Talk:Leopard's Insight (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Revision as of 19:58, 2 December 2016 by Aarnott (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Ratings

Blocked
RatedOppose.png
Rating
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.
Should be VH, basically +5 (or more) to AC from a single feat.


I asked you not to rate my content, delete it or give a valid complaint about it aside from a +5 at level 20. --Furhammer (talk)

You cannot remove the ratings of others. If you want them gone, you can either debate the ratings or change the article in such a way as to address the issues the rater has with it, then ask the rater to change his rating. Once again, view Rating Articles for more information on rating articles and modifying/removing ratings.
Hint, in this case, just changing the balance to 'Very High' will probably be enough to do that. --Sulacu (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Balanced changed--Furhammer (talk)
Just wanted to note that GW's point here isn't that it's +5 at 20 here, it's that regular rerolls about worth a +5 bonus at any level. I'm not sure I agree with his math (haven't taken the time to actually do it in this case, and rerolls are a bit fuzzy depending on assumptions anyway), but assuming it's accurate this stacks with your stance feat to grant something like +7 to 10 to AC on top of other benefits. That's not a small number. I think you'd have a hard time finding two other High balance feat options that synergize into such a bonus. So I agree with him that this is a better fit at VH (though I disagree with GW's general contention that pushing people off the AC / Attack RNG is a problem in High balance synergies).
More generally, for balance complaints against an article your best bet is probably going to be to familiarize yourself with Dungeons and Dragons Wiki:Article Balance and make an argument based on similarity with material specifically listed therein or to other articles on the wiki with the indicated balance. It might be that your material just fits better at a different level, or it might be that they're just making inappropriate claims. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't equivalent to a +5. Here's a cumulative probability distribution: link. Maybe under the assumption that they hit you on an 11 or higher it becomes basically +5 AC, but it's probably a closer comparison to say +4. --Aarnott (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)