Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monastic Adept (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:: That's not the point--it invalidates the class almost entirely. At that point, you might as well just make a feat that says, "Gain all the first level benefits of a monk. These scale with your level." It's not good design to entirely invalidate classes, regardless of their balance level. There should always be an incentive of some sort to take more levels in the class, even if it's just so your unarmed strike, flurry, AC bonus, and stunning fists per day scale. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | :: That's not the point--it invalidates the class almost entirely. At that point, you might as well just make a feat that says, "Gain all the first level benefits of a monk. These scale with your level." It's not good design to entirely invalidate classes, regardless of their balance level. There should always be an incentive of some sort to take more levels in the class, even if it's just so your unarmed strike, flurry, AC bonus, and stunning fists per day scale. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: You could wear a monk belt too. I don't think it bad design when you already paid 3 level for it, which in a low class within a moderate or higher game is a pretty steep investment. Your example is bad, that feat would give an entire class without any class level investment. I won't comment on the bad design comment, since it clear you and me do not have the same design philosophy. --[[User:Leziad|Leziad]] ([[User talk:Leziad|talk]]) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:02, 23 March 2014
Ratings
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
- That's not the point--it invalidates the class almost entirely. At that point, you might as well just make a feat that says, "Gain all the first level benefits of a monk. These scale with your level." It's not good design to entirely invalidate classes, regardless of their balance level. There should always be an incentive of some sort to take more levels in the class, even if it's just so your unarmed strike, flurry, AC bonus, and stunning fists per day scale. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You could wear a monk belt too. I don't think it bad design when you already paid 3 level for it, which in a low class within a moderate or higher game is a pretty steep investment. Your example is bad, that feat would give an entire class without any class level investment. I won't comment on the bad design comment, since it clear you and me do not have the same design philosophy. --Leziad (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
