Talk:Metaphysicalist (5e Class)

Feedback

Any questions or concerns? I would love any kind of feedback.

• Errors
• Problems
• Questions
• Concerns
• FAQ

Thank you. If you have helped in any way, thank you for your support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tubal-Cain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 July 2015 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

There's imbalance with a monk / metaphysicalist multiclasser. 1 level of this class gets me Brawler, which dramatically increases the damage output of the monk class features. Marasmusine (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2015 (MST)

Is this much of an imbalance? In average it will add 2.5 damage to an attack which is ever so slightly more than the dueling fighting style. Leaving it deal additional damage also allows it to be combined with the tavern brawler feat, this combination is pretty much the only way hand to hand combat could ever be with using. An additional note, if you were to combine monk and metapysicalist this would be the only decent overlap as not being able to use armor while in combat and also being wisdom reliant while doing so would make the character extremely MAD. Tubal-Cain (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (MST)

Maybe it would be better to include the "Brawler" with the "Body" choice and make that one more of a spellsword-type choice or with the Body's "Forceful Strikes" ruleset (one or the other I think). --Green Dragon (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2015 (MST)

Sorry for the delay, I changed the brawler fighting style, any feedback on the change? --Tubal-Cain (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2015 (MST)

It works just fine now, and I think that it is an option that players will consider just like the other ones now. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2016 (MST)

Needs a lot of work with terminology and language. Altercation means "a noisy argument or disagreement" (it's not related to the word "alter")Marasmusine (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2015 (MST)

~

I will fix it. Tubal-Cain (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (MST)

Did you change the wording and forgot to log on? I would read through it very carefully to see if there are any other mistakes. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2016 (MST)

This seems a little OP to me, ok after a reread, it isn't so bad. Its not bad, I would have done things, a little different.

I stopped here after reading all the aforementioned classes and so far this one caught my attention. I expected a more science based Profession/Class that had more practical skills for downtime use than raw adventuring. I don't know, I would like to see one played before I decide.

3/5

TierArea (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2016 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

I think with just a little work this would be a great featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2015 (MST)

Thank you, any suggestions on the work that needs to be done? --Tubal-Cain (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (MST)

• Comment: One of the images is no longer loading. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (MST)

This meet have just been an error when losing the page, all 4 images are loading for me. --Tubal-Cain (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2015 (MST)

Two of the images are giving me problems now. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (MST)

Things to look at:

• Grammar - class names, object names, etc should not be capitalised. ("metaphysicalist", "a martial weapon"); spell names should be in lower case italics.
• Psychometry - "At 7th level you gain advantage on all investigation checks" - advantage should be circumstantial, suggest applying advantage to only a sub-set of investigation checks (perhaps where it involves handling an object) Marasmusine (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2016 (MST)
• Neurocognitive Deficit - The target might be unwilling to be in "direct physical contact", may need to specify that an unwilling creature be incapacitated or grappled? Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2016 (MST)

This nomination has been open for almost one year. --Kydo (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2016 (MDT)

Closed nomination. Been open for a year. No response from interested parties in week since last bump, despite them showing activitty elsewhere on the site. Not even the author bothered to comment. Nobody ever went to the trouble of polishing it to FA status. Dead in the water. --Kydo (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2016 (MDT)