Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7086773" data-attributes="member: 5890">Well... multiclassing is explicitly called out as optional. Critical hits are an assumed part of the game, as is allowing the monk class.Sure your DM can say &quot;we don't do crits or monks&quot;, but it's a fairly big departure, and I think you'd be pretty miffed if you make a monk character and then your DM secretly just ignores all your actions because he's decided they're not part of the game this combat round.Passive score usage is only called out as opposing stealth checks. Everything else is &quot;you might&quot; or &quot;you may&quot; on a roll-to-roll basis. As such, adding a feat that may or may not apply on a roll-to-roll basis is not great, especially when thematically it seems like the actual goal of the feat was to make you better at spotting hidden creatures and traps : why rely on a mechanical maybe to do that instead of saying &quot;you get the bonus in those situations&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7086773, member: 5890"] Well... multiclassing is explicitly called out as optional. Critical hits are an assumed part of the game, as is allowing the monk class. Sure your DM can say "we don't do crits or monks", but it's a fairly big departure, and I think you'd be pretty miffed if you make a monk character and then your DM secretly just ignores all your actions because he's decided they're not part of the game this combat round. Passive score usage is only called out as opposing stealth checks. Everything else is "you might" or "you may" on a roll-to-roll basis. As such, adding a feat that may or may not apply on a roll-to-roll basis is not great, especially when thematically it seems like the actual goal of the feat was to make you better at spotting hidden creatures and traps : why rely on a mechanical maybe to do that instead of saying "you get the bonus in those situations"? [/QUOTE]

Verification