Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- From: vstarre@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Mar 2007 13:06:26 -0700
On Mar 30, 2:01 am, Matt Frisch <matus...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Lastly there are binary feats like track, or armor/weapon
proficiency...either you have them and they function perfectly, or you
don't, and you can't do the action at all or suffer large penalties.
Binary feats might be an issue, but I don't see armor/weapon
proficiencies as "Binary". Anything that "suffers large penalties" by
default is an obvious candidate for being split off into multiple
smaller feats. ("Weapon Training" reducing penalties to -2 from -4, as
a prerequisite for "Weapon Proficiency", for example).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- From: Keith Davies
- Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- References:
- {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- From: Keith Davies
- Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- From: Matt Frisch
- {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- Prev by Date: Universal Script spell
- Next by Date: Re: Rant: Why is Skip Williams Incompetent?
- Previous by thread: Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- Next by thread: Re: {kjd-exp} *Weakening* feats
- Index(es):