PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Feat- Logical Reasoning



Ruethgar
2016-09-09, 12:20 PM
This was just a little thought I had driving home, was wondering what others might think of the idea.

Logical Reasoning
Prerequisite: 13 Int, 4 ranks in Knowledge(Any)
Effect: You may use an appropriate Knowledge skill in place of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive at a -5 penalty. If used for Diplomacy, targets must succeed at an opposed knowledge check for it to be effective(you may lower your check result at your leisure). If used for Bluffing, targets may roll an opposed Knowledge check in place of Sense Motive to recognize your lies.

JeenLeen
2016-09-09, 12:51 PM
Sounds good as a concept, although "may use an appropriate Knowledge skill" calls into question what "appropriate" means. Some guidance would likely be needed. I can think of some examples, but since this feat is basically using an inappropriate skill in place of appropriate ones, I recommend adding guidance.

I'm a little confused about the "If used for Diplomacy..." sentence. I read it as saying, for the target to be convinced/persuaded by diplomacy, the target has to roll high enough on the Knowledge to understand what you said. Although a rational thing, this makes the utility of this power dependent upon the target's skill--and the fact that more skilled target is more likely to succumb to your knowledge seems odd. Also, since you can lower the DC of the roll, couldn't you lower it to 1 so nobody would ever fail?
If that is the case, I recommend just removing that sentence as it adds little but complications.
EDIT: I just realized that the lowering DC thing meant that, if you rolled a 15, you could treat it as 1-15. Thus, your Diplomacy is less likely to succeed since you are dumbing-down what you could say, and thus it's easier for the target to understand. That makes more sense. But I still think this isn't a great idea. An expert on dragons could truthfully explain the risk of dragon mages to a guard who knows nothing about dragons; the guard is persuaded by the jargon and fearful descriptions that are truthfully stated. Sort of like overwhelming with details, but not as bluffing.

With the 'for bluffing', it seems more like it should be that they can make a Knowledge roll to realize that what you are saying is false, but it doesn't necessarily see through the bluff. Just if I tell an expert on dragons that "pink dragons have bubble breath", that dragon expert likely knows pink dragons don't exist nor do any dragons have bubble breath. But he wouldn't necessarily know I'm lying; he'd just think I'm stupid.
I do think it would be worth having a sentence that an expert can realize what you are saying is false via the same Knowledge, but I don't think it should make him realize you're bluffing.

Ruethgar
2016-09-12, 02:22 PM
Honestly completely forgot I made this post, was so tired I'm surprised its legible. Appropriate would mean, for example, using Knowledge(Local) to present facts and trends in behavior for the local government to present a case for a certain course of political action in the area(Diplomacy), or present skewed(though not necessarily false) data for a different one(Bluff). Nobility could be used for a similar purpose, or dealing with a particular noble by calling on the great deeds of his ancestors. Arcana, probably only dealing with magic users. History is a lot more broad a category. But looking back at this idea in general, it would require far too much DM adjudication and I would suggest scrapping it for maybe situational scaling synergy bonuses with knowledge if the DM feels like it.

As far as the diplomacy goes, I was thinking something along the lines of two scientists discussing vs a scientist and a layman. The layman probably wouldn't get the jist of the scientist's terminology and be less convinced than the other scientist. The ability to lower the roll would reflect dumning down the explanation, but at the cost of being less effective. So for example, two people of long standing opposing views so let's put them at Unfriendly. Your roll results in a 25, but you lower it to 1 so he get's what you're trying to say. Congratulations you just insulted his intelligence and made him hostile. If you instead lowered it to a 15 and he succeeded, he is now indifferent. If you didn't lower it at all and he succeeded, friendly. If he fails. No change, he just doesn't understand.

And then I read the next line of your post and really should read through them entirely instead of answering point by point. I can understand that the jargon might be just as intimidating even if they don't know what they hell you're talking about.

The bluffing bit isn't necessarily only about false information, but rather misrepresenting correct information which is typically a more common occurrence. Knowing the information is presented in an inaccurate way makes them less inclined to believe you and accept the bluff. Weather or not they recognize you as bluffing or just stupid or misinformed would have to have some interaction with the bluff and sense motive skills which is why I think maybe a scaling synergy bonus might be a better way to represent bringing your knowledge to bear in a debate or rouse. However, Diplomancers and Bluffers really don't need the extra help, and if going with the originally presented idea Int is already easy to make the most SAD characters and doesn't need to be able to diplomance on top of getting one of the most powerful classes(Wizard) and feats(Knowledge Devotion) in the game.