Talk:Stealthy, Aarnott (3.5e Feat)

Balance

Even factoring in how many skill points you save, would this perhaps be greater at rogue-level? I'm unsure, could go either way... --Ghostwheel 21:04, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I initially designed them to be rogue (a long time ago), but when I was posted them now, they seemed a tad bit strong. Namely the hide in plain sight for this one. I could always tone them down a bit and bring them to rogue level or beef them up a bit to be more competitive with wizard level. The main idea was just the skill compression plus some other goodies. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 21:13, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I guess so... you're right though, best to err on the side of caution when rating the balance range of things *nod* --Ghostwheel 21:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the Hide in Plain Sight thing, this feat isn't all that powerful (getting extra skill points to spend on other skills is not as good as improving specific skills to RNG-Ignoring levels), and you only get that at level 20. This is nearer to Rogue level than Wizard level. --Foxwarrior 21:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

If there was a feat that just gave HiPS, would it be a rogue-level or wizard-level feat? (Say, if its requirements were 9 in Hide and 9 in Move Silently?) --Ghostwheel 21:38, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I would say rogue-level. Hide in Plain Sight only gets rid of one requirement of sneaking, and most versions of it still have some clause (natural terrain, near a shadow, etc.) --Foxwarrior 21:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I'd prefer people erred on the side of liberal, not conservative, when putting balance ratings. Surgo 22:49, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have our own preferences; however, I think there is a far greater issue than opinion and such when deciding whether to rate the balance point of things higher or lower, and that is our credibility. A tag says basically, "Material at this level shouldn't be overpowered in a game of [balance point] or higher." If a DM looks around for the first time after having the balance points explained to him, and then sees an article that teeters on the edge between rogue and wizard, but is named "rogue", he'll assume that it's fine for rogue-level-or-higher games. But what if his game is low-to-mid rogue-level, and this feat alone allows a player to unbalance it? Then we've lost most of our credibility with this DM, as well as potentially his gaming group and the people he communicates with on a regular basis on D&D. Their knee-jerk reaction might become, "That wiki? Just overpowered stuff on there." Sure that's an incredible over-generalization, but something similar to this has happened twice already with people whom I've invited to look at the wiki. Rather than personal preference, I think that our credibility is far more important in this case, which is why it's better to err on the side of caution. --Ghostwheel 23:13, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Back on the balance topic at hand, you aren't getting HiPS until level 20. If you haven't got it by then, my guess is you don't need it (Sure it'd be fun to have and you could probably make use of it, but at a rogue/wizard level game you'd want it before then). With that in mind, I think I would have to call this rogue level. That's my line of reasoning, at least. --The Badger 23:21, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, I feel that it might be leaning more towards rogue as well than wizard-level, though Badger put it most succinctly. By that level, I'm sure you can find another way (greater invis?) to HiPS. --Ghostwheel 23:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support calling this rogue as is, but if you wanted to beef it up to a more definite wizard level, how about adding something like "X(15?) Ranks: you can always take 10 on Stealth, even when being rushed, threatened, or distracted. This can be used in conjunction with the 18 ranks bonus"? Something along the lines of the rogue's Skill Mastery. I think that would make its Wizard tag much more deserving. --The Badger 01:19, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Skill points don't really matter late game. +2 bonus on a skill is nice, but will be swallowed by other bonuses and doesn't really matter. Once a day abilities on something that's supposed to be checked every round anyway (not that people actually do that) don't matter. HiPS is nice, but doesn't matter that late. There's a bit of hyperbole in the things not mattering, cause I'm sure they will in specific circumstances, but meh. This really really looks rogue, and only then because of the skills involved. - TarkisFlux 04:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect it is a very bad idea to just "err on the side of caution" like I did here as far as balance rankings are concerned. A well designed feat shouldn't have much room for debate as far as where its balance rating is concerned. If there is confusion in that respect, it should just be rated as unquantifiable (or whatever category we have for things that don't fit the balance level mold), which, as written, this feat is. This feat isn't quite rogue level (it might be, but it is a little iffy) and it isn't quite wizard level. Note: this methodology also applies to erring on the side of liberal. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 12:52, April 15, 2010 (UTC)