Difference between revisions of "Talk:I Have a Punning Clan (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
m (no... it's pretty much fighter...) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::::Feels weak even for fighter level. I'd make it a -2 penalty. Or make the feat monk level. Spending a swift action for -1 per enemy attack from a single enemy just feels worthless. Heck, dodge gives +1 AC against all the attacks from a single target and dodge is probably monk level. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | :::::Feels weak even for fighter level. I'd make it a -2 penalty. Or make the feat monk level. Spending a swift action for -1 per enemy attack from a single enemy just feels worthless. Heck, dodge gives +1 AC against all the attacks from a single target and dodge is probably monk level. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::It's strength is messured by your friends. If a typical party has four members, that is three penalized rolls right there. Hirelings are available at 1rst level, thus you can start penalizing even more rolls if you have enough coin. Once Leadership and talking familiars get into the mix, the number of penalized rolls gos to "batshit insane". However, the penalty itself is a 5% decrease in effectiveness for most rolls, though I purposely left "penalized rolls" ambiguous enough that theoretically you can penalize damage as well. Thus, fighter unless you have a really small group or play by yourself.--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:12, 18 July 2011
I'm always a fan of a good pun. Also, feels balanced. --Havvy 05:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is an extreme example, but this could get out of hand in combination with Leadership-style feats, even (and particularly) the adjusted ones that only grant followers. Suddenly you have over a dozen allies giving cumulative penalties to an opponent, which since it doesn't say otherwise I can only presume can go to negatives. That last bit was intended to be sarcastic, but I think that explains it about right. You could probably fix it by imposing a CR minimum on the allies to make their taunt effective. The BBEG shouldn't be worrying about the taunts of a mook who he can kill with almost no effort. - TG Cid 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's a misread Cid. Each additional guy contributing looks like they provide an additional -1 on a different roll, and it doesn't appear that you can stack them at all. So you could load someone up with a few hundred -1s, but they would each apply to a different roll and any unused at the end of the round are simply wasted. So you could give a guy -1 to all of his rolls with a sufficiently large retinue, but that's not all that big of a deal. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feels weak even for fighter level. I'd make it a -2 penalty. Or make the feat monk level. Spending a swift action for -1 per enemy attack from a single enemy just feels worthless. Heck, dodge gives +1 AC against all the attacks from a single target and dodge is probably monk level. --Aarnott 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's strength is messured by your friends. If a typical party has four members, that is three penalized rolls right there. Hirelings are available at 1rst level, thus you can start penalizing even more rolls if you have enough coin. Once Leadership and talking familiars get into the mix, the number of penalized rolls gos to "batshit insane". However, the penalty itself is a 5% decrease in effectiveness for most rolls, though I purposely left "penalized rolls" ambiguous enough that theoretically you can penalize damage as well. Thus, fighter unless you have a really small group or play by yourself.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feels weak even for fighter level. I'd make it a -2 penalty. Or make the feat monk level. Spending a swift action for -1 per enemy attack from a single enemy just feels worthless. Heck, dodge gives +1 AC against all the attacks from a single target and dodge is probably monk level. --Aarnott 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
