Talk:Chain Bikini Chick (3.5e Feat)

Balance Point
This hardly seems like a Wizard-level feat to me. In fact, the premise of having no armor and replacing it with an ability bonus (not to mention in an ability score that is traditionally a dump stat for fighters) is Monk-level to me since it restricts armor usage and increases MAD. Even April Fool's stuff has to be more or less worth taking. This is not, barring its use by a class that not only uses Charisma but also has no armor usage. - TG Cid 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know that I would call it Monk lvl. lets try to remember the Sorcerer, she would have ASF if using traditionel armor and her Charisma ought to be throu the roof... but wizard lvl. it is not and i don't see anybody but people with charisma very high taking this. As it is I would say at least fighter and maybe even on a good day rogue lvl. Born to Be Wild 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. It sort of encourages the stereotype of female wizards wearing nothing, which isn't a totally bad thing. But for what I'm guessing the design intent was, it doesn't really work. I agree, though, that in the hands of a sorcerer it could be useful. - TG Cid 18:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well i was thinking from the Sorc, Warlock, Tome or Variant Paladin and some other charisma using classes perspective, where charism has good use. And well it has actualy no restrictions, apart from the armor usage, it is luck bonus, so it stacks with all the other armor stuff. It may get into Full plate AC for some classes. Hm, i should add that it aplies to touch attacks too. That could make it more wizardy. The intent was to convert a dandwiki feat that i found amusing and make it more usefull. Sergejsvk 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I could make it more fighter (or any other armor user) friendly by letting Light (or maybe even Medium?) armor be used. Thoughts on this? Charsima not so dump stat? Sergejsvk 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this feat already has a mechanical equivalent basically on the wiki here, with even fewer restrictions... --Ghostwheel 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)