Mulu wrote:Seems to me that every time you guys nerf a class other than fighter or cleric, you just make fighter and cleric that much more powerful comparatively speaking.
I was also piqued by this statement in Standards:
I don't like feats that don't offer choice, but are basically mandatory if you want to play a class competetively.
So, is ALFA going to ban Point Blank Shot, Weapon Specialization, and Divine Might? I can think of many others as well.
I got no horse in this race anymore, but the path of nerfdom does ultimately lead to human fighter/cleric dominance, since their core abilities are hard to nerf. Human fighter in particular would be a great level 1 option under ALFA for 3 starter feats. Something to consider.
Agreed.
Who knew monks were so scary?
Can't have every monk 6th lvl and higher with Circle Kick... they'd run the place.
As opposed to every fighter 4th lvl and higher that has Weapon Specialization or Cleave or any other cookie cutter fighter feat.
Ideally I'd like to keep to discussions of the "ALFA Core Ruleset", which is our core script package for resting/bleeding/persistency here, rather than having this forum be a general discussion area for class balance, banned/restricted feats, etc. I realize the use of the term "Rules" is somewhat misleading, but the ACR has nothing to do with whether you can take Circle Kick or Toughness.
Feel free to carry on the discussion in General Discussion, NWN2 Collective Discussion, or NWN2 Brainstorming areas, they're better suited for it.
I've started a thread in the Standards forum but unless some actual support for a rule change comes forth, the matter shall be left to die. Rules might change if there's enough support for it, but they certainly won't just because one person wants them to.
My primary concern is that I don't want to start a precedent of changing decisions which have already been made. There should be some continuity, even when the DMs and Admin change over time. While I would not mind if both of these feats were unrestricted for players, the decision was already made a year ago to restrict them. Without a compelling reason to do so, there is unlikely to be a change in the status quo.
