Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reliable Ability (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
m (Text replace - "==Rating==" to "== Ratings ==") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
On Sulacu's point - is it intended that this ignores spells that fizzle due to SR? I think his point is very valid, as if this is the case, this is a fair bit better than Fighter-level implies to me. - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) | On Sulacu's point - is it intended that this ignores spells that fizzle due to SR? I think his point is very valid, as if this is the case, this is a fair bit better than Fighter-level implies to me. - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Sulacu is female! | ||
Revision as of 22:49, 16 July 2012
I like the rewording you did Surgo. Its much clearer than what I originally wrote but still the same message. Thanks!
Oddly enough, this was actually inspired by the "reliable" powers in 4th edition. Sad, but true. Arkangelknight 18:16, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Ratings
|
MisterSinister likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| While fighter-level balance isn't something I believe in, for what it's worth, I think this is a meaningfully-useful feat at that balance point. It's especially handy for paladins and suchlike, who have a lot of /day abilities that REALLY suck when missed. |
|
|
Sulacu likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| The feat is worth taking just to get rid of the frustration of blowing precious abilities due to bad luck or crappy rolls. However, if this includes spells that fizzle due to a target's spell resistance, it should be a little bit stronger than Fighter level. |
On Sulacu's point - is it intended that this ignores spells that fizzle due to SR? I think his point is very valid, as if this is the case, this is a fair bit better than Fighter-level implies to me. - MisterSinister 02:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sulacu is female!
