Practice Makes Perfect

[Morgenstern]

Consider also the cost.

Using one of these tricks to gain a plus 3 bonus on every single attack of a given type is trivial to set up. The cost for that is one proficiency slot. That is an extraordinarily good cost-to-benefit proposition.

What you are asking for is a bonus of as much as plus 6(!!). I would be happy to oblige, but the cost will be a HECK of a lot more than one proficiency slot. ...That is more on the order of a second or even third tier feat!

If you really, really need a right this second variant, you could take the trick multiple times, which each additional time reducing the attribute requirement by 1. That way the Strength 8 character (with a Charisma of 18) can potentially hit just as consistantly as a character with a Strength of 18, but has had to spend a LOT of training time learning to make up for his lack of natural ability.

[Gatac]

So something like "This proficiency may be chosen freely, but does not grant its benefit to a character without the listed prerequisite" and "This proficiency may be chosen multiple times, each time lowering its prerequisite by one" ?

Gatac

[spinningdice]

I was going to mention that such a benefit would be more than most feats but Morg summed it up pretty well.

[Pneumonica]

I've just had an "I've been a fracking idiot" moment, and there's now a solution that will solve my IBP problem (also the Freaking Intimidating Ogre problem for firearms).

Alter the prerequisites line to read "<ability> of 13+, plus any racial or racial template modifiers the character has to <ability>".  That way the IBP, who gets minimum a -4 to Strength needs only have a 9+ Strength to shift melee attacks to, say, Dexterity, while the FIO who gets minimum +4 would need a 17+.  Thus, every race has the same requirement in terms of how much investment they need in the trait.  While I'll grant that this still gives considerable bonuses (IBP getting a +4 to Dex means you're working on something like a +5 bonus to melee combat if they're not optimized to that), it also means that IBPs and FIOs won't be defenseless in one form of combat or another (the FIO in a firefight is a very extreme example, since low Dex screws her twice, not to mention the Size modifiers and the difficulty finding any reasonable form of cover).

Thoughts?

I realize I may be a niche market with my postulating IBP/FIO type characters in games, but I also know my player's tastes and have to react to them.

EDIT - to clarify an example and to remove references to comboats.     Just goes to show, don't work for the Navy.

[Alphastream]

I think, Pneumonica, that I just have a different take on things. I think PCs need to decide what they are good and bad at. And being bad at combat of one form or another (or both forms) is viable. It can be totally cool to play a pointman that barks out commands from under a desk - they are probably working on something else under the desk anyway... or the faceman that does the same. I read over the various requirements, and I don't see them as limiting in any way. What they do is add some strength to builds that might otherwise be weak. When you want to be a bit of both things, like a Faceman who can fight in melee, these tricks allow you to make a minimal investment in STR and gain the benefits of Charisma for melee attack (for example). That takes a concept that was fairly weak before (+1 to melee attacks) and makes it viable. Way cool.

Teos

[Alphastream]

Question: I am assuming that tricks like Disrupting Shot (free action) still use the underlying action (Tire is a half-action)? Correct? (Seems too strong otherwise).

Teos

[Crafty_Alex]

Question: I am assuming that tricks like Disrupting Shot (free action) still use the underlying action (Tire is a half-action)? Correct? (Seems too strong otherwise).

Teos

Yep!

[meadicus]

The exploit vulnerability melee trick gives an advantage against opponents without armour or a shield. Would it be possible to combine this with a called shot to use this trick against armoured opponents. By the text of both tricks no but in spirit it seems fine.

Can anyone see any problems allowing this?

[Crafty_Alex]

Can anyone see any problems allowing this?

Absolutely. Exploit vulnerability is specifically set to be used against unarmored opponents, not opponents you are trying to ignore the armor on. As you noted (emphasis mine)

By the text of both tricks no but in spirit it seems fine.

The language of this PDF is very specific for just this reason.