Talk:Leopard's Insight (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

Blocked 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)

This is essentially a scaling feat that you must take 3 times, the first time you take it you gain a growing bonus to Attack/AC that caps at +5 at level 20, the second time you gain the ability to force rerolls from a single opponent making a attack roll against you, the third time you gain the ability to reroll attacks against a single opponent. When you look at the second 2 at face value yes it seems over powered, until you realise that it cost Ki to use, and generally a monk will not have a very large Ki pool to keep up a constant offense and defense. Effectivly every feat I have been posting has a Ki cost to it and unless a monk were to take say GW's way of the hare feat a monk will lose effectiveness after a single encounter for they will be constantly spending Ki points.

Now let us discuss the issue of Balance, in no way does this ability have the potential to cause as much havoc as a wizard with spells, the main class that will be using this feat is a monk, and monks are a Low balance. --Furhammer (talk)

If you're trying to make the argument that this just tried to bring Monks up to VH level a bit... sure... ish. I agree that this won't take a L class and make it VH, none of the other VH feats do that either. Divine Metamagic isn't going to turn an Adept into a VH class, even if you voltron up a bunch of other feats with it. But this isn't a Monk or even Low Balance Class only feat. All of your benefits scale with HD (or are supposed to per your comments) and have BAB prereqs. Any class in the game could have this by 9 just by spending their standard feats on it and it would be just as strong for them as for the Monk this is intended for. You could put this on a beatstick Cleric or a Rogue or even a Fighter and they would be doing more with it than the Monk. This is a potentially weird build for those others, but it's also a lot stronger than their alternatives if they want AC or attack for some particular reason.

Which is mostly why we balance feats with respect to alternative feats that could be selected, not their intended use case. And this is strong compared to those alternatives regardless of what class you're playing. If some players in a game took other H feats, this would be better than those feats. That's all that a VH label on a feat means, and I think it applies in this case even if the resulting character wasn't a VH build by virtue of making a weird feat choice or having a lot of class feature suckage to make up for.

If you really wanted this to be a boost for Monks, you might be better served by building an 3.5e Alternate Class Feature for the Monk that restricted these improvements to them only, or just baking it into a whole new Monk revision. Making it a feat means comparing it with other feats, and in that comparison it's really quite good even if limited by prereqs or ki pool. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)