Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="officeronin" data-source="post: 524710" data-attributes="member: 8483">Exactly --If half the value of a feat is what it does, and half is what it allows you to take later on, then &quot;phantom feat&quot; would be balanced to work both ways, because you're getting 50% value of each of the two feats each way.&nbsp; Of course, feats should be about 75% value in &quot;what it does&quot; and 25% value in &quot;what it allows you to take later on&quot;, so phantom feat as written should be a severely under-powered feat.Fact is, not all feats are equal, and many feats are severely under-powered.&nbsp; The next question is why a prestige class would require these absurdly under-powered feats.&nbsp; (&quot;We'd love to have you join our prestige class, but first, you have to cripple yourself...&quot;)&nbsp; If they weren't under-powered, the PC would take them normally, so phantom feat allows the players to decide which ones are terrible.Just a note, the character is still blowing a feat and gaining nothing for it -- so the arguement that PrCs should require taking a silly feat is upheld...Personally, I think that the extremely negative reaction against Cheiromancer's suggestion (which I also think would be too powerful) is a vote in favor of the feat as written, and, because I'm sure many don't agree, I'd love to hear the justification for why it is unbalanced both as written and as Cheiromancer suggested.OfficeRonin</blockquote>

[QUOTE="officeronin, post: 524710, member: 8483"] Exactly -- If half the value of a feat is what it does, and half is what it allows you to take later on, then "phantom feat" would be balanced to work both ways, because you're getting 50% value of each of the two feats each way. Of course, feats should be about 75% value in "what it does" and 25% value in "what it allows you to take later on", so phantom feat as written should be a severely under-powered feat. Fact is, not all feats are equal, and many feats are severely under-powered. The next question is why a prestige class would require these absurdly under-powered feats. ("We'd love to have you join our prestige class, but first, you have to cripple yourself...") If they weren't under-powered, the PC would take them normally, so phantom feat allows the players to decide which ones are terrible. Just a note, the character is still blowing a feat and gaining nothing for it -- so the arguement that PrCs should require taking a silly feat is upheld... Personally, I think that the extremely negative reaction against Cheiromancer's suggestion (which I also think would be too powerful) is a vote in favor of the feat as written, and, because I'm sure many don't agree, I'd love to hear the justification for why it is unbalanced both as written and as Cheiromancer suggested. OfficeRonin [/QUOTE]

Verification