Is it allowable to create PCs that use feats not technically allowable by the skin?

[SteveMaurer]

As is already well known, the skin system for subraces does not play well with feats.   To quote from Layonara LORE: "if you creater a forest gnome (ESA +2 dex, -2 CON) with a DEX of 11, it will be a DEX of 13 in Layonara, but you will NOT be able to take the dodge feat, as the game still sees your DEX as 11".

Question: if you have a PC whose abilility score is LOWERED because of a skin beneath a feat's normal minimum requirements, it will nearly certainly work under the game engine.    For example, if a Gray Elf has a premodification DEX of 13 (lowered by the skin to 11), it's nearly certain that dodge could be purchased.

But is that acceptable?


I'm asking because I'm thinking of writing up a second PC that would fall under both situations.   I'd have to over-buy one stat that would qualify, if only the skin worked with feats, but then can only get a different feat I want by assuming that the limits are relative to the race involved.

Tell me what you decide.

[Dorganath]

It's technically possible, as the engine doesn't look at adjustments.  

This has come up in the past and without doing a search (which I can do, but I'm feeling lazy at the moment), I believe that it was decided it's nothing we will or should enforce, simply because overall it balances out.  For example, positive ESA outcomes don't permit knowing spell levels or feats at the adjusted stats.

Personally, I see it as a question of quasi-RP, in the way that many of us make decisions for our characters that make sense for the character, knowing what we do about mechanics in an OOC way, which is not necessarily what makes the best/strongest/most powerful character.

[darkstorme]

One exception to this is the Weaponmaster Prestige class, which requires that those taking it have an INT post-skin of 13 or higher.

[lonnarin]

One exception to this is the Weaponmaster Prestige class, which requires that those taking it have an INT post-skin of 13 or higher.

I thought that was just due to the feat requirement?  If as Dorg said that issue has been resolved for taking feats, why would it matter for the overall post-skin reqs?  Sadly, the skins don't kick in until after the point buy system, in which some races must spent 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 for stats just to get normal intelligence.  And we already have precedence with a half-giant weaponmaster that come to mind, Mikey.  He wasn't a scholar by any right.  Why would it matter so much for intelligence to be post-skin 13 and not dexterity, which also requires 13 in order to take the correct feats?  As Dorg said, there is also the flip side where some folks like sun elves, gray elves and tieflings who would have a post-skin 13 in intelligence, and yet mechanically not be able to take the pre-req feats.  Doesn't it all balance out in the end since some races need a post-skin 15 to take the class?  A dark elf weaponmaster would require post-skin 15s in both dex and int on that token.

[Dorganath]

Well, no, a PrC, for us, is a Character Approval sort of thing.  Mikey's "precedent" was before we were adhering to standards for characters.  By contrast, feat selection is something different, and we really can't prevent people from selecting a feat that the engine allows but the subrace adjustment seems to preclude.

[Chongo]

One exception to this is the Weaponmaster Prestige class, which requires that those taking it have an INT post-skin of 13 or higher.

There are very few mechanical deficits to subrace stat reductions outside of intelligence.  And by all stat reductions, I mean reductions that have feat requirements.  The issue I find with folks sub'ing on a WM with a -2 subrace adjustment off a 13 base intelligence is that you're getting all the advantages of the 13 intelligence instead of the 11 you should be at.  You're getting extra skill points each time you level, and you're meeting the expertise requirements.  In addition, you're getting that extra +2 to STR or DEX in most subrace cases that would be applicable to this scenario.

It's basically a freebie, and it's really the only freebie scenario out there for this sort of thing.  Every other feat with stat requirement out there would be compromised with a post-skin deficit.  Wait *scratches head*... no, there's one other, power attack on a weapon finesse character with a negative STR racial adjustment.  Or... I guess a weapon finessing divine might'er with a post skin str reduction... though, that's usually hard to pull off on the stat spread anyhow!  Though, in both cases you'd lose a point of damage - so it's not a full on freebie.

Anyhow, kinda cheesy in my opinion.  Does it need a rule?  Heck, I dunno.  I think peer pressure and guidelines are likely enough to dissuade gimp-tricks.  In the five minutes of writing this I've thought of two others... so I'm sure there are plenty of things in this general mindset that aren't thought of or monitored.  It's not wrong to think of mechanics when you build a character.  I don't think it's wrong to look at clever ways to capitalize on strengths either.  But with feat requirements that you're cheesing your way through - that gets into the somewhat shady territory, and folks should generally just pause and back away for a better glance when they see that sort of thing entering their thought process.

*Edit* This post was not directed to Steve's original thoughts.  I'm replying to the need for ruling or not with general information on how it plays out mechanically as opposed to the character/ story qualities inherent of it.

[SteveMaurer]

*Edit* This post was not directed to Steve's original thoughts.  I'm replying to the need for ruling or not with general information on how it plays out mechanically as opposed to the character/ story qualities inherent of it.

Well, here's my view: anything with an ECL should be given all the leeway in the world.   Because anyone who take an ECL type character is clearly in it just for the roleplaying.

Please consider: most races that have ECL penalties are getting benefits that are equaled with a single item.    A +2 INT?   Hell, there are both bracers and a hoods available when you get into the mid levels.     And the overall stat limits makes sure that in the end, everything is a zero sum game.

But there are no "remove an ECL" type items.    And further, the overwhelming limitations that are already placed on character purchases, make it so that some PCs are nearly impossible to create outside the norm.

For example, in my many years of gaming, I have never played a "half ogre".   So I started designing one, just for fun, and immediately realized it wasn't really a playable race.

Let's say you just want a half-ogre fighter.   You have to buy your INT up to 16, so that it will be 12 to speak another language.   That leaves you with 20 points left for your build.  Say you want a STR of 16, to put you at the half-orc max of 20 STR.   That leaves you with 10 points, two stats at 6, two more at 8.   If you buy your DEX up to 14 (-2 = 12), and your WIS up to 10, you are done.      It's a fighter that is inferior in nearly every possible way to the equivalent Half Orc.   Or human.  Except that you have an ECL of 2.    And apparently, because of the PrC limits, it couldn't be a weapon master.  (You'd have to buy the base INT up to 17.)

On the other hand, the the "no class sniping" rule (forcing people to take 5 levels of any class they switch to) really harms Humans, because the lack of XP limits is one of the advantages of the race.   So if you think about it, it really is no wonder that the most common type of PC is a half-elf.

Again, none of this matters if you're thinking purely about RP.  But with the Death Token/Soul Strand system, you can't afford not to think about it, because your PC will die.   Front line characters, especially, need to think about this, because they're the meat shield.   If you don't have enough "meat" you won't last long as a shield.   An inefficiently built fighter is a dead one.

None of this matters for my next char.  I really like him.   So ECL or not, he's coming out.   (He'll probably die.  He's not really well protected.  But he'll be fun while he lasts.)

I didn't think about weapon master for him though.  That's a good idea.   Dangerous, but hell, why not?

[Dorganath]

For example, in my many years of gaming, I have never played a "half ogre".   So I started designing one, just for fun, and immediately realized it wasn't really a playable race.

Let's say you just want a half-ogre fighter.   You have to buy your INT up to 16, so that it will be 12 to speak another language

No?

I'm not sure why a half-ogre fighter would "need" to buy his way up to 16 INT just to have an adjusted 12 to speak another language.  Common wouldn't be enough? Perhaps in your character concept that's important, but in terms of playability, it's not.

It can also be argued that to make an effective multi-classed character (PrCs notwithstanding), one must similarly make compromises in his/her choices for stats so that each class gets something beneficial.

On the other hand, the the "no class sniping" rule (forcing people to take 5 levels of any class they switch to) really harms Humans, because the lack of XP limits is one of the advantages of the race.   So if you think about it, it really is no wonder that the most common type of PC is a half-elf.

Actually, the half-elf is in a serious (and dwindling) minority.  Doing a quick database query, I see (in order...base races only):

Human: 2661
Elf: 1237
Dwarf: 523
Halfling: 443
Half elf: 294
Half orc: 250
Gnome: 173

Again, none of this matters if you're thinking purely about RP.  But with the Death Token/Soul Strand system, you can't afford not to think about it, because your PC will die.   Front line characters, especially, need to think about this, because they're the meat shield.   If you don't have enough "meat" you won't last long as a shield.   An inefficiently built fighter is a dead one.

There are plenty of ways to make a "weak" character and survive well into one's epic levels.  It's been done several times now.  A front-line fighter can't be weak, it's true, but neither does he need to be a scholar.

[miltonyorkcastle]

For example, in my many years of gaming, I have never played a "half ogre". So I started designing one, just for fun, and immediately realized it wasn't really a playable race.

It's not a "playable" race if you want a half-ogre that plays like a human/half-orc (only really ugly and big), especially for someone like me who does play scholarly "meat shields." *thumbs his nose at Dorg* :p

The stats alterations are designed to accomodate the natural qualities of the beast, and in doing so direct the player to create character designs that are at least close to the (physically) stereotypical half-ogre: exceptionally dumb, slow, and strong. In other words, if you want to play a half-ogre, that must mean you want to play that (dumb, slow, and strong) sort of character. Or you want to play some really off the wall craziness with a half-ogre skin (my usual preference with the half-races).

[SteveMaurer]

No?

I'm not sure why a half-ogre fighter would "need" to buy his way up to 16 INT just to have an adjusted 12 to speak another language.  Common wouldn't be enough?

Because a Ogre's first language is Ogrish.  Their second is common.   That needs a 12 INT.

I suppose I could do a full-on "adopted by humans; can't speak to his own kind" scenario, but if we're talking about cheesy skirting of the rules, that sure seems to me to be really high up there on the list.   (I suppose though, that given the limits, this would be the only way to do a playable half-ogre.)

Personally, it seems pretty obvious that the "must be 12 INT to speak another language" is an Americanism that crept into the D&D rulebooks.   Go to any European country where people are routinely exposed to other languages as children, and you'll find a rate of foreign language understanding much higher than that.    Learning a language is hard only when you start trying in high-school.

[Gulnyr]

Because a Ogre's first language is Ogrish.  Their second is common.   That needs a 12 INT.

I'm pretty sure Common and any racial languages from being that race are free.  Though it can be and has been done, no one has to learn Common or get any sort of approval to gain it.

Races receive their specific ear on creation. Dark elves receive both the elf and Dark Elf ear. Sea Elves get the elf and underwater ear. Druids and rangers start with the animal ear, while rogues start with the ability to use thieves' cant. Certain clerics may also begin with the animal ear depending on domain. Half elves will be able to understand the elven language but the biography and intelligence must support the ability to speak it. These default ears do not count against your bonus languages.

[miltonyorkcastle]

What Gulnyr said. It's not called "Common" for nothing. Everyone and everything knows common (even trees 0.o )! Cheesy? Probably. But do note that while everyone "knows" common, few speak it in the same fashion or with the same proficiency, as mentioned in that recent thread about the dwarven accent.

An ogre's "common," while interpretable, will be much more mangled than most attempts, I suspect.

[Dorganath]

Also...

LORE: Half Ogre

It clearly states that they get both Ogrish and Common as languages, so no additional INT is necessary. Add to that we don't actually have an "Ogrish" language for in-game use.  The closest is Orcish.

Personally, it seems pretty obvious that the "must be 12 INT to speak another language" is an Americanism that crept into the D&D rulebooks.   Go to any European country where people are routinely exposed to other languages as children, and you'll find a rate of foreign language understanding much higher than that.    Learning a language is hard only when you start trying in high-school.

Nah, it's game balance, meant to keep every character from claiming to have grown up speaking 10 languages since age 3.

[SteveMaurer]

Let me quote that passage back to you, with different words emphasized:

The Rules Races receive their specific ear on creation. Dark elves receive both the elf and Dark Elf ear. Sea Elves get the elf and underwater ear. Druids and rangers start with the animal ear, while rogues start with the ability to use thieves' cant. Certain clerics may also begin with the animal ear depending on domain. Half elves will be able to understand the elven language but the biography and intelligence must support the ability to speak it. These default ears do not count against your bonus languages.

Also scattered all over the rules is the following: "Player characters must have a minimum intelligence of 12 to be fluent in another language."

It was these specific passages that led me to the conclusion that the ability to speak a second language requires a 12 INT.  The text seems to be saying is that using a "default" ear not backed by enough INT merely lets a PC understand the language, not speak it (fluently).

If this isn't what you meant, then I'm more than happy to see the clarification.    But that's why I thought that restriction was in place.    And I'm trying to be strictly legal.

I didn't just come up with this restriction all by myself.


And Dorganath, I don't personally like using mechanical rules for "game balance", at least not in my own campaign, Aftermath.   You want your PC to know 10 languages?   Fine, show me a bio that supports that, and I'll let it in.  But if you can't convince me it's reasonable, your PC won't be approved.

Characters should be controlled in the bio/approval process, not by game mechanics.   In fact, most unbalanced campaigns come from some player rules-lawyer who convinces a GM to play a PC because the rules technically allow it, rather than whether it fits into the world.

As a GM, I'm not shy about saying "no".  That fixes most problems right away.

[miltonyorkcastle]

And Dorganath, I don't personally like using mechanical rules for "game balance", at least not in my own campaign, Aftermath. You want your PC to know 10 languages? Fine, show me a bio that supports that, and I'll let it in. But if you can't convince me it's reasonable, your PC won't be approved.

Characters should be controlled in the bio/approval process, not by game mechanics. In fact, most unbalanced campaigns come from some player rules-lawyer who convinces a GM to play a PC because the rules technically allow it, rather than whether it fits into the world.

Heh, I really want to avoid this bees nest, though it's hard because talking about ECL and skins means we're talking about using mechanics to "balance" playable races. I think what you're trying to say, Steve, is that GM ruling should take precedence over mechanics, if the mechanics fail to do what they're designed to do, balancing or otherwise. And that, in fact, is the way we operate here. In fact, if we are able and consider it appropriate, we will change the "mechanics" (take this to a grand scale and you get the MMO ). In this case, though, the mechanics do support the right balance (or what we consider to be the "right" balance).

That said, if you read into the quoted statement that all races need the the proper int bonus to get their racial languages/common, then perhaps a rewording/addition is in order to clarify. I'll take a look at it and consider what might make it more explicit. Feel free to make suggestions.

[Dorganath]

Let me quote that passage back to you, with different words emphasized:



Also scattered all over the rules is the following: "Player characters must have a minimum intelligence of 12 to be fluent in another language."

It was these specific passages that led me to the conclusion that the ability to speak a second language requires a 12 INT.  The text seems to be saying is that using a "default" ear not backed by enough INT merely lets a PC understand the language, not speak it (fluently).

If this isn't what you meant, then I'm more than happy to see the clarification.    But that's why I thought that restriction was in place.    And I'm trying to be strictly legal.

I didn't just come up with this restriction all by myself.

It also says (and you didn't bold this for some reason):

These default ears do not count against your bonus languages.

So anything that's a "default" language does not factor into the maximum language math based on the character's INT modifier, and that's regardless of race or subrace.

And Dorganath, I don't personally like using mechanical rules for "game balance", at least not in my own campaign, Aftermath.   You want your PC to know 10 languages?   Fine, show me a bio that supports that, and I'll let it in.  But if you can't convince me it's reasonable, your PC won't be approved.

Characters should be controlled in the bio/approval process, not by game mechanics.   In fact, most unbalanced campaigns come from some player rules-lawyer who convinces a GM to play a PC because the rules technically allow it, rather than whether it fits into the world.

As a GM, I'm not shy about saying "no".  That fixes most problems right away.

Heh...you mentioned the "Americanization" of language learning in the D&D core rules and that is what I responded to, not our justification for them.

I wasn't saying whether I agreed or disagreed with the D&D core ruling in the matter of languages, just suggesting another reason why they do it.  As a GM in your own campaign, you certainly have a right to say what is and isn't acceptable over a variety of issues.  My old PnP GM absolutely forbid the CN alignment and interestingly enough for many of the same reasons why we restrict it.

So hey, go to town in your own campaign.  Here, we enforce the D&D standard as a GM-driven "house rule", as there is, in fact, no mechanical restriction against knowing every language in existence.

[SteveMaurer]

It also says (and you didn't bold this for some reason):

These default ears do not count against your bonus languages.
 
So anything that's a "default" language does not factor into the maximum language math based on the character's INT modifier, and that's regardless of race or subrace.

I didn't mention it because it had already been mentioned.  To be clear, this is the way the text presently seems to read:
         
INT     Half Elf:
   08  Speaks common poorly, barely understands (does not speak) elvish
 10     Speaks common decently, understands but does not speak elvish
 12     Speaks common and elvish, may learn one additional language.
          (the common/elvish ears do not apply to the bonus extra language)

What it sounds like you're saying, is that the rules really are:
INT     Half Elf:
   08     Speaks common and elvish poorly
 10     Speaks common and elvish decently
 12     Speaks common and elvish, may learn one additional language.

Since it's the latter, I suggest you remove the part talking about speaks elvish only if the PC's "intelligence" supports it.   It really should just be whether the bio supports it.

[Dorganath]

Actually, no.  Unless a half-elf explicitly requests (and is approved for) the elven ear, they don't speak it, well or otherwise.  The statement in the rules about being able to understand it is due to a hook in the language processing code that translates Elvish for half-elves.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Human: 2661
Elf: 1237
Dwarf: 523
Halfling: 443
Half elf: 294
Half orc: 250
Gnome: 173

Looks like we gneed more gnomes in Layognara.

[SteveMaurer]

Feel free to make suggestions.

How about this?

Certain races and classes receive default language ears on creation.  Elves and half-elves receive an elf ear.  Dark elves receive both the elf and Dark Elf ear. Sea Elves get the elf and underwater ear. Druids and rangers start with the animal ear, while rogues start with the ability to use thieves' cant. Certain clerics may also begin with the animal ear depending on domain.

Depending on your approved biography, these ears may not be appropriate for your character.  For example, unless a half-elf was exposed to the elven language while young, they should not have a half-elf ear.  In this case, you are expected to ask a GM on the GM channel to remove the ear from your inventory.   Rarely, with an extensive approved biography that justifies it, your PC will receive a different ear, but these will never be extremely rare languages such as Draconic, Abyssal, or Infernal.

Default ears are not considered a bonus language, but still follow the same rules as common.   For example, an INT 8 elf understands common and elvish, but speaks both very poorly.