Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3080519" data-attributes="member: 29014">Huh?  I would have thought it obvious that if you took Light Armour Optimisation, then you aren't someone who doesn't wear any armour.  Similarly, Spell Focus: Conjuration is better than my proposed feat for Conjurers who don't use spells that have a saving throw.I only find it interesting because you've chosen to abandon what I think is the only defensible point of the feat (which is "hopefully nobody hits 24 Dex and breaks it").  By choosing to abandon that, I honestly dont' see how you can possibly claim that a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against a single target can even remotely stand up against a +1 extra Dex bonus (equivalent to the Dodge bonus) added to a +1 extra armour bonus, both against all targets.  It is flatly superior in two ways (way #1: the bonus is +2 and not +1. way #2: the bonus applies to all targets, not just a single target).  Now that I see that there wasn't something obvious I was missing in the wording, I'm somewhat confused.  I really don't want to believe that you're just being contrary when you claim that  but I can't see how it can stand.  I'm really trying to find where the comparison fails (LAO is, in essence, Dodge with even more extras added on), and it seems that the only possibility is that LAO requires you to use light armour, which you were going to wear anyway.  Would it fix the analogy for you if I added "Must be wielding a weapon" to the requirements of Brutish Power Attack and "Must carry a spellbook" to Smartypants Spell Focus?  Honestly, if you would be okay with those two feats of mine, I'll at least be satisfied that I understand your thinking here.  I may not agree with the design choice (although I've seen professional designers do similar things, so I may not be right!), but I'll understand it.  But since you don't seem to accept those two, I'm a bit befuddled.</blockquote>

Verification