; it's much like letting the Wizard substitute INT for DEX with Stealth (because he's smart enough not to make noise) and becoming a better scout than the Rogue.

I say if you're going to let CHA swap for WIS, you should go the Martial Training route so that no particular band of characters gets an unwarranted bonus.

EDIT:
@Sir Homeslice - powers are A-OK; they exist to do special things. A Rogue Utility that lets them swap CHA for WIS for a single Perception Check per Encounter is great - it provides a temporary boost that the character paid dearly for. But a permanent effect that only costs a feat is another matter entirely.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-16, 07:03 PM
No sell. Take skill training, take skill focus, or even take skill utility powers keyed off perception to boost his perceptive-ness. Same answer for insight.

That's how I'd deal with such a request, at least. There are already ways to make a character who has relatively neglected wisdom to become better at wisdom based skills. If you want it comparable to a trained, primary Wisdom type, for as little cost as possible, that really just sounds to me like you are actually merely arguing that the existing ways aren't optimal enough rather than it being a real roleplaying issue.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-16, 07:18 PM
Three things.

(1) Yes, this potential feat would be better than skill focus. But when doing this comparison, remember that skill focus is pretty much on the bottom rung when it comes to heroic feats. So "it's stronger than skill focus" doesn't mean it's overpowered; if anything, "it's equally strong as skill focus" would mean it would be underpowered.

(2) Fluff is mutable. Using charisma to understand people is as easy to fluff as using constitution for your basic melee attacks, or using a religion check to cross a lake in a skill challenge. Like, you persuade people into giving you the answer you need to understand them.

(3) SAD is not an issue. Pretty much every class in 4E was designed to be dependent on two attributes, so it's really not a big deal that a feat would exist that reduces multiple attribute dependency. After all, MAD is by definition not balanced as compared to SAD.

The feat I mention is, as I recall, from Dragon magazine. I'd have to look up the specifics. Regardless, the point still stands that in 4E logic, spending a feat to swap two skills to a different stat really doesn't come close to breaking game balance.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-16, 07:29 PM
Regardless, the point still stands that in 4E logic, spending a feat to swap two skills to a different stat really doesn't come close to breaking game balance.

It's a fair point, in some ways, but I just do not see the need for such a feat to exist.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 08:15 PM
Three things.

(1) Yes, this potential feat would be better than skill focus. But when doing this comparison, remember that skill focus is pretty much on the bottom rung when it comes to heroic feats. So "it's stronger than skill focus" doesn't mean it's overpowered; if anything, "it's equally strong as skill focus" would mean it would be underpowered.

(2) Fluff is mutable. Using charisma to understand people is as easy to fluff as using constitution for your basic melee attacks, or using a religion check to cross a lake in a skill challenge. Like, you persuade people into giving you the answer you need to understand them.

(3) SAD is not an issue. Pretty much every class in 4E was designed to be dependent on two attributes, so it's really not a big deal that a feat would exist that reduces multiple attribute dependency. After all, MAD is by definition not balanced as compared to SAD.

The feat I mention is, as I recall, from Dragon magazine. I'd have to look up the specifics. Regardless, the point still stands that in 4E logic, spending a feat to swap two skills to a different stat really doesn't come close to breaking game balance.
Responses (because I apparently have nothing better to do :smallannoyed:)

(1) But we're not comparing Skill Focus to Power Attack here, we're looking at the range of feats that accomplish the same thing - provide bonuses to Skill Checks. On this range, StatSub (as I'm calling it) is pretty much on the top of the range:

Skill Training (+5 Untyped)
StatSub (+X Untyped, likely more than +3)
Jack of all Trades (+2 Feat to all Untrained, REQ: Int 13)
Skill+ Feats (e.g. Sure Climber) (+1/2 Feat, additional benefit, REQ: Trained)
Skill Focus (+3 Feat, REQ: Trained)

StatSub provides a large untyped bonus that has no prerequisites. Within its class, it's huge!

(2) Fluff does not provide mechanical benefits. StatSub is not Fluff! Furthermore, we're talking about changing the very definition of an Ability Score. This isn't just "attack with X instead of Y;" we're saying "WIS no longer encompasses your ability to judge people." The definition of an Ability Score is a term of art; "Wisdom" is defined as encompassing certain, specific qualities - anything in the description is there for a reason.

(3) If it's not a big deal, then why have the feat? Because 4E contemplates, if not a hard MAD, a soft MAD principle that can be seen in feat requirements, multiple effects depending on a single ability score, and the like. Wisdom is supposed to determine (in part) your Will defense, your Dungeoneering/Nature Knowledge rolls, your Perception & Insight rolls (including their passive scores) and your Heal check. Many of these are situationally useful, but Perception is a universally useful one - which is why Mark cares about getting a massive, and unwarranted, bonus to it.

Heck, the feat might as well say "Anytime you would use WIS, use CHA" and be only slightly more useful. It's getting something for (almost) nothing; cheese, pure and simple.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-16, 08:24 PM
StatSub is not Fluff! Furthermore, we're talking about changing the very definition of an Ability Score.

Yes, it is.

The definition of wisdom is fluff. In the past, it has at some points included "perception" and at other points not; it has been "the same thing as int except for clerics"; it has been applied to bow attacks, initiative, controlling artifacts, basic melee attacks, suppressing enemies through arcane magic, fear saving throws, and kelemvor knows what else. All of that is fluff. Most of that is contradictory, most of that can be turned to make sense (for a given definition of sense) and all of it is fluff. Balance becomes an issue as soon as all or even most classes, regardless of what else they do, want to substantially invest in wisdom, which is certainly not the case.

Gralamin
2009-10-16, 08:40 PM
There is a feat that already kinda does this:

Sorcerous Vision
Paragon Tier
Prerequisite: 11th level, sorcerer
Benefit: Whenever you would make a Perception check or an Insight check, you can make an Arcana check instead.
Theres a class specific feat that basically moves both over to int (Notably not for passive though, since passive isn't a check. Though I might be mistaken on that), requires paragon, and requires a specific class. I wouldn't even consider anything like it without similar restrictions.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 08:43 PM
Yes, it is.

The definition of wisdom is fluff. In the past, it has at some points included "perception" and at other points not; it has been "the same thing as int except for clerics"; it has been applied to bow attacks, initiative, controlling artifacts, basic melee attacks, suppressing enemies through arcane magic, fear saving throws, and kelemvor knows what else. All of that is fluff. Most of that is contradictory, most of that can be turned to make sense (for a given definition of sense) and all of it is fluff. Balance becomes an issue as soon as all or even most classes, regardless of what else they do, want to substantially invest in wisdom, which is certainly not the case.
The benefit of a term of art is that it has a definition.

The definition of Wisdom is as follows:

Wisdom (Wis) measures your common sense, perception, self-discipline, and empathy. You use your Wisdom score to notice details, sense danger, and get a read on other people.
This is the definition of Wisdom in 4E. It is written as such to let you know what Wisdom means.

The fact that some classes use it to attack or something is irrelevant. Just because you use CON to invoke hellflames doesn't mean Constitution stops representing "your character’s health, stamina, and vital force."

If you want to call the definitions of terms of art fluff, then here's some fluff for you:

Round: In a round, every combatant takes a turn. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world.
Is it right to change this too? Even if you need to spend a feat to make your rounds last 30 minutes?
. . .
OK, at this point I'm just upset about the abuse of the term "fluff." Redefining terms of art cannot be considered fluff; it is as much a part of the game mechanic as "round" or "attack." For me, claiming CHA allows you to "get a read on other people" is as valid as using Thievery to "pick the pockets of your mind;" it's an unwarranted perversion of a clearly defined term that results in real mechanical effects.

I've already stated why StatSub is a bad idea mechanically, and I know that Mark is well aware of these reasons ("his feat is potentially good for a +6 at first level (If you have a -1 Wis bonus and a +5 Cha bonus)"); it lets you get 2 free BP while also attaching these important Skills to a prime statistic. If that doesn't look like a big benefit to you, then I don't know what to say.

Constructive: I would permit StatSub if it only worked on Untrained Skills, and only one Skill at a time. Call it "Natural Talent" and make it work for any Skill and any Stat - or any Stat within the same "class" (Physical or Mental). This gives you a potent, long term boost, but prevents you from fully substituting this Feat for everything else. Plus it doesn't give CHA users an arbitrary advantage over everyone else.

EDIT:
@Gralamin - ah, this is great. It is a Paragon Feat and requires you to either be a Sorcerer (which does not have INT as a Prime or Secondary stat) or spend another Feat to MC into it (and therefore have CHA 13, and forgo any other MC). Plus, it doesn't substitute for the all-important Passive scores.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-17, 09:53 AM
There is a feat that already kinda does this:

Theres a class specific feat that basically moves both over to int (Notably not for passive though, since passive isn't a check. Though I might be mistaken on that), requires paragon, and requires a specific class. I wouldn't even consider anything like it without similar restrictions.

Actually, that's substantially better than what I'm proposing. Not only does it switch them to a presumably higher stat (IIRC, sorcerers are a lot more likely to want Int than Wisdom), it obviates the need for 2 of those skills be trained.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 11:26 AM
Actually, that's substantially better than what I'm proposing. Not only does it switch them to a presumably higher stat (IIRC, sorcerers are a lot more likely to want Int than Wisdom), it obviates the need for 2 of those skills be trained.Actually, IME, sorcerers dump both wisdom and intelligence, it's just intelligence may be a 10 instead of wisdom's 8 because they're forced to take arcana, not a huge difference in other words. Also the passives aren't boosted, so ... yeah.

tcrudisi
2009-10-17, 11:30 AM
Actually, that's substantially better than what I'm proposing. Not only does it switch them to a presumably higher stat (IIRC, sorcerers are a lot more likely to want Int than Wisdom), it obviates the need for 2 of those skills be trained.

I wanted to correct your assumption on this before you acted on it. Sorc's primary stat is Cha and their secondary is Dex/Str. This means that Int is not likely to be higher than 13 (in case they wanted to MC Wizard). My level 9 Sorcerer has Arcana 9. That's really, really bad for a trained skill at level 9. Sorcerer's just usually do not have a good Int or Arcana score. So what does that feat really do? Well, not as much as you think. You might as well give that feat to Fighters as well, as not many Fighters would use it effectively either. That is a highly, highly situational feat.

TheDarkOne
2009-10-17, 12:05 PM
"Hi Mr. DM, I was thinking: I'd like higher perception and insight checks, but I don't really want to spend 2 feats on a measly +3. How about we make a new feat that will let me increase both of them at once for more than +3. I even have a really good story for why it makes sense too."

LibraryOgre
2009-10-17, 12:38 PM
I wanted to correct your assumption on this before you acted on it. Sorc's primary stat is Cha and their secondary is Dex/Str. This means that Int is not likely to be higher than 13 (in case they wanted to MC Wizard). My level 9 Sorcerer has Arcana 9. That's really, really bad for a trained skill at level 9. Sorcerer's just usually do not have a good Int or Arcana score. So what does that feat really do? Well, not as much as you think. You might as well give that feat to Fighters as well, as not many Fighters would use it effectively either. That is a highly, highly situational feat.

Couldn't recall on Sorcerers.

Shardan
2009-10-17, 12:54 PM
Note on socerous vision feat. It does not include passive perception/insight checks. illusion and ambushes still go off the base perception numbers. Unfortunately not all skills are created equal. perception is practically a defense, passive perception defends ambushes and surprise attacks and traps and stealth... Now, the sorcerous vision feat is one of the stronger skill feats I've seen by a long shot. but it has a flaw. he may be able to magic up a light to see the secret door with, but the skulking baddy on the ceiling will will surprise him.

the frank thing is it doesn't matter what we think. of your dm approves it, you get it, if not, you don't

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-17, 02:56 PM
"Hi Mr. DM, I was thinking: I'd like higher perception and insight checks, but I don't really want to spend 2 feats on a measly +3. How about we make a new feat that will let me increase both of them at once for more than +3. I even have a really good story for why it makes sense too."

This is what I'm hearing, also.

Indon
2009-10-17, 03:11 PM
"Hi Mr. DM, I was thinking: I'd like higher perception and insight checks, but I don't really want to spend 2 feats on a measly +3. How about we make a new feat that will let me increase both of them at once for more than +3. I even have a really good story for why it makes sense too."

Considering that in 4E, combat feats basically outstrip noncombat ones (since it's by and large a combat-oriented game), this sort of thing is what it'll take for a lot of groups to ever see feats put into skills.

Edit: Oh, and as noted earlier, it'd be weaker than a class-specific Paragon feat.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 03:18 PM
Edit: Oh, and as noted earlier, it'd be weaker than a class-specific Paragon feat.Actually no, it'd be a lot stronger [on average] than a class-specific Paragon feat. Given that int is not pumped on sorcerers bar multiclass things, you're effectively looking at the fact that perception and insight simply become trained... except for the purposes of passive checks which is where it's really nice to have a high modifier. The paragon feat is nothing more than a glorified double skill training that only counts half the time.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-17, 03:21 PM
Considering that in 4E, combat feats basically outstrip noncombat ones (since it's by and large a combat-oriented game), this sort of thing is what it'll take for a lot of groups to ever see feats put into skills.

Edit: Oh, and as noted earlier, it'd be weaker than a class-specific Paragon feat.

Heh. Some suitable DMing can put the love of skills into a player quicker than you could possibly know. I'm in a small game set in the underdark, currently, and after one or two breif forays away from our little power-center, the DM has put the ever-loving-fear-of-god into at least one or two of us on the subject of daring to go outside without Perception, Dungeoneering and stealth.

But really, I just don't see that you need a skill to be keyed off of your primary or secondary stat to be any good at it. Is it really so totally out of line to simply take Training in the damn thing and call it a day? A passive perception of 15 at level 1 is perfectly okay. add in the appropriate background and you have a passive perception of 17 at level 1 without a single point of wis bonus. that's not bad. Sure, the specifically aware characters will be better than you. So what. If you want to be a sneaky, damage dealing and insanely perceptive character, just play a ranger instead, or an avenger. Rogues are not the most eagle eyed, they are not going to be the BEST at it.

Can you not settle for being GOOD at it, instead? Is it that important to be 'Optimal'?

Indon
2009-10-17, 03:31 PM
Given that int is not pumped on sorcerers bar multiclass things, you're effectively looking at the fact that perception and insight simply become trained... except for the purposes of passive checks which is where it's really nice to have a high modifier. The paragon feat is nothing more than a glorified double skill training that only counts half the time.

I seem to get the impression that you don't think that a passive check counts as a check. Why wouldn't it?

The feat seems to be straight-up double skill training, +5 to two separate skills in addition to an opportunity for stat concentration.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 03:42 PM
I seem to get the impression that you don't think that a passive check counts as a check. Why wouldn't it?

The feat seems to be straight-up double skill training, +5 to two separate skills in addition to an opportunity for stat concentration.I'm afb and I was just going off what Gralamin was citing, if it is incorrect then I'll retract that portion of my comment, but it still stands that a dual skill training as a paragon feat is significantly weaker than reassigning your prime stat to both skills, as you can combine that with skill training feats, including multiclass ones, or simply taking them at the start as Rogue has both on their list.

Without reallocating stats at all, you could MC Ranger for Perception or Bard for either of them.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 04:36 PM
I seem to get the impression that you don't think that a passive check counts as a check. Why wouldn't it?

The feat seems to be straight-up double skill training, +5 to two separate skills in addition to an opportunity for stat concentration.

Its not that it doesn't count as a check, its more of HOW passive Perception and Insight are defined.


Passive Checks
When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception and Insight checks, but the DM might also use your passive check result with skill like Arcana or Dungeoneering to decide how much to tell you about a monster at the start of an Encounter.

Now, strictly speaking, that means when you make a passive check, you cannot normally do so with Arcana without the DM's permission (And being able to make an Arcana check instead of a perception / Insight wouldn't change this). That said, check with your DM.

Indon
2009-10-17, 04:53 PM
But the very definition of a passive check seems to be just taking 10 on an active check.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 04:54 PM
But the very definition of a passive check seems to be just taking 10 on an active check.

No. You must NOT be actively using a skill for it to be a passive Check. So it cannot be taking 10 on an active check.

Indon
2009-10-17, 04:55 PM
No. You must NOT be actively using a skill for it to be a passive Check. So it cannot be taking 10 on an active check.

Oh, good point, it's not an active check.

It's just a normal opposed check that you're taking 10 on.

So, still a skill check.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 05:03 PM
Oh, good point, it's not an active check.

It's just a normal opposed check that you're taking 10 on.

So, still a skill check.
:smallsigh:
A special type of skill check that you can only normally take 10 on with the perception or insight skill, without DM approval.

Indon
2009-10-17, 05:12 PM
:smallsigh:
A special type of skill check that you can only normally take 10 on with the perception or insight skill, without DM approval.

A passive perception or insight skill check is a perception or insight skill check.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 05:19 PM
A passive perception or insight skill check is a perception or insight skill check.

:smallsigh:
Try presenting your full argument instead of just parts of it.
Even if you can normally use Arcana for Perception checks, you still cannot take 10 on such a check due to the definition of Passive checks, which is not overridden. I understand where your coming from, and I can definitely see why someone would rule it that way, but it isn't strictly right by RAW.

Indon
2009-10-17, 05:35 PM
-Whenever you would make a passive Perception or Insight check per the passive check rules, you make an Arcana check instead per the feat.

It's not that hard. Arcana checks replace all Perception and Insight checks per the feat, and passive checks are a type of Perception or Insight check.

Strict nothing, this should be obvious.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 05:37 PM
-Whenever you would make a passive Perception or Insight check per the passive check rules, you make an Arcana check instead per the feat.

It's not that hard. Arcana checks replace all Perception and Insight checks per the feat, and passive checks are a type of Perception or Insight check.

Strict nothing, this should be obvious.

However, is no longer a Perception check once you replace it - Its an Arcana check that gives Perception check results. Because of this change, it is not a Perception Check for the purposes of Passive Checks, It'd be a passive Arcana check. You cannot normally make a passive arcana check without DM permission. Ergo, Passive Perception and Insight are unchanged.

Indon
2009-10-17, 06:03 PM
However, is no longer a Perception check once you replace it - Its an Arcana check that gives Perception check results. Because of this change, it is not a Perception Check for the purposes of Passive Checks, It'd be a passive Arcana check. You cannot normally make a passive arcana check without DM permission. Ergo, Passive Perception and Insight are unchanged.

It is a perception check that you have replaced with an Arcana check, and there is no circumstance in which it is unusable.

Whenever you would make a Perception check or an Insight check, you can make an Arcana check instead.

Specific trumps general, and the specific says that you are permitted to replace any and all Perception or Insight checks with Arcana, end of story, no exceptions.

Fax Celestis
2009-10-17, 06:05 PM
It is a perception check that you have replaced with an Arcana check, and there is no circumstance in which it is unusable.

Whenever you would make a Perception check or an Insight check, you can make an Arcana check instead.

Specific trumps general, and the specific says that you are permitted to replace any and all Perception or Insight checks with Arcana, end of story, no exceptions.
Passive Is Not A Check. It is your score plus ten.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 06:11 PM
It is a perception check that you have replaced with an Arcana check, and there is no circumstance in which it is unusable.

Whenever you would make a Perception check or an Insight check, you can make an Arcana check instead.

Specific trumps general, and the specific says that you are permitted to replace any and all Perception or Insight checks with Arcana, end of story, no exceptions.

The Specific here is actually the Passive rules, NOT the Feat text.
The Feat text applies the change to the general Skill check rules. This does not override the More specific Passive rules (A Special type of Skill Check).

Indon
2009-10-17, 06:11 PM
Passive Is Not A Check. It is your score plus ten.

A passive check is taking 10 on an opposed check.

It seems very checklike.

Edit:

The Specific here is actually the Passive rules, NOT the Feat text.
The Feat text applies the change to the general Skill check rules. This does not override the More specific Passive rules (A Special type of Skill Check).

The feat applies to all skill checks, and as such overrides the rules for any given type of skill check.

Not Five
2009-10-17, 06:11 PM
Passive Is Not A Check.

I think this passage might disagree with you.


Passive Checks
When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed
to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that
skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception
checks and Insight checks, but the DM might
also use your passive check result with skills such as
Arcana or Dungeoneering to decide how much to tell
you about a monster at the start of an encounter.
For example, if you’re walking through an area
you expect to be safe and thus aren’t actively looking
around for danger, you’re taking 10 on your Perception
check to notice hidden objects or enemies. If
your Perception check is high enough, or a creature
rolls poorly on its Stealth check, you might notice the
creature even if you aren’t actively looking for it.

Fax Celestis
2009-10-17, 06:15 PM
I think this passage might disagree with you.

Look, he doesn't seem to be understanding RAW, so I thought I'd take a non-RAW approach.

Indon
2009-10-17, 06:15 PM
And to save people time, "Take 10" is listed under "Checks without rolls" on page 179 of the PHB. Taking 10 on a skill check undeniably leaves it as a skill check.

Edit: And how is anyone possibly construing terminology like 'most commonly used' as something that explicitly forbids anything, let alone something which is explicitly permitted?

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 06:19 PM
A passive check is taking 10 on an opposed check.

It seems very checklike.

Edit:


The feat applies to all skill checks, and as such overrides the rules for any given type of skill check.

Err, no it doesn't. If it did what you claim, there would no longer be any other skill rules :smalltongue:

It overrides a certain rule, not all rules. The Rule it overrides is normally only being able to make those checks to get the associated results. However the feat changes it so you can use an Arcana check to get the results of a Perception check (Thus using it instead). However, as I've already stated many times, It does not change that you cannot normally make a passive Arcana check. Since the feat does not say you can now make passive arcana checks, that rule stays in place. Since that rule stays in place, then you cannot use a passive arcana to receive the results of insight and perception.

Edit:

Edit: And how is anyone possibly construing terminology like 'most commonly used' as something that explicitly forbids anything, let alone something which is explicitly permitted?

Read the whole thing, not just a line. The rules are very clear that the DM must allow anything else then that.

Indon
2009-10-17, 06:23 PM
However, as I've already stated many times, It does not change that you cannot normally make a passive Arcana check.
Passive checks are skill checks, and as such the feat affects them, because it affects all skill checks.

Furthermore, nothing in the passive check rules even forbids passive Arcana checks, at all, for anything except learning about monsters.

Gralamin
2009-10-17, 06:28 PM
Passive checks are skill checks, and as such the feat affects them, because it affects all skill checks.

Furthermore, nothing in the passive check rules even forbids passive Arcana checks, at all, for anything except learning about monsters.

They are skill checks with special rules included in them, including that DM approval is needed for Passive checks that are not Perception and Insight.

The RAW seems perfectly clear to me, and to at least a few others I've talked to. I get the feeling that nothing I say will convince you otherwise, and thus I am done arguing this. I essentially rest my case.

Indon
2009-10-17, 06:33 PM
Read the whole thing, not just a line. The rules are very clear that the DM must allow anything else then that.

It does not at all do that. It gives an example of a different passive check use, and even qualifies it with vagueness using the terms 'might also' and 'such as'.

The only unqualified part of that paragraph is the first sentence:


When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed
to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that
skill.

Which clearly establishes passive checks as a type of opposed check that you take 10 on - and opposed checks are skill checks.

Shadow_Elf
2009-10-17, 10:43 PM
I have to agree with Indon here - The sorcerous vision feat definitely lets you make passive checks with the feat, if not by nit-picked grammatical-minutia analysed RAW, then clearly by RAI. It is not an Arcana check used to gain the results of a Perception or Insight check. It is a Perception or Insight check whose rolls bonus is that of the same character's Arcana check.

Order of operations:
A Perception check is asked for (passive or active)
Perception is replaced by the Arcana bonus, per the feat
Check is made

Whereas you seem to be understanding it as:
All Perception checks become Arcana checks, per the feat.
A Perception check is asked for. If it is active, then it really wants an Arcana check. If it is passive, the feat is overuled because their perception checks are no longer really perception.
Check is made.

I believe the first interpretation is correct.

Yakk
2009-10-18, 07:55 AM
So, you want a Rogue who is perceptive? How about this:

Practiced Skill Mastery: Select two skills. Halve your attribute bonus to each skill (round down), then gain a +4/+5/+6 feat bonus to that skill at Heroic, Paragon and Epic tiers respectively.

Heroic high stats vary from +3 to +5.
Epic high stats vary from +7 to +10.
Low stats in Heroic vary from -1 to +1.
Low stats in Epic vary from +0 to +2.

Practiced on a high stat then grants +5 to +6 feat+stat heroic to +9 to +11 at epic.
Practiced on a low stat grants +3 to +4 heroic, and +6 to +7 epic.

It also blocks taking skill focus, or other efficient feat bonuses.

Grynning
2009-10-18, 12:01 PM
I would allow a feat that let you add your Cha bonus to Insight as a feat bonus. That's basically just a better version of skill focus tailored for high-cha characters, and there's an easy fluff justification.

I don't think I'd do the same for Perception, though I could see one that adds Int to Perception.

I think the main problem with Mark's original proposal is that Insight and Perception are 2 of the most useful skills, so much so that they have special boxes on your character sheet for the passive score. I don't think anyone would protest to a feat that say, let you sub in Dex for Athletics checks (which I'm pretty sure there already is), or one that let you use Int for Nature checks or something.

Artanis
2009-10-18, 01:51 PM
Yeah, the biggest problem that I see is how useful Perception and Insight are. Perception is so important, in fact, that there's liable to be somebody who really goes all-out for it (with Rangers being the most obvious candidate). Even if it makes sense and/or winds up being perfectly balanced in the end, anything that lets you change what stat is used for a skill that important should be thought through long and hard before being implemented.