Talk:Practiced Sneak Attack (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

I on the other hand love Practiced X feats. They promote multiclassing, which for noncasters is pretty much a requirement for them to keep up with others. An argument could be made for High, but there is nothing wrong with the design philosophy. On the contrary, its just what we need. It's not a vertical power boost, for the thing with all practiced feats (and an important thing) is the inability to break the HD limit, so your power is always of an appropriate level while you are free to grow horizontally via multiclassing. Three cheers for more options!

The thing is that additions to damage stack vertically for non-casters. This is a clear "do what you already do, but better" for people who have access to sneak attack. It means that at a cost of a single level of rogue (let's not even go into swordsage) you get 3d6 of sneak attack, which is huge. You shouldn't in general be penalized too hard in your vertical growth for gaining horizontal growth, but on the other hand you shouldn't be made stronger vertically for gaining horizontal power, which is what this feat does. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Quibble - pre-req is SA as class feature, which stance does not actually grant. Swordsage doesn't work. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Balance on this should be at LEAST High, but far more important than that, I dislike this feat strongly because it gives a strong deterrent to taking more levels in a class (since often SA is the primary reason to continue taking levels in it), and even more importantly, is a boring straight up vertical boost in power which goes against the design philosophies I believe in.

By rating this oppose, you are indicating that it should be removed from the main nav. Your reasons for this seem to largely be 'discourages single classing' and 'goes against the design philosophies you believe in', which seem pretty crap and largely insufficient to warrant a removal. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And that I dislike it and that I think it's bad for the game don't make a difference? :-P --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that you should be rating it 1/4 unless you absolutely think the site shouldn't even show it. --Aarnott (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

My complaints about his oppose aside, I don't disagree with Ghost that this is weird... during the early levels. It has a pretty decent impact if you take 1 level in an SA class and then 4 levels in anything else. I'm not sure it's too big an impact at 5, and I certainly don't care about a couple of extra SA dice at 9, but pushing it back a couple of levels with prereqs couldn't hurt (say, 3 levels in a SA granting class). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot different from Practiced Spellcaster in that it gives you everything the other class gave you (not just caster level). I'm partial to my own implementation for BAB: Practiced Combatant. --Aarnott (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)