Talk:Monastic Adept (3.5e Feat)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


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)
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)
I personally don't think the monk belt should work that way--and neither does Pathfinder, for what it's worth. The item doesn't actually say you add your Wis to AC--just that you gain the AC bonus of a 5th level monk (+1). I've never actually seen it say anywhere officially that you get wis to AC from the item--link me, if there is such a thing? Regardless, I disagree with the design principles behind this feat. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wis to AC or not it still give a lot of monk class features without taking a level but that beside the point. I think 3 level in monk in a feat is enough of an investment to grant the rest of the class at moderate and higher, the rest just isn't worth it. You gain noth of what you don't already have. No matter how it was designed and for who, a monk taking this feat then multiclassing to something worth it will be able to actively participate in the game and keep the monk flavor without being nerfed to oblivion. --Leziad (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Note the wording on Monk's Belt and the Monk's ability "AC Bonus".
If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.
Monk's Belt
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).
This is pretty clearcut. The Monk's Belt gives you the ability "AC Bonus" from the Monk, which explicitly states you get your Wisdom bonus (if any) to your AC. This is reinforced by 3.5e FAQ released that states on Page 62:
When the monk’s belt refers to the “AC bonus” of a 5th- level monk, it is referring to the monk ability called AC bonus. It grants +1 bonus to AC and adds your Wisdom modifier to your Armor Class if you are not wearing armor and are not encumbered
—3.5e FAQ
--TK-Squared (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Disagreeing with the design principles is no reason to merit an oppose; at most, that merits a dislike. As is, you've said that you don't want this feat to exist at all under any circumstances for any player in any game even though the only complaint you've actually voiced about is "I disagree with the philosophy this feat enables," which is not only not a good argument, but is objectively bad for the game because it limits possible choices to only things that meet a very specific design philosophy. Given the game we all take part in, the numbers who play it, and the sheer number of authors there are who contributed to it, it's laughable to even think you'd be able to maintain the principles while also adding any kind of variation to what can be played. --Undead_Knave (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
LikedDanielDraco + and Eiji-kun +
OpposedGhostwheel +