Talk:Resilience (3.5e Feat)

Whoa
Okay I have 2 complaints, first is for the +1 ability, I am completely opposed to handle class features as feats, especially at lower level than classes working for it get it. It really need to go, you can add unique abilities without stealing other people's toys. At the very very least you could grant a fortitude-only mettle, but I would still strongly suggest another abilities.

The second is about +16, in it current form it broken in the "possibly problematic way", one example would be positive effects allowing a harmless fort save or use of drugs. Second you shouldn't be immune to a mechanical aspect, for a similar effect you should write "may succeed any fortitude saves as a free action, as if a natural 20 was rolled." imo I would make it once per round as an immediate action, but I digress.

Other than that the feat don't look to bad, just be careful about how abilities are worded and not to step on classes' toes. --Leziad 10:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What he said, and the addition that this seems too strong for rogue IMO. It's the Mettle and the Fort immunity. Honestly give the flavor I think it should say "immunity to Fort spells unless they affect objects" which is what constructs have.  That is, most necromancy spells are out, but you can still get disintergrated or polymorphed object'd. -- Eiji-kun 11:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I missed this the first time around, but second Eiji's suggestions. Those would also seem to bring it into line with the Tome Lightning Reflexes, which sort of steps on Great Fort a bit, but meh. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)