Difference between revisions of "Talk:Metamagic Expertise (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
m |
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I understand your concerns, but in this case I'm not so sure. Many metamagic effects themselves are VH, and so are most of the abusable spells. I don't see this feat by itself warrant a VH. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] ([[User talk:Sulacu|talk]]) 07:22, 4 May 2017 (MDT) | :I understand your concerns, but in this case I'm not so sure. Many metamagic effects themselves are VH, and so are most of the abusable spells. I don't see this feat by itself warrant a VH. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] ([[User talk:Sulacu|talk]]) 07:22, 4 May 2017 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: That's a strong case for unquaunt, which I'd also be a proponent of, since this feat in and of itself and by itself does nothing on its own. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:39, 4 May 2017
Balance
Metamagic shenanigans should always be VH IMO, since they can lead to some pretty crazy things. --Ghostwheel (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2017 (MDT)
- I understand your concerns, but in this case I'm not so sure. Many metamagic effects themselves are VH, and so are most of the abusable spells. I don't see this feat by itself warrant a VH. --Sulacu (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2017 (MDT)
- That's a strong case for unquaunt, which I'd also be a proponent of, since this feat in and of itself and by itself does nothing on its own. --Ghostwheel (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (MDT)
