Talk:Monk of Tomorrow (3.5e Feat)

Why No ACF?
Like it says on the label. This is doing a lot for a feat, over a lot of levels. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. I don't feel bad about this, ACF require fair trade, despite doing a LOT it not anymore powerful than some upper power feats. --Leziad (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think ACFs require a fair trade, particularly not when they're trying to shift a class up or down a balance category. If you think that paying a feat is a fair trade for getting this, and you seem to since you made it a feat, then you can do it as an ACF that makes them lose their 1st level bonus feat in exchange for getting this, and push stunning fist back to level 2 bonus feat (or take away their bonus at 2 or 6 and give them this early at 1, whatever). But as written it looks a lot like a feat tax on playing H-ish balance monks than a legitimate feat option, and I'm not a fan. - Tarkisflux Talk  01:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will consider. ACFs have compatibility problems sometime and dealing with that is annoying. --Leziad (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh and this feat isn't 1st level only, as a result if you REALLY need early level feat you can actually take MoT later, no such luxury with an ACF. --Leziad (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going the feat route because that's what you're charging for this and you seem to want a trade, not because I think one is even needed. You could just say that the ACF was trading out all of the crap class features for a bunch of good class features, which is technically a trade even if it was a straight upgrade because it was intended to boost them a balance cat or 2. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well the feat don't trade class features for other, it grant new abilities based on class features you have. Which is weird to do the way i formatted this feat. --Leziad (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get that, which is why I said it's doing a lot. I'm just making semantics arguments, don't mind me, continue considering. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)