Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LiquidBlue" data-source="post: 3138051" data-attributes="member: 40911">Thank you Knight Otu for your post and for your thoughts.I agree that it has a number of feat catagories. I have gone ahead and standarized the feat catagories for the feats in the proposal.Hmm. I guess there are two ways to approach this problem. (1) Go the route of Extra Turning and have the feat apply to each of the character's distinct wildshap abilities (2) Go the route of many abilities and feats (ie, +1 caster level only applies to a single chosen casting class, Weapon Focus only applies to a single chosen weapon, etc.) and specify that the character must choose upon taking the feat to which wildshape ability it applies.By the 16th level, when the druid first acquires elemental wild shape, she already has 5 regular wild shapes, and each shape can last 16 hours, so giving an extra wildshape to each type really doesn't increase the amount of time she can be wildshaped.The way I see it, potentially the most abusive problem of giving a druid an extra wild shape to each wildshape ability is the ability to regain hitpoints with each wild shaping. The option (1) druid who has taken the feat once can regain hit points 8 times through wildshaping while the option (2) druid who has taken the feat once can regain hitpoints 7 times through wildshaping.Since the feat can be taken multiple times, the difference between the two will obviously grow, but I am not sure that the difference is really all that great. I think it would be acceptable to go with option (1). I will need to clarify the feat one way or another, but I would like to receive some input.With the flavor of the feat I could see both dazed and dazzled being acceptable. I feel reluctant to add both as this is a powerful feat already. The inclusion of dazed seems to be more powerful than the inclusion of dazzled. I believe that dazed is fairly readily induced in a variety of creatures, while only a few can be dazzled.You find that the feat as proposed seems appropriate. I wonder what your and other LEW poster's thoughts are concerning the changes I proposed in my previous post.I sincerely appreciate the thoughts that have been shared. While a couple of the feats are not yet seem ready to accept, several others seem acceptable. I invite the judges to vote on the feats that they find acceptable. (There may be feats which they believe cannot be revised to an acceptable form, in which case, it seems appropriate to vote on those as well.)</blockquote>

Verification