Difference between revisions of "Talk:Object Familiar (3.5e Feat)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
(→About Bonus Feats) |
TheDarkWad (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
To be fair, Scaling Feats are a thing, so it's not unheard of for a feat to give multiple feats as a benefit. I figure you're trading a (General) feat for a more restricted (Fighter) feat which relies on you having the weapon. Sorry you didn't like it. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | To be fair, Scaling Feats are a thing, so it's not unheard of for a feat to give multiple feats as a benefit. I figure you're trading a (General) feat for a more restricted (Fighter) feat which relies on you having the weapon. Sorry you didn't like it. -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm typically fine with scaling feats, because they usually give something specific, and thus by taking a scaling feat you are giving up on taking something else. The problem I have with something like this is that there is no opportunity cost (unless I guess if all the other feats you would otherwise be taking would be scaling, but if that is the intent of this feat, that should be specified in the article). If you are a gish or something, and you want to take a (Fighter) feat, there is very little reason not to take this instead. Trading a (General) feat for a (Fighter) feat is only a drawback if there isn't a (Fighter) feat you would otherwise be taking. Yeah, it is possible to lose access to the item, but usually, at least in all the games I've played, the type of important, character defining items that an object familiar presumably is, might be lost once in a campaign, and usually are retrieved by the end of the session. At the very least, losing this item is a plot point, and as such isn't going to be overdone enough to have the in-game implications that would make it a reasonable drawback, especially when the many other benefits are taken into account.--[[User:TheDarkWad|TheDarkWad]] ([[User talk:TheDarkWad|talk]]) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:59, 3 November 2015
Ratings
|
TheDarkWad dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I would like this feat, except for one particular bond benefit: bonus feat. It doesn't make sense for a feat to grant a bonus feat. |
About Bonus Feats
To be fair, Scaling Feats are a thing, so it's not unheard of for a feat to give multiple feats as a benefit. I figure you're trading a (General) feat for a more restricted (Fighter) feat which relies on you having the weapon. Sorry you didn't like it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm typically fine with scaling feats, because they usually give something specific, and thus by taking a scaling feat you are giving up on taking something else. The problem I have with something like this is that there is no opportunity cost (unless I guess if all the other feats you would otherwise be taking would be scaling, but if that is the intent of this feat, that should be specified in the article). If you are a gish or something, and you want to take a (Fighter) feat, there is very little reason not to take this instead. Trading a (General) feat for a (Fighter) feat is only a drawback if there isn't a (Fighter) feat you would otherwise be taking. Yeah, it is possible to lose access to the item, but usually, at least in all the games I've played, the type of important, character defining items that an object familiar presumably is, might be lost once in a campaign, and usually are retrieved by the end of the session. At the very least, losing this item is a plot point, and as such isn't going to be overdone enough to have the in-game implications that would make it a reasonable drawback, especially when the many other benefits are taken into account.--TheDarkWad (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
