Talk:Powerful Build (3.5e Feat)

Ratings
== Prereqs ==

I think the prereqs might be a bit harsh for first level characters. Perhaps lower the required Strength to 16, or make it be able to be acquired past first level? (Personally I think the first option fits more.) It's just hard for most melee characters to get 18 Str at first level, especially since they're not dependent on a single ability score like casters are. --Ghostwheel 12:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is more a Rogue level feat, but that may just be may bias for melee showing. There should be a Con req on it too, since there is more to stature than physical strength alone.  Str 17, Con 15?  Or Str 16, Con 16?  Honestly, I'm not sure how readily I'd let a player take this (again, my bais).--Tavis McCricket 15:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Str 15 and Con 13 or Str 17 and Con 13. Ability score prerequisites appear to be odd. Str 15 because the races that get Powerful Build, Goliath and Half-Giant, both have strength bonuses and the highest of them is +4 for Goliath, which would mean that the average Goliath (10s and 11s) would be able to get it. Also, this feat isn't fighter level really. Powerful Build is a very good ability for a race, after all. It's quite a significant part of the LA +1 both of the races get. Especially potent when, keeping with Fighters, you Dungeoncrasher, really. --TK 19:28, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think adding the con requirement is a tad bit unfair to undead PCs. In addition, I think that the 18 strength is extremely unfair to people who roll stats, they don't have the choice to devote their rolls to get strength to 18 if their highest roll is a 16. I also think that this would be better as a feat you don't have to take at first level, as the characters do get more powerful (and their strength increases) as they level up.The Dire Reverend 03:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bump, this should totally be Str 15, not 18. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As this feat was made before the split from wikia and the user has not re-registered, I suggest adoption by a willing party as an alternative as the original author is unavailable to address community concerns. --Ganteka Future (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote that Eiji-kun or Ghostwheel adopt it. Was this a vote? :p The-Marksman (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that. Do I need to post something since the user isn't around? --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Community seems largely on board with the proposed changes, so I'd just give it another couple of days to make sure no one objects to an adoption before proceeding. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)