Talk:Intense Training (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I just can't get behind raising ability scores willy-nilly through feats.

Spanambula likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.

Hey, fighter! Did you want to qualify for something, but couldn't because your ability scores are stretched thin as it is and you couldn't afford to raise a 4th or 5th score? Well you're in luck today! Not all feats have to sparkle in direct sunlight. Some feats have to slap a patch on some critical part of your build so you can get back to being awesome with the rest of your character. It might seem boring to some, but that doesn't mean it's not needed.

	Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	I like things that mitigate MAD, it helps melee classes, especially monks and paladins, the most.

How does this interact with bonuses from magic items, spells, tomes/manuals, etc? --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A good points, I say this is applied AFTER racial and other permanent bonuses (size, template and whatnot) bonuses but BEFORE inherent/enhancement and temporary sources. It should be balanced according to my math, although I am still not sure about the balance level. --Leziad (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes it, at level 20, be better than starting with a 20 in that score. I would check your math again. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At level 20... that level 20. The worth of many feat scale greatly with level, like empower spell at 20th compare to 1st. I could top it at 18 but I am not sure. --Leziad (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case it's hella boring. I propose doing something actually interesting with it. Make the ability score as it's written... regardless of buffs/enhancements/etc. It makes it a decent score, without it a straight up (boring) vertical increase, while making you entirely invincible to any buffs/poisons/ability damage/drain done to that ability score.

Also, saying, "It's only unbalanced at level 20" is a poor excuse. Material should be balanced at every level. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I did some changes, tell me what you think. I reversed the formula and did some tweaking. --Leziad (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Still feels boring to me. I liked the other way where it's set at a certain score, and unchangeable by any means like I thought it was originally going to be *shrug* --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well this time around it does not scale with enhancement bonus, the problem with setting a score is that weird occurrence do happen like poison and whatnot as you pointed out. Sadly there is no real way to deal with the boring problem, on my defense this is essentially the same as setting it to a number. It was made to deal with severe MAD in higher powered game, but there no way it can be VH or H. Maybe you could try your hands at it as well? --Leziad (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you this then; what's the benefit of giving a straight up increase to an ability score, one that may or may not be balanced depending on character creation rules (rolled vs. point buy, how many dice, how many points, etc etc etc) as opposed to allowing the use of a different ability score for whatever you're doing, which remains balanced because it hits whatever the cap is for that game regardless of how the rules were structured? --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One give a straight increase while the other make it irrelevant? There is advantages and disadvantage to both and I don't think any ability score should ever be irrelevant. If a game roll for stats though it is either low or moderate (poorly balanced low or moderate) or it just threw balance out the window. As a result I will assume point buy; increasing a deficient ability score to the degree this feat does won't make you as strong as say, use your int instead of your strength (as a wizard or int-focused warblade using spiritual weapon) but it will make you more versatile and less susceptible to ability damage. It won't make the int-based SAD character suddenly get a better to-hit bonus than the fighting guy of the group. I also dislike the idea of making an ability score completely irrelevant, sometime it feel good (I know not an argument) to have good stats across the boards, especially in a game that reward hyperspecialization. One of those feat (trading ability score) reward overspecialization more, while this feat does not. I guess there pro anc con for both, I prefer this method but I will admit that the other method also has merit and is perfectly valid. --Leziad (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

By potentially making them all high, you're potentially making it irrelevant. In fact, you're doing moreso than if you simply switch the proc of an ability from one ability score to another, since you're making them have high everything there with little actual investment. For example, if a sorcerer took a feat that switched their Cha casting to Int, and focused on Int, they wouldn't be as good as the party face. OTOH, with this feat taken for Cha, they could still pump their Int and get all the benefits of both of them at the same time. That's why changing the focus isn't making an ability score irrelevant, unless you think that Charisma is and irrelevant ability score. I mean, let's pretend someone simply dumped con. In that case, taking this feat, they could potentially get +5 (or more) HP per level, great Fort saves, and more. This feat, as it stands, makes the difference in characters from ability scores meaningless, which is why I'd argue to do something different with it instead of simply "pretend you rolled high in this stat or sunk tons of points into it". In short, it makes min-maxing worse, where people will dump a stat entirely if they plan on taking this, and then spend a feat to make it super-high at decent levels without too much else. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree here, simply because with this feat you will not be able to pump Int as high as Cha, starting with a 20 plus enhancement would be much higher than even level 20 benefits of this feat plus all inherent. Additionally your int would only give you skill points, NOT affect the DCs of your spells at all. If you replace dit you could just give up your role as party face (a con) but instead be the group skill monkey, knowledge monkey and have extremely high DC with minimal effort (not possible with intense training, your int would not be high enough). It really just two sides of the same coin. --Leziad (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that you got it wrong here, if they dumb a stat and take this feat, it will never be a high stat, simply decent. The return in point buy from dumping this stat and using up a precious feat slot will be... less than desirable. This feat is best taken when a stat is at 10. --Leziad (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

With all said, I am still open to alternate suggestions. --Leziad (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the feat be changed to not raise the actual ability score, but instead provide a bonus to all skill checks based upon that ability. As an example a fighter could dump into STR and CON, but gain this feat for INT to aid in craft and other INT based skill checks. I would also rest the progression to +1 on skill checks per 3 character levels, rouded down. That way your 20th level pc would get a +6 to the appripriate skill checks.

Also, should the ability score in question be permanently raised beyond 10, then for every 2 points above 10 (rounded up) the bonus to skills is reduced by 1. Thus if that same fighter were to permanently gain 1 point of INT his feat based bonus to INT skills would be reduced by 1.

I do not see the point to that, unsigned IP man. The feat is clearly a MAD mitigation device and is intended to be more than just a skill rank booster, such as helping monks who need a lot of everything everywhere to function. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that creating a feat that gives increasing ability points is unwarranted, especially in the light that level increases and other feats already grant ability increases. As for the point of a skill booster... many of the advantages of high abilities are the modifiers to skill rolls. Other modifiers, such as increased health, better STs, etc. are all aready covered in other feats and such. Futhermore, deciding where to place your better ability scores, and the increases to them, is integral to character implementation and flavor design. I see the feat as written to be a munchkin device combining multiple existing feats and mechanics. Consider this, at 20th level (as written) this feat would grant you +12 to an ability... that is the equivilent of 12 epic feats for the cost of one normal feat. There is just no way that is right in any game where the pcs aren't all carrying artifacts and killing gods at fist level. I signed to make you happy.  :) --75.121.132.104 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, there are plenty of places where increasing ability points is warrented. Level increases are few and far between (+5 over 20 levels, and if you don't put it in your main score... good luck, the game assumes you to be specializing, so you will suffer without it). And the only feats, barring homebrew, that give ability increases at epic level (and they're not even good there, but that's another discussion). In short you have only two options for improving scores which aren't your main ability score, enhancement bonuses and inherent bonuses, and both cost large amounts of money.

MAD exists, and it's generally a bad thing. Part of the imbalance between caster and melee types, beyond the versatility and power creep inherent in spells, is a case of MAD vs SAD. The wizard, the cleric, the druid... they only need to pump their casting stat, maybe with some in Dex or Con for survivability sake, but never much. They have spells to achieve a high AC, replacing Dex. They have spells to never be in a dangerous place in the first place, replacing the need for Con. Some even have spells to replace other things such as skills (replacing Int), social abilities (replacing Cha), or physical feats (replacing Str or Dex). The SAD spellcasters have plenty of resources to cover their bases and weaknesses. What about martials? Short of archery, fighting types will be in melee and therefore always be in a danger zone. They need Dex and/or Con, preferably both, to survive this. They also need Str to attack more often than not. So far it's three important abilities, and yet many classes also need some decent mental abilities. A paladin's spellcasting and smite (Wis and Cha), a monk's AC bonus (Wis), or even just skill points (Int) which they are often suffering from a lack of them. They need them, and they don't have the spells to cover their weaknesses. They could potentially spend money on magic items to cover, but they have a lot to spend. They must buy weapons, armor, ability boosters from 3 or 4 stats, nevermind whatever items they need to compensate for lack of spells or lack of ability scores. And what of the caster? A spell slot, refreshed each day for the low cost of 0 gp. And they're still sitting on their unspent treasure which they can put to anything, probably those ability modifiers which they can now afford, since the caster won't be engaging in melee.

As a result, anything which reduces MAD is a good thing. The reduction isn't free of course, you've spent a precious feat. In core, your basic character will get get 7 over their entire lifespan, so hopefully you have chosen wisely because they need their feats to do things. If this feat only game skill boosters, it defeats the purpose since it wouldn't help the monk who no longer has any points to put in Wis due to MAD, or the fighter who just wanted to be able to use Combat Expertise but can't qualify because he needs those points in Str, Dex, and Con. If he chooses to do otherwise and not specialize, he will suffer badly as D&D rewards specialization, and expects it given the challenges one is expected to face as you level. The increase to multiple things is entirely intentional and by design.

The feat is listed as an unquantifiable feat due to it's possible unknown interactions with various games, but I can be certain that in anything but the lowest power games, maxing out a secondary or lesser ability score at 22 shouldn't greatly affect anything. It would, however, help cover a weakness. Also, it seems your math is off. It's 10 + 2 + 1/2 level. At 20th level that's 10 + 2 + 10=22, not 34, which is what you need for a +12 modifier. Nothin' "munchkin" about that. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Munchskin device" an interesting way to describe the feat. But yeah, that kind of missing the points. I do hope you are not referring to toughness and great fortitude here. The epic feats are considered extremely poor, also remember that even if they were not, you can stack the epic feats on your highest ability score.

Let say you have a fighter/wizard who will go into a gish PrC right? What does he need? Intelligence, Strength, Constitution mostly. He also need to dump his wisdom otherwise he will be mind controlled. Now he get a 32 point buy for his ability (very generous). He decide to make the following ability scores: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8. He decide he like to have a higher than average will saving throw and good wis-based. So he take this feat ad assign it to wisdom, giving him a wisdom of 12. At level 20 he has acquired a +6 item of str, con and Int and +2 in inherent bonuses from tomes or wishes. His ability scored end up at 22, Dex 12, Con 22, Int 29, Wis 22, Cha 8. Essentially the only thing this feat did was scale his wisdom with his other non-primary ability scores. Is that strong? Yes, it about as strong as some other feats and wile weaker than shit like divine metamagic and greenbound summoning, heck even shock trooper is better! Is it artifact-carrying PCs at level 1st? No, at first level it was only 12 Wis, even at 20 a 22 is nothing particularly special. Don't be scared of numbers man. --Leziad (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on this, but that s ok. I still feel that a feat of this power is too much as a normal feat. As a variant to this feat, and to the normal epic feats for ability increases, I created the Great ABility eic feat. And Eiji, my math was spot on, you misread +12 to the ability as +12 modifier. --75.121.132.104 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)