Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monastic Adept (3.5e Feat)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added rating.)
(Added rating.)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Ratings ==
 
== Ratings ==
 +
{{Rating |rater=DanielDraco
 +
|rating=like
 +
|reason=I wrote out my reasoning twice already and the little box kept closing and losing my work. I'm not going to spell it out again. Suffice to say that, in a Moderate game, the usefulness of a Low class is irrelevant. No harm is done by compressing it into a feat.
 +
}}
 
{{Rating |rater=Eiji-kun
 
{{Rating |rater=Eiji-kun
 
|rating=like
 
|rating=like

Revision as of 21:30, 23 March 2014

Ratings

RatedLike.png DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
I wrote out my reasoning twice already and the little box kept closing and losing my work. I'm not going to spell it out again. Suffice to say that, in a Moderate game, the usefulness of a Low class is irrelevant. No harm is done by compressing it into a feat.
RatedLike.png Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
I like things that scale scaling features (such as IL, CL, etc) without granting new features. I find that fair and just. That... and it's monk. Its the archetypal weak class. No complaints here.
RatedOppose.png Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
I'm strongly against feats that make taking more levels in a class worthless without any real downsides. Also the argument, "But WotC did it first," doesn't fly--just because they did bad design sometimes doesn't mean we need to copy them.


Taking more levels in monk is worthless. --Leziad (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
LikedDanielDraco + and Eiji-kun +
OpposedGhostwheel +