# New skill feats



## Verequus (Jun 20, 2005)

I've discovered, that the magical skills except spellcraft don't have a feat associated, which gives a +2 bonus. So I thought to add them myself with the pairings Divination/Scry and Dispel Magic/Knowledge (arcana). Knowledge (arcana) is the best still available skill as the fourth member.


Diviner [General]

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Divination checks and Scry checks.


Dispeller [General]

 Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Dispel Magic checks and Knowledge (arcana) checks.


If someone has suggestions for better names, I'd like to hear them. And RW, I'd like to see them included in the compilation.

Edit: I've forgotten about this - should the magical skills gain or give synergy boni?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 20, 2005)

Those are actually overpowered, I believe. Having Skill Focus by itself is probably too much, since it gives you much more power with a magical skill than any other feat would give you with other types of spell lists. But also making those feats available would be too much.

In the skill-based system I'm working on, magical skills are not modified by anything, not even ability scores. Only a few very specific feats grant bonuses, to make those bonuses special.


----------



## Verequus (Jun 20, 2005)

So you are adding a note, that magical applications don't benefit from those boni (including the ability scores)? That is good to know. Edit: Oh, and what about racial boni? Shouldn't they allowed, too?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 20, 2005)

In the normal EOM system I don't intend to change the rules -- power-gaming can make you very good at a magical skill, but it is probably manageable. I just don't want to add more ways to power game. Existing bonuses are fine, but you should be careful about making it easier to become a munchkin.


----------



## Verequus (Jun 21, 2005)

Hmm, is then the feat Magical Aptitude okay? It does give a +2 bonus to Spellcraft and Use Magic Device. If you are worried about similar feats, should then Magical Aptitude revised to give a +2 bonus to Knowledge (arcana)?


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Jun 28, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> In the skill-based system I'm working on, magical skills are not modified by anything, not even ability scores. Only a few very specific feats grant bonuses, to make those bonuses special.




That seems very strange and un-D20-ish to me.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 28, 2005)

It's a new mechanic that piggy-backs off of an existing resource in order to make magic available to all classes.

Basically, instead of adding a new class (which really doesn't fit with d20 modern) or making everything be feat based (which _could_ work, but would require tons of feats for a variety of spells), this system lets you use skill points for something other than normal skills.  Just like there's a feat that lets you get 4 or 5 skill points, this system lets you spend skill points to get spells.

It still fits the d20 system because you have DCs to match, and you get better at making these checks as you level up. If you're interested in how the system works, I'd be glad to explain it in more detail.


----------



## dekrass (Jun 28, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If you're interested in how the system works, I'd be glad to explain it in more detail.





I know I'd like to hear more.
I'll probably buy the book anyway.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 28, 2005)

You can see a preview here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=136885


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Jun 29, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It's a new mechanic that piggy-backs off of an existing resource in order to make magic available to all classes.




See, I'm not sure I find that, in and of itself, desireable.  I'd just have used a Talent tree and made it available to selective ones.  I don't see any reason for the first three basic classes to have direct access to magic.



> It still fits the d20 system because you have DCs to match, and you get better at making these checks as you level up. If you're interested in how the system works, I'd be glad to explain it in more detail.




I suspect from the description the basic premise you used when making it isn't appearling to me, so there's probably no reason to make you spend a lot of time elaborating on it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 29, 2005)

The game master is of course free to limit magic to only the 'non-physical' classes, but I feel that's a limitation of the D&D system that doesn't necessarily belong in a modern game.  If you look at Bad-Axe Games' Grim Tales, they have a magic system that works with any class. 

The benefit of this system is that, while the non-physical will still be the best spellcasters, you can add a bit of magical power to the physical classes. Strong heroes can become kinda like paladins, fast heroes can become kinda like monks. There's no existing archetype that is 'tough' with magical powers, but it's an intriguing character possibility. Also, if I used talents, Smart Heroes would stop being 'smart' and would just become 'magic class #1'.  The talents are key to defining the character's role, and I like that with this system you can have a character fill more than one role.

In order to be able to use magic at all, you have to spend a feat, and then you can spend skill points on a selection of magical skills. Which skills you can choose depends on which feat you pick, so the "Christian Magus" feat will give you access to different spells than the "Norse Runecasting" feat.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Jul 1, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The benefit of this system is that, while the non-physical will still be the best spellcasters, you can add a bit of magical power to the physical classes. Strong heroes can become kinda like paladins, fast heroes can become kinda like monks. There's no existing archetype that is 'tough' with magical powers, but it's an intriguing character possibility. Also, if I used talents, Smart Heroes would stop being 'smart' and would just become 'magic class #1'. The talents are key to defining the character's role, and I like that with this system you can have a character fill more than one role.




And I think you could make this sort of argument just as easily about the Talent trees currently in the latter three classes.  I find magical ability a non-physical enough process that I think the association with the Smart and Dedicated classes in particular as legitimate as the things they already have.

Essentially, if the D20M classes are going to have any meaning, I think trying to work against that as you've done here is essentially counterproductive.

I'm aware there's room for disagreement on this, and I mean no offense, but that's where I sit on the subject.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 1, 2005)

No offense taken. I just figure that if the ruleset lets Strong Heroes have Knowledge (physical sciences) or Craft (electronics) -- either as a cross-class skill or because they have the appropriate starting profession -- I don't think allowing them to have a 'non-physical' ability like spellcasting is a flavor problem.

I'm probably not going to change your mind, but thanks for pointing out a different viewpoint. I had thought most people like the flexibility d20 Modern already allows (it's much more flexible than core D&D for basic character creation), and I had not considered that this system might be going slightly across the line of what is acceptable flexibility for some gamers.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Jul 5, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> No offense taken. I just figure that if the ruleset lets Strong Heroes have Knowledge (physical sciences) or Craft (electronics) -- either as a cross-class skill or because they have the appropriate starting profession -- I don't think allowing them to have a 'non-physical' ability like spellcasting is a flavor problem.
> 
> I'm probably not going to change your mind, but thanks for pointing out a different viewpoint. I had thought most people like the flexibility d20 Modern already allows (it's much more flexible than core D&D for basic character creation), and I had not considered that this system might be going slightly across the line of what is acceptable flexibility for some gamers.




Well, to me the strength of D20M is that its a comprimise between a freeform character gen and advancement system and a more traditional class based one; to a lesser degree so is D&D 3 in general.  I don't have anything intrinsically against freeform systems, but I think if D20M wanted to take that tact, the classes themselves wouldn't exist; you'd just have a single class like CoC D20 did, and then various feats and such to toggle things.

As long as the system is still going to keep some things in some classes and some things in others, I just find magic one of those things where the distinction should be made (note I don't have the same issue with psychic powers, at least to the same degree; if I ever use a D20 M based psychic campaign I'll be using Green Ronin/Steve Kenson's Psychic's Handbook for example) but here it simply feels--inappropriate.

Thanks for not taking my response as hostile, though.


----------

