Post/Author/DateTime	Post
memorax 11-11-05, 10:51 AM	I have decided to start a counterpart to the broken feats thread. Which feats do you think are useless or at the very least not even worth a feat slot? Before answering I would ask that you follow certain conditions. -When replying refrain from calling someone a munchkin . It's a cop out reply and that term is getting older than my grandmother. I see it to often used on these boards whenever someone darss to like a "broken" feat. -If you feel that a feat that is posted in this thread is not useless or underpowered but the reverse please post your comments in the broken feat thread. I would like this thread to just be about threads that some on this board consider underpowered. My list for those feats is: Any of the +1 feats. The only time I take these is when I need to qualify for another feat. Dodge to get Whirlwind, Weapon focus to get Weapon Speacilization. Feats that last for 1 round. Unless you are a fighter feats slots are at a premimum. Why would I want to take a feat that only lasts 1 round? Damage Reduction Feats. Not useless but way underpowered. To get any real benefit you have to take them at least 3 times just to make it worth it. At the very least they stack.
DarknessEternal 11-11-05, 02:22 PM	Mobility - entirely trumped by Tumble. Toughness - 'nuff said. Augment Summoning - cost is too high (try finding a use for Spell Focus (conjuration)) Greater Two Weapon Fighting - unless you can full attack while moving, this will never outweigh it's stealing of your feat.
Crash01234567890 11-11-05, 03:11 PM	Weapon Specialization Net Not quite as bad Weapon Specialization Whip Not quite as bad Combat Casting (come on guys you can take Skill Focus Concentration and always get +3)
Kendrick 11-11-05, 03:22 PM	Toughness Combat Casting Enlarge Spell Widen Spell All +2/+2 skill feats Honorable mention to Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will. They aren't total crap - you can take them after you run out of good feats and not feel like you wasted a slot. The +2 to saves, however, just isn't worth it unless you have truly exhausted all other possibilities. +3 would be fine.
legophreak 11-11-05, 03:26 PM	...Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will...+3 would be fine. Houseruled here for our enjoyment... Skill Focus is +3 now, why not this.
MindWandererB 11-11-05, 04:19 PM	I disagree with a couple of those. Weapon Focus: Turns 5% of my misses into hits. Yes, please. Would you rather take a feat that gives you a +2, +3, or even +4 bonus to something you do every once in a while, or a +1 to something you do, at high levels, over 100 times a day? Dodge: Not nearly as good, since it only applies to one enemy at a time. Although I take it mainly as a prereq, it's still not terribly bad. Toughness: In the long run, yes, it's pretty bad. But bear in mind that many people in the world are immediate-gratification focused. Toughess can be pretty good for the vast majority of people that never get past level 1. FYI, I houserule the +2/+2 skill feats so that they give you the Able Learner feat for those two skills only, in addition to the +2 bonus. It's working very well for me so far, popular but not overbalanced. Are we focusing on PHB feats for now? 'Cause there are a whole heck of a lot in accessories that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But just in the PHB: Armor Proficiency (Heavy): If I have a Dex of 13 or less, why am I in a class that doesn't wear heavy armor already? Martial Weapon Proficiency: Unless you need just the right weapon for a PrC, Exotic WP is a much better bet for a feat. At least Simple WP gives you all of them. Tower Shield proficiency: ...right. +2 AC compared to a heavy shield, but -2 to attack rolls. And it applies a max Dex bonus of +2 and the armor check penalty from hell. I suppose a cleric or druid might benefit from this if they focused heavily on spellcasting, especially since that prevents you from fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise. Craft Staff: If I'm going to blow that kind of XP, it's not going to be for an expendable item. Endurance: The situations it applies to don't really come up very often. Eschew Materials: Useful when your spell component pouch has been stolen. Which happens how often? Silent Spell: I really need a feat for those rare times when someone casts a Silence near me. And I'm sooo likely to have prepared just the right spell for that situation. Okay, Dispel Magic, maybe, to get rid of the silence. But a whole feat for this contingency? Please. Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. Improved Grapple: Ditto. Improved Overrun: Have you ever heard of an overrun build? I haven't.
DarkWarriorKarg 11-11-05, 04:21 PM	From the Eberron Campaign Setting: Investigate: Lets' you CSI a room wioth search. Gee. I guess simply putting in a "expanded usage for old skills" blurb like in all their other products was just too much. Urban Tracking... it lets you use gather information the way you've always done it. Research... gee... waste a feat in how to use filing systems, so that you can use knowledge skills the way you always have.
DragonDeadite 11-11-05, 05:06 PM	I know the OP said not to do this BUT... if you're building a CHARACTER rather than a die-roller, then those Skill +2/+2 are great. I almost always take one of those for my characters because that's what they end up focusing on. It's only useless if you don't plan on ROLE playing. Sorry, had to. ... hmm... was going to actualy add to the list but I can't honestly think of a Feat that wouldn't be usefull to at least a few character concepts... maybe if this was on the Character Optimization board it would be different.
Kendrick 11-11-05, 05:08 PM	From the Eberron Campaign Setting: Investigate: Lets' you CSI a room wioth search. Gee. I guess simply putting in a "expanded usage for old skills" blurb like in all their other products was just too much. Urban Tracking... it lets you use gather information the way you've always done it. Research... gee... waste a feat in how to use filing systems, so that you can use knowledge skills the way you always have. I have to agree here - these feats are friggin' pitiful. I'll add Two Weapon Defense and Improved Turning as well.
boatmanj 11-11-05, 05:12 PM	Endurance
Kendrick 11-11-05, 05:12 PM	I know the OP said not to do this BUT... if you're building a CHARACTER rather than a die-roller, then those Skill +2/+2 are great. I almost always take one of those for my characters because that's what they end up focusing on. It's only useless if you don't plan on ROLE playing. Sorry, had to. ... hmm... was going to actualy add to the list but I can't honestly think of a Feat that wouldn't be usefull to at least a few character concepts... maybe if this was on the Character Optimization board it would be different. The fact that you can take a feat to feel superior about what an awsome roleplayer you are doesn't negate the fact that doing so cripples your character. Most people are capable of building a functional character and roleplaying it without deliberately gimping it to prove what a dedicated roleplayer they are.
tarkin 11-11-05, 05:13 PM	Simple way to find all the useless feats. Go to all the good Published Prestige Classes Pick out the feats listed there, subtracting any that you have seen people take without going for the Prestige Classes. (Some feats are strong, others are intentionally made weak so that they can be used as payment, creating a balanced fair Prestige Class. See Cooperative Spell / Toughness for the classic examples of the 'weak' feats used as payment for strong Prestige Classes).
Keenath 11-11-05, 05:42 PM	Two Weapon Fighting is not a weak feat. TWF is a fine feat, it simply depends on the build. HOWEVER... Improved TWF and Greater TWF are absolutely terrible feats. What other chain of feats gives you smaller and smaller benefits while slapping you with greater and greater prerequisites? Just have a look at Greater TWF. It requires you have superhuman dexterity to take it (short of being an 11th level Ranger), and what do you get in return? A single attack at -10 that will probably only hit on a natural 20 against an on-level enemy. And enemies that aren't on-level usually won't be alive to take a sixth attack in any case! And compare the benefit of GTWF with the benefit of Improved Precise Shot, which has equivalent prerequisites -- an attack at -10 versus ignoring cover and concealment, the two most frustrating hurtles for archer characters (that is, those most likely to take the feat). This one, fortunately, I have a solution for. Leave TWF alone, but use my houserule feats for ITWF and GTWF. Basically, leave the prereqs the same, but the benefits change... ITWF gives you an off hand attack for *each* primary hand attack, and any turn when you have your off hand weapon drawn, but don't attack with it, you gain a +1 AC. GTWF allows you to gain the +1 AC any time your off hand weapon is drawn, regardless of whether you attack with it, and gives you the benefits of the Dual Strike feat (found in Complete Adventurer) though I'm considering lowering the Dual Strike penalties, so that this feat (with its much higher prereqs) will be more valuable than just Dual Strike with an AC bonus. If you use these rules, you should remove Two-Weapon Defense (a weak feat anyway) from the game, and consider removing Dual Strike (though Dual Strike has much easier prereqs to GTWF, and may be worth keeping). If anyone is interested in the full text, I can send them my houserule feats in private messaging.
Rhomphaia 11-11-05, 06:24 PM	Before I saw this thread, I posted a couple in the broken feats thread and a couple (Dodge and Martial Weapon Proficiency) have already been mentioned, but I have yet to see anything on... Improved Sunder. As I stated before, This feat is next to useless, except as a prereq. It might be somewhat useful if the +4 bonus you got to hit a weapon or shield was instead a bonus to damage to help overcome the hardness of whatever you are hitting. Improved Toughness (Complete Warrior) The prereq for this makes no sense and for a fighting type (the only kind that can take this before level 6) it becomes pretty useless quickly. As for the other classes, for whom it would be useful at early levels, by the time you can take it, you will have an average of 16-23 hp (sans Con bonus), and at sixth level, an additional six hit points isn't going to help you from being dropped in one hit by most of the monsters you face. Also, with the way I understand TWF, the penalties the extra off hand attacks give you simply make your off hand attacks correspond, bonus-wise, with your normal iterrative attacks while weilding two weapons. This doesn't make ITWF and GTWF weak att all. You are pretty much (by taking all these feats) getting double your attacks. Not weak at all. Also, with Two-Weapon Defense, it is nice having a light shield that you can attack with and it doesn't matter if that shield is a sword, axe, dagger, sickle, mace, club...you get the idea.
Kendrick 11-11-05, 08:25 PM	...Also, with Two-Weapon Defense, it is nice having a light shield that you can attack with and it doesn't matter if that shield is a sword, axe, dagger, sickle, mace, club...you get the idea. Improved Buckler Defense is so much better than the entire Two Weapon Defense chain collectively that it isn't even funny. I have to say, I love Improved Toughness for all types of characters except melee meat shields. The only reason I would ever leave this feat out of an arcane spellcasting build would be if I was making a fun and powerful trick that required all of my feats. IT gives an arcane caster the biggest benefit of having +2 Con, and When Con is the second ability priority on a build, that's a good thing.
Rhomphaia 11-11-05, 08:33 PM	Exactly how is Improved Buckler Defense better? Ooh...a +1 shield bonus while wielding a greatsword and using Power Attack. A questionable ruling at best and the bonus is negligable compared to other things you could have spent the feat slot on.
StormCrow42 11-11-05, 08:51 PM	Exactly how is Improved Buckler Defense better? Ooh...a +1 shield bonus while wielding a greatsword and using Power Attack. A questionable ruling at best and the bonus is negligable compared to other things you could have spent the feat slot on. Because it's not a just +1 shield bonus. It's potentially a +6 shield bonus from your +5 mithril buckler.
StormCrow42 11-11-05, 09:00 PM	Craft Staff: If I'm going to blow that kind of XP, it's not going to be for an expendable item. No worse than craft wand. Remember that staff uses your caster level for numeric effects and a staff of fire is actually cheaper than a wand of fireball (8th level). Endurance: The situations it applies to don't really come up very often. I guess that really depends on how often your GM ambushes you at night, but I'll take being able to sleep in my mithril full plate over a chain shirt or mithril breastplate anyday. Eschew Materials: Useful when your spell component pouch has been stolen. Which happens how often? Probably less frequently than having it sundered. But I've played in plenty of games where NPCs sunder spell component pouches and holy symbols. Silent Spell: I really need a feat for those rare times when someone casts a Silence near me. And I'm sooo likely to have prepared just the right spell for that situation. Okay, Dispel Magic, maybe, to get rid of the silence. But a whole feat for this contingency? Please. Silent Dimension Door, escape from anywhere anytime you can take a standard action (even when gagged or pinned). Also useful for general stealth, either when under the effects of your own silence spell, or when just sneaking around.
arkerpay 11-11-05, 09:09 PM	I disagree with some of the feats that some writers consider useless. It depends on how your DM runs the game. Weapon Focus and Dodge - These feats are useful every time you are in combat. Statistically it adds up. Endurance - Primary use is being able to wear medium armor all the time without being fatigued. Very useful if wandering monsters attackyour campsite while everyone else is getting their rest sans armor. Also a pre-req for Die Hard, which is a feat every party wants their Cleric to take. Right? Improved Toughness - Basically increases your hit die to the next larger one. That adds up. OK, so I might be playing a 5th level cleric who has all the above feats except for dodge. arkerpay
memorax 11-12-05, 12:39 AM	I disagree with some of the feats that some writers consider useless. It depends on how your DM runs the game. Weapon Focus and Dodge - These feats are useful every time you are in combat. Statistically it adds up. Not really maybe at lower after that an extra +1 does not mean much. Endurance - Primary use is being able to wear medium armor all the time without being fatigued. Very useful if wandering monsters attackyour campsite while everyone else is getting their rest sans armor. Also a pre-req for Die Hard, which is a feat every party wants their Cleric to take. Right? Not totally useless but of real use only to fighter types and those classes that are allowed to wear heavy armor. Improved Toughness - Basically increases your hit die to the next larger one. That adds up. Not that great not to bad either. Problem is one has to take that early in the game. At that point most players are taking prerequites for their Prestige classes. Plus as someone mentioned before the prerequistes for the feat itself make no sense at all.
Keenath 11-12-05, 01:52 AM	Also, with the way I understand TWF, the penalties the extra off hand attacks give you simply make your off hand attacks correspond, bonus-wise, with your normal iterrative attacks while weilding two weapons.Of course. But that doesn't make it a good feat. Believe me, as an 11th level fighter, that third attack is practically a throw-away. You don't really expect that to hit; sometimes it still makes it. And rogues, who are more likely to end up with the two-weapon chain (so as to maximize their sneak attacks, and because they tend towards the required high dex) don't even qualify for that third strike until 15th level. Let's see, an attack at +1 at 15th level, with a +5 ability score and a +4 weapon... that's a +10 on the roll. Average enemies for level 15... 27 to 35 is about the range for creatures of your CR, and 23 to 27 for creatures several CR lower, which you can expect to get in groups. So, basically, by the time a rogue could take GTWF, he'll probably need to roll around 17 to hit creatures of his level with the attack he gained. And that's if they don't just force him into a 'natural 20 hits' situation. Even weak creatures will require better than a 10, which means things that really shouldn't stand up to him get hit less than half the time. And all this is with unmodified ACs; once spellcasting boosts get into place, the chances of that attack hitting are dismal at best. That last attack roll at +1 has always been a sort of 'Hail Mary' attack -- just throw the die and see if you roll really high. This doesn't make ITWF and GTWF weak att all. You are pretty much (by taking all these feats) getting double your attacks. Not weak at all.That's just crazy. GTWF is a HORRIBLY weak feat. A second attack at your full BAB is a great use of a feat. An additional attack with a penalty is worse than that, not better -- why does it have BIGGER prerequisites? And a third attack that duplicates the one attack roll that you figure only hits on a 20? That's not worth a feat by anybody's measurement. I've literally never seen anyone take greater TWF except a Ranger, who got it for free.
Yaeri 11-12-05, 09:19 AM	I haven't thoroughly investigated these, but the numerical metamagic feats always seemed like a waste to me. When I calculated for some spells what maximize or empower would do to their damage, and then compared it to spells of their new level (the metamagic requires higher spell slots), then it seemed you always end up with: a wasted feat for a low level spell that takes up a higher slot to do damage aproximately equal to spells its new level. Heighten, widen and the like seem comparable. Silent or still spell on the other hand can have their uses now and then. But eschew materials?! bleh! PS: I completely agree with the two weapon fighting tree getting weaker near the top. It's the complete opposite of many other feat chains, where you take weak feats first so you can take stronger and stronger feats later on.
Psychoticpsymon 11-12-05, 10:04 AM	Silent Spell: I really need a feat for those rare times when someone casts a Silence near me. And I'm sooo likely to have prepared just the right spell for that situation. Okay, Dispel Magic, maybe, to get rid of the silence. But a whole feat for this contingency? Please. Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. Dude, some people employ tactics. For instance, an assassin NPC in one of the games I DM'd employed silent True Strikes and Greater Invis to waste the party barb. And improved unarmed attack is prereq for all deflect arrows stuff. It's meant to balance out the feats it gives access to.
DarknessEternal 11-12-05, 12:22 PM	Dude, some people employ tactics. For instance, an assassin NPC in one of the games I DM'd employed silent True Strikes and Greater Invis to waste the party barb. The party's Barbarian with Uncanny Dodge (you know, the thing making him immune to Sneak Attacks by invisible people)?
Nitan 11-12-05, 12:55 PM	The party's Barbarian with Uncanny Dodge (you know, the thing making him immune to Sneak Attacks by invisible people)? That's not really true. The Barbarian might not have had Improved Uncanny Dodge and the Assassin might have had 4 more Rogue levels then he did Barbarian levels. ;) Of course, he was hosed either way then eh? Besides looking pretty cool, I think Whirlwind Attack is a bit of a waste. I agree about Dodge and Toughness. Weapon Focus, on the other hand, is pretty useful in the early game and is still decent later on.
The Nelluonkkar 11-12-05, 01:16 PM	I haven't thoroughly investigated these, but the numerical metamagic feats always seemed like a waste to me. When I calculated for some spells what maximize or empower would do to their damage, and then compared it to spells of their new level (the metamagic requires higher spell slots), then it seemed you always end up with: a wasted feat for a low level spell that takes up a higher slot to do damage aproximately equal to spells its new level. Heighten, widen and the like seem comparable. Silent or still spell on the other hand can have their uses now and then. But eschew materials?! bleh! For inflicting damage with your spells, there's a reasonable chance that you'll want the higher level spell (higher DC at the very least). However, Empower and potentially Maximize have their uses elsewhere. For one character I'm playing, Empowered False Life is one heck of a boost. Likewise, tossing around Empowered Rays of Enfeeblement and Empowered Enervations (a bit of a gamble) are a good way to hose a single opponent. Bear in mind that the character is specialized in Necromancy and so it's not like he was designed to blast a large number of opponents out of existence. In short, ability damage/penalties (the best part of Ray of Enfeeblement is that it's a penalty to Strength and not actually categorized as damage/drain). It's also involves a bit of synergy as well; I've also gone with Quicken in order to seriously dish out some negative levels in a hurry if need be (along with spells like Kyristan's Malevolent Tentacles). PS: I completely agree with the two weapon fighting tree getting weaker near the top. It's the complete opposite of many other feat chains, where you take weak feats first so you can take stronger and stronger feats later on. Two-weapon fighting can be worth it (for the right type of character). It's a style that's probably a bit better for rogues (sneak attack away) with light weapons, weapon finesse, and extra damage for each weapon (flaming, frost, shocking, holy, etc.). Under the right circumstances (ex. dust of disappearance), it's pretty brutal. It is rather specialized though and the two-handed weapon fighter is probably a bit more useful in a few more situations (overcoming DR, attacking opponents immune to criticals, taking on opponents with high ACs, sundering). That's pretty much looking at it purely by the numbers though. Depending on the player, a character concept may just lean towards two-weapon fighting (and hopefully without being another Drizzt clone).
Psychoticpsymon 11-12-05, 02:17 PM	The party's Barbarian with Uncanny Dodge (you know, the thing making him immune to Sneak Attacks by invisible people)? His previous character had recently died, leaving him lower level than the party. Than he ran into the middle of a very dark, very large room. ~.~
Elkas Saralonde 11-12-05, 02:35 PM	Toughness isn't all that underpowered. An arcane spellcaster with Constitution 12 basically gets a Hit Die's worth of hit points! Not that those types see a lot of melee combat, but still, you basically get an extra Hit Die. Even better, though, is that the bonus hit points aren't subject to Constitution drain or level loss... Poison? Bring it on! Booyah!
Andrew 11-12-05, 03:40 PM	Dude, some people employ tactics. For instance, an assassin NPC in one of the games I DM'd employed silent True Strikes and Greater Invis to waste the party barb. 1. Assassins cast as Bards. Therefore, it's arguable if they can benefit from Silent Spell. 2. Comparing rogue and barbarian levels is a function of improved uncanny dodge soley to determine flanking, and has nothing to do with the relevant benefits of uncanny dodge, which always apply.
Psychoticpsymon 11-12-05, 04:01 PM	1) Arguable, but we did. 2) I think sneak attack applies when a target would be denied dex bonus, not whether or not it applies. Also, the barbarian ability does not say he cannot be flatfooted- just that he doesn't lose his dex bonus.
tasslehoff220 11-12-05, 04:21 PM	My list for those feats is: Any of the +1 feats. The only time I take these is when I need to qualify for another feat. Dodge to get Whirlwind, Weapon focus to get Weapon Speacilization. Feats that last for 1 round. Unless you are a fighter feats slots are at a premimum. Why would I want to take a feat that only lasts 1 round? Damage Reduction Feats. Not useless but way underpowered. To get any real benefit you have to take them at least 3 times just to make it worth it. At the very least they stack. First of all, +1 feats is only sometimes true. While you are completely right about dodge if you think specialization is good you should think focus is better. Specialization gives you +2 damage. If you have power attack focus gives you the choice of +1 attack or +2 damage with a 2 handed weapon. Its also great for any one who does 2 weapon fighting with the same weapon in each hand. Second, what feats that last one round are you refering too? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the sudden feats which are not useless. Even if it is just once per day maximizing or empowering a spell without raising its spell slot is awsome. Sudden Silent and Still are awsome for wizards because they never know when they will need a spell silenced or sudden and thus usually memorizing them that way is a waste. Next the damage reduction feats. Roll with it from savage species is broken and the greater resilience feat from complete warior is solid. Which feats are you refering to? Lastly, if anyone is planning on saying that any of the feats mentioned are only good in the situations mentioned youre argument is flawed because its obviously true that any feat is useless if taken by a character who cant use it or less powerful if taken by a character who doesnt optimize it. The wizard with weapon focus staff and skill focus climb has obviously weaker feats than the greatsword fighter with weapon focus and power attck or the master thrower with skill focus sleight of hand.
DarknessEternal 11-12-05, 04:26 PM	2) I think sneak attack applies when a target would be denied dex bonus, not whether or not it applies. Also, the barbarian ability does not say he cannot be flatfooted- just that he doesn't lose his dex bonus. Well, you think wrong. Sneak Attack works if you flank someone, or they have lost their Dex bonus. Being flat-footed has nothing to do with it, neither does invisible attackers. Uncanny Dodge does not prevent someone from being flat-footed, actually. It only allows them to keep their Dex bonus. It also lets them keep their Dex bonus against invisible attackers. Sneak Attack, when not flanking, only cares about whether they have their Dex bonus or not.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 11-12-05, 05:07 PM	Bonus Feat (General) Prerequisites: None Benefit: You may select an additional feat and gain the benefits of it, provided you meet the prerequisites. Special: A fighter may not take this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Moon-Lancer 11-12-05, 05:16 PM	lol. may i take this feat as the bonus feat granted by this feat? ahha UNLIMETED FEATS THAT DO NOTHING... DM YOU CANT STOP ME... MY POWER TO TOO GREAT... HAHAHAHA!!!!! any wild feats from 3.5 really suck if your a wildshapeing druid (except for fast wildshape). You have to spend a feat AND a wildshape use AND a standard action to do something that can be done by wildshape itself but better??? um NO thankyou... check please.
Nitan 11-12-05, 05:23 PM	Toughness isn't all that underpowered. An arcane spellcaster with Constitution 12 basically gets a Hit Die's worth of hit points! Not that those types see a lot of melee combat, but still, you basically get an extra Hit Die. Even better, though, is that the bonus hit points aren't subject to Constitution drain or level loss... Poison? Bring it on! Booyah! Only Improved Toughness blows this out of the water past level 3. I say Improved Toughness is a good, balenced feat while normal Toughness is a joke, plain and simple.
tasslehoff220 11-12-05, 05:24 PM	lol. may i take this feat as the bonus feat granted by this feat? ahha UNLIMETED FEATS THAT DO NOTHING... DM YOU CANT STOP ME... MY POWER TO TOO GREAT... HAHAHAHA!!!!! any wild feats from 3.5 really suck if your a wildshapeing druid (except for fast wildshape). You have to spend a feat AND a wildshape use AND a standard action to do something that can be done by wildshape itself but better??? um NO thankyou... check please. Did you realize you can use those feats while wildshaped? (there may have been errata but as stated in the books you can do this) That gives whatever the ability is to youre favorite wildshape.
Reddius 11-12-05, 05:47 PM	Improved Grapple dont really sucks o_O. The +4 bonus its strong, after seeing how a fighter grapple me and a monk kicked my butt while pinned and entired party could easyly be wiped out like this. Of Wild feat I kinda like the Pounce Wild Feat, making a full attack its quite nice.
Terraneaux 11-12-05, 06:32 PM	Improved Grapple is actually pretty strong. I was personally shocked at how effective some of the grapple fighter builds are. Improved Unarmed Strike isn't a half-bad feat. It gives you a backup if you are sundered or disarmed, and since it counts as a natural attack you can make a secondary kick at a -5 penalty every time you full attack. Pretty much all of the +2/+2 skill feats are pretty worthless. The bonus they apply is pretty negligible; what i wish they did was also make the relevant skills class skills. Then I think I could justify actually taking them for "roleplaying" reasons. And when are they going to add profession to the list of fighter class skills?
fawr 11-12-05, 06:38 PM	lol. may i take this feat as the bonus feat granted by this feat? Of course not. You can only take a feat once unless it says otherwise. Back on topic my parties two faverouite feats at the moment are Weapon Focus then Iron Will. Anyone who intends to use a single type of weapon always puts focus in as part of the build. A small bonus to every attack is much better than a large bonus that you use occasionally (or only in certain conditions). Iron will is a recent addition to the list of "must have" feats. It appeared after a pair of CR7 Umber hulks almost took out the party of 5 level 12 characters because of the confusion effect. Almost all the players had been using Wis as a dump stat and had 2 classes (prestige and normal) with low will saves. The only exception was the party druid who rolled a 1 on his 3rd or 4th save. I expect Great Fortitude to come out soon as the number of "save or die" spells with fort saves increases. Thats one save that you don't want to fail! The feats I think are bad are: endurance & toughness any skill increasing feat that helps a skill you aren't maxing out. Mobility (unless to get spring attack) Whirlwind attack
Rhomphaia 11-12-05, 07:54 PM	I feel I must object to the statements that the +2/+2 feats are weak. Some of them are, but I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Alertness, Self-Suficient and Stealthy.
ravenspawn 11-12-05, 09:34 PM	I found 2 feats thats useless & weak; In the FR campaign setting book; Militia. It gives you WP longbow & WP longspear. Has anyone played a commoner class character? How about Zen Archery? useful only if, A) you are building an archer-cleric (lots of those around :rolleyes: or B) if a cleric plans on using lots of ray spells or ray spell wands
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 11-12-05, 09:35 PM	I feel I must object to the statements that the +2/+2 feats are weak. Some of them are, but I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Alertness, Self-Suficient and Stealthy. Yep. Any of the +2/+2 feats that apply to skills that rely on opposed rolls rule.
memorax 11-12-05, 09:45 PM	First of all, +1 feats is only sometimes true. While you are completely right about dodge if you think specialization is good you should think focus is better. Specialization gives you +2 damage. If you have power attack focus gives you the choice of +1 attack or +2 damage with a 2 handed weapon. Its also great for any one who does 2 weapon fighting with the same weapon in each hand. I disagree Weapon focus on it's own is relatively useless. The only real reason for taking it is to get Weapon Specialization. Power Attack is not as strong as people make it out to be. Who in his right mind is going to take a penalty to melee attack rolls at low level. Power Attack imo is a feat that should be taken at high levels. Otherwise it does not matter if you can do a lot of damage if you cannot hit anything. Plus not everyone uses a 2 handed weapon or two weapon fighting. Second, what feats that last one round are you refering too? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the sudden feats which are not useless. Even if it is just once per day maximizing or empowering a spell without raising its spell slot is awsome. Sudden Silent and Still are awsome for wizards because they never know when they will need a spell silenced or sudden and thus usually memorizing them that way is a waste. Divine Might, Glorious Weapon is a good example there are others. Why are you bringing Metamagic feats into this? They are not feats that last 1 round nor are they approriate to use as an example. Next the damage reduction feats. Roll with it from savage species is broken and the greater resilience feat from complete warior is solid. Which feats are you refering to? Roll with it is broken? All you get is a Damage Reduction of 2. Do you now how easy it is to bypass that once you get past 5th level. The only way to get a greater benefit out of that is to take it multiple times because it stacks. How may players you know are going to give up their feat slots to get a DR increase of 2 at a time. Greater Resilency is not that great. All it does is increase your DR by 1 when it normally goes up. Using the example given in CW a 13 level Barbarian has DR 4, DR 5 at 16, DR 6 at 19th. Do you know how easy it is for high level creatures to beat that. Lastly, if anyone is planning on saying that any of the feats mentioned are only good in the situations mentioned youre argument is flawed because its obviously true that any feat is useless if taken by a character who cant use it or less powerful if taken by a character who doesnt optimize it. The wizard with weapon focus staff and skill focus climb has obviously weaker feats than the greatsword fighter with weapon focus and power attck or the master thrower with skill focus sleight of hand. I do not get what you are saying. The feats that i have mentioned I find useless in any context. Not the situation. Plus you are using a bad example. Which wizard would ever take weapon focus staff or skill focus climb in the first place. They would be taking feats to make their magic hard to resist, their spells stronger and cast their spells better in combat. The only time I have seen wizards take spell focus staff or skill focus climb is to qualify for a prestige class. I also agree with Dark Warrior Karg. Investigate, Research and Urban Tracking are useless. Even more useless than the +1 feats. The first two allow you to do stuff that you should be able to without a feat and urban Tracking makes me ask why did I bother taking Tracking in the first place.
memorax 11-12-05, 09:50 PM	I feel I must object to the statements that the +2/+2 feats are weak. Some of them are, but I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Alertness, Self-Suficient and Stealthy. I agree. The +2 feats are worth taking.
frisbeet 11-12-05, 09:51 PM	Dodge and Mobility by themselves are argued as weak. I disagree, mostly for the single reason that they enable Sring Attack Which is a very important & useful feat for any combatant who cares about his own ass.
Kendrick 11-12-05, 11:13 PM	I feel I must object to the statements that the +2/+2 feats are weak. Some of them are, but I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Alertness, Self-Suficient and Stealthy. The reason that these feats are weak is that a PC will eventually (often within two levels, but eventually one way or another) be able to gain all of the benefits without wasting a feat slot. Feats should generally be used to gain abilities or bonuses that are otherwise unable, and when it comes to skills there are several impediments: 1. Never take a feat to improve a skill that caps. 2. Never take a feat to improve a skill that doesn't provide at least as much benefit as a real feat, like Weapon Focus, Empower Spell, Improved Toughness, etc. 3. Competence bonus items are cheap and can easily provide more benefit than the feat. The only use that the +2/+2 feats have is for NPCs who you need to reach a certain skill level for whatever reason.
Moon-Lancer 11-12-05, 11:43 PM	Did you realize you can use those feats while wildshaped? (there may have been errata but as stated in the books you can do this) That gives whatever the ability is to youre favorite wildshape. I did not know this. I thought it would be like wildshapeing in a wildshape. I know you cant wildshape in a wildshape. Could you point me in the direction of an faq or errata that adresses wild feats. If it works the way you state, it might have more value, Although I am anoyed at the duration of the abilties. It should have a duration thats equal to wildshape. In most cases it lasts 10 minits or an hour or a minit.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 11-13-05, 12:28 AM	The reason that these feats are weak is that a PC will eventually (often within two levels, but eventually one way or another) be able to gain all of the benefits without wasting a feat slot. Feats should generally be used to gain abilities or bonuses that are otherwise unable, and when it comes to skills there are several impediments: 1. Never take a feat to improve a skill that caps. 2. Never take a feat to improve a skill that doesn't provide at least as much benefit as a real feat, like Weapon Focus, Empower Spell, Improved Toughness, etc. 3. Competence bonus items are cheap and can easily provide more benefit than the feat. The only use that the +2/+2 feats have is for NPCs who you need to reach a certain skill level for whatever reason. It also depends on what style of game you're playing in. If you're playing in a game of political intrigue without much combat, the Negotiator feat is going to be far more useful than Weapon Focus.
glutton 11-13-05, 05:40 AM	I found 2 feats thats useless & weak; In the FR campaign setting book; Militia. It gives you WP longbow & WP longspear. Has anyone played a commoner class character? How about Zen Archery? useful only if, A) you are building an archer-cleric (lots of those around :rolleyes: or B) if a cleric plans on using lots of ray spells or ray spell wands Militia has been Upgraded to Proficiency with all martial weapons in 3.5. Quite nice and a bit overly strong
Kendrick 11-13-05, 08:11 AM	The new Militia feat allows casters into the EK prestige class without wasting levels on fighter or whatever your personal choice of combat class is. 1 feat and one level of spellcasting progression for +5 BAB isn't bad. And hey, unless you really wanted that feat to be metamagic or something, you get that wasted feat right back.
ravenspawn 11-13-05, 10:12 AM	Militia has been Upgraded to Proficiency with all martial weapons in 3.5. Quite nice and a bit overly strong Yeah, i noticed it a few hours after i posted my comment. But still, has anyone out there taken this feat for their character?
tasslehoff220 11-13-05, 11:38 AM	I disagree Weapon focus on it's own is relatively useless. The only real reason for taking it is to get Weapon Specialization. Power Attack is not as strong as people make it out to be. Who in his right mind is going to take a penalty to melee attack rolls at low level. Power Attack imo is a feat that should be taken at high levels. Otherwise it does not matter if you can do a lot of damage if you cannot hit anything. Plus not everyone uses a 2 handed weapon or two weapon fighting. I do not get what you are saying. The feats that i have mentioned I find useless in any context. Not the situation. Plus you are using a bad example. Which wizard would ever take weapon focus staff or skill focus climb in the first place. They would be taking feats to make their magic hard to resist, their spells stronger and cast their spells better in combat. The only time I have seen wizards take spell focus staff or skill focus climb is to qualify for a prestige class. The feat isnt worthless if I can name 1 situation where its good to take. Here is an agrument to prove it We can all agree there are good feats obviously. 1) To be a good feat either there must be one character build in which the feat is a good feat or the feat must be good in every character build. 2) There are no feats which are good in every character build 3) Therefore to be a good feat there must be at least one character build in which it is a good feat. (1,2 MT) That is what I was saying. Now to prove weapon focus is a good feat. First: 1) If the character I was describing has a two handed weapon and power attack then weapon focus is better than weapon specialization (in this situation). 2) The character I was describing has a two handed weapon and power attack. 3) Therefore (for that character) weapon focus is better than weapon specializaion. (1,2 MP) 4) If weapon focus is better than weapon specialization (in at least one character build) and weapon specialization is good then Weapon focus is not a bad feat. 5) Weapon focus is better than weapon specialization (in at least one character build) and weapon specialization is a good feat then Weapon focus is a good feat. (proved above) 6) Therefore Weapon focus is a good feat. (MMP) By your own admission weapon specialization is a good feat therefore my argument stands If you still think I'm wrong choose a line because you are argueing against logical form. Divine Might, Glorious Weapon is a good example there are others. Why are you bringing Metamagic feats into this? They are not feats that last 1 round nor are they approriate to use as an example. I think Divine might is a good feat. I actually think its an incredible feat for paladins but I have no way of proving this to you because you have not named any comparable feats that you like that I can logically prove it to be better than. I think just by crunching the numbers its obviously a great paladin feat but we will have to just disagree here I guess. I am not familiar with glorious weapon so I'll leave that alone. I brought SUDDEN metamagic feats into this because they are usable once per day. They are in complete arcane if you are not familiar with them. They are good feats which do apply as limited use feats as per the definition you seem to be using. Roll with it is broken? All you get is a Damage Reduction of 2. Do you now how easy it is to bypass that once you get past 5th level. The only way to get a greater benefit out of that is to take it multiple times because it stacks. How may players you know are going to give up their feat slots to get a DR increase of 2 at a time. Greater Resilency is not that great. All it does is increase your DR by 1 when it normally goes up. Using the example given in CW a 13 level Barbarian has DR 4, DR 5 at 16, DR 6 at 19th. Do you know how easy it is for high level creatures to beat that. Yes, roll with it is broken. First of all if you compare it to the EPIC feat which does almost the same thing except it has higher prerequisites. Ther epic version Damage Reduction [Epic]:which has a prereq of 21 con and 21st level. it gives dr 3/- and stacks. Roll with it imitates an epic feat far to well at first level. Normal feats should not immitate epic feats. Second: roll with it stacks with itself and thus makes a barbarians dr superflous if a fighter takes it as he has so many extra feats. Feats should not imitate let alone double the power of class only abilities especially if they can be taken at first level. Third: As previously mentioned, roll with it can be taken AT FIRST LEVEL. A character with dr 2/- at first level breaks the game. I think this feat counts as a fighter feat although I could be wrong if it does that means you could have dr4/- at first level as a fighter. This is even more game breaking as the only things that can hurt you drop many other party members in 1 hit. Fourth: The point is not that a creature can not beat dr 5/- but rather that that much damage is taken off every blow. if I am a charater who is hit 10 times for 10 points of damage I have taken 100 hitpoint of damage. If I am hit 10 times for 10 points of damage and have dr 5/- I take 50 points total. Thats alot of extra hitpoints. Another small advantage of this form of dr is immunity to swarms. Just a small advantage but still an advantage. Thus when comparted to roll with it greater resilience comes up sub par but roll with it is broken. When judged on its own greater resilience is solid.
memorax 11-13-05, 02:46 PM	So tasslehoff220 your basic argument is that a feat must be good because somewhere in the D&D gaming world someone one is going to take it. Or that if it is included in any character build it`s not worthless. You cannot have it both ways. To me a feat is either good or bad not both. For the record I consider any and all +1 feats useless. As for naming situations you chose those that are obvioulsy stacked in your favor. Weapon focus will always be taken by fighter types it`s the only way to get Weapon Specialization. Now if weapon focus was not need to take weapon specialization you would have a point. I have yet to met anyone who played a fighter who do not take it. Not because they want to but because they have to. They way the system is set up you have to take certain feats whether you want to take them or not. You cannot choose to take them by choice. ["tasslehoff220"] Yes, roll with it is broken. First of all if you compare it to the EPIC feat which does almost the same thing except it has higher prerequisites. Ther epic version Damage Reduction [Epic]:which has a prereq of 21 con and 21st level. it gives dr 3/- and stacks. Roll with it imitates an epic feat far to well at first level. Normal feats should not immitate epic feats. [/QUOTE] I guess you and I differ on what we consider Epic feats. I consider a DR of 2 a joke. Even at first level. It`s not much of a defence unless your only enemies are goblins or kobolds. Let see how well a DR of 2 protects you against a group of orcs with greataxes. Most gamers I know are too busy taking feats to get Whirlwind attack as soon as possible to even bother taking Roll with it. Trust me most gamers know how precious feats are. They are not going to waste time with a feat that gives such a low benefit. In any case imo most quite a few of the Epic feats are not so epic. ["tasslehoff220"] Second: roll with it stacks with itself and thus makes a barbarians dr superflous if a fighter takes it as he has so many extra feats. Feats should not imitate let alone double the power of class only abilities especially if they can be taken at first level. [/QUOTE] You keep saying that it stacks on itself. Which is true except by the time it becomes of any use most creatures that you fight do more than enough damage to not make it taking worth while in the first place. There are so mnay other fighter feats that give you more than this one. Trust me I can honestly say that many players are not wasting their time with this. Unless of course they have to take a prestige class that requires it. ["tasslehoff220"] Third: As previously mentioned, roll with it can be taken AT FIRST LEVEL. A character with dr 2/- at first level breaks the game. I think this feat counts as a fighter feat although I could be wrong if it does that means you could have dr4/- at first level as a fighter. This is even more game breaking as the only things that can hurt you drop many other party members in 1 hit. [/QUOTE] Many feats can be taken at first level. This is what I would be taking at first level if I was a human fighter. Weapon focus because it`s the only way to get wepaon specialization. Dodge and Mobolity to get Whirlwind Attack. Not roll wit it. Unless a DM forces me to take it. Do you know how easy it is for a smart DM to beat a DR4? With ranged weapons. Let see you shrug off damage when four orcs with heavy crossbows manage to all score hits on your character. ["tasslehoff220"] Fourth: The point is not that a creature can not beat dr 5/- but rather that that much damage is taken off every blow. if I am a charater who is hit 10 times for 10 points of damage I have taken 100 hitpoint of damage. If I am hit 10 times for 10 points of damage and have dr 5/- I take 50 points total. Thats alot of extra hitpoints. Another small advantage of this form of dr is immunity to swarms. Just a small advantage but still an advantage. [/QUOTE] Really bad example. You never get hit with equal amounts of damage. It`s statistcally impossible. You can take 10 points of damage than take 20 if you get hit with a critical hit. A dragon can hit you for 30 points of damage or give you 60 with a critical. Let see if your DR of 5 will help you then. I had forgotten about the immunity to swarms. I will concede that it does give you a small advantage. Though it still not worth a feat slot. How often do you get targeted by swarm attacks in most games anyway. ["tasslehoff220"] Thus when comparted to roll with it greater resilience comes up sub par but roll with it is broken. When judged on its own greater resilience is solid.[/QUOTE] I still disagree. You have yet to prove they are worth spending feat slots on.
tasslehoff220 11-13-05, 04:07 PM	So tasslehoff220 your basic argument is that a feat must be good because somewhere in the D&D gaming world someone one is going to take it. Or that if it is included in any character build it`s not worthless. You cannot have it both ways. To me a feat is either good or bad not both. For the record I consider any and all +1 feats useless. First of all, yes, I know you believe all +1 feats to be useless. Youve stated yourself multiple times. Second: I layed out my argument carefully. Its in the logical forms of modus ponens and modus tolens so choose a line and explain why it is wrong because if you can not explain why one of the premises is logically wrong it stands to be necessarily true. You have given no argument at all. As for whirlwind attack, while it is a decent feat I have never seen a pc take it. Yes feats are precious but a feat that takes off 2 points from every melee attack is broken and any feat that takes a class only ability and gives it to anyone except better and at an earlier level is also broken. If you wish to argue I will be happy to do so but say something and give an argument or at the very least try to show where a flaw in mine rather then just pointlessly saying, no you're wrong. thanks in advance.
Nephlite 11-13-05, 05:00 PM	Dodge: Not nearly as good, since it only applies to one enemy at a time. Although I take it mainly as a prereq, it's still not terribly bad. Yeah, I've had it house ruled to every oppoment and not just 1. Hasn't become overpowered. Eschew Materials: Useful when your spell component pouch has been stolen. Which happens how often? Most Sorc fixes have this as a free feat. Mistly flavor, but can be situationlly good. Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. Sometimes I like to deflect arrows with my rogues. (auto stop one successful hit: my dm is upset when I do that to a enemy that criticaled) It is like Enemy archer rolled Nat 20: critcal but Deflect=0 damage. Plus haven't you seen the movie where the sword/weappn user kicks? Zorro does. Improved Overrun: Have you ever heard of an overrun build? I haven't. Football players! But than no one plays that game in D&D lol
Doomed_Penguin 11-13-05, 05:09 PM	Any that give you +2 on 2 skills. Just be a human if you want that! And Green Ear in complete adventurer. How often do you use bardicmusic on plants??? I would say the same about Requiem in libris mortis, but that really comes in handy if you play with a necromancer...
Shike 11-13-05, 05:58 PM	I would disagree about metamagic feats FOR SORCERERS. I've actually played a spellcaster that was captured (not killed) and bound. Because of Still Spell and Silent Spell he was able to teleport home w/o any problems. Nephlite, I have done the same w/ sorcerers. Also, in the sutuation above, when a PC is captured, all weapons, and spell component pouches are taken away, IMO. Otherwise, I agree with a good portion of the feats on this list. Though I do like the Two Weapon Fighting Tree, but I don't, generally "Optimize" my characters. I build a concept and then build the concept the best way I can. Actually, I find the Fighter w/two weapon fighting, two weapon defense trees as well as Oversized Two weapon Fighting and the Tempest Class, Allows someone to wield 2 Bastard swords (which can be fun :) ) Of course this also involves the Exotic Weapon (bastardsword). Oh well.
Centauri 11-13-05, 06:32 PM	Mobility - entirely trumped by Tumble. I see this brought up every time a Useless Feats thread comes up. For one thing, not every class has Tumble as a cross class skill. For another, you can't use it if your speed as been reduced "armor, excess equipment, or loot" - though I guess you can still use it if you've been slowed or something. Under some circumstances, the DC for Tumble might be too high for it to work reliably. Moving quickly, past several foes, though an obstructed area will raise that DC quickly. I'll admit that it's a nice skill, and if you take full ranks in it then Mobility is probably not that useful. But it doesn't "trump" Mobility.
Bob Loblaw 11-13-05, 08:57 PM	How can people say that Mobility is bad because it is trumped by Tumble and then say that the +2/+2 feats are bad? Acrobatic (+2), Contortionist (+2), Faerie Mysteries Initiate (+4), Grasshopper Strike (Take 10 on Tumble while in combat), Rhennlore (+1), Sea Legs (+2 when on a ship), Skill Focus (Tumble) (+3): Total +12 or +15 and you can Take 10 when in combat. Now I know that no one is going to do this, but you have to look at the way the numbers work together. If I were building a character based on Tumble, I know that I would seriously consider at least two or three of those feats. For some bad feats, I would consider: Altitude Adaptation (How often do you play games in high altitudes?) Arachnid Rider (How often is this needed and wouldn't it make more sense to simply use the Ride skill, maybe modified?) Bat Rider (Same as Arachnid Rider) Claws of the Mantis (just take TWF) Great Cleave (As you go up in levels, this looses its effectiveness) Deflect Arrows (Only once per round? It would be better if it cost you an Attack of Opportunity) Desert Dweller (Most games I have played in, the DM doesn't usually worry too much about this) Dirty Fighting (+1d4 damage as a full action? Almost worthless past level 5) Dragon Hunter (Unless you are consistently going up against dragons, this isn't going to be very helpful. Also, +2 to your bull-rush against a dragon, you're going to need more than that). Exotic Armor Proficiency (I haven't seen any that really make my kernel pop) Exotic Shield Proficiency (I haven't seen any that really make my kernel pop) Fast Armor (You still probably don't have time) Frozen Magic (If you are in a cold climate, then most of the creatures you fight will be immune or very resistant to your spells, this isn't going to change that) Grass Trekker (How often do you really force march?) Increased Carrying Capacity (just get a bag of holding) Karmic Twin (even if this comes in handy once, if your twin dies, then you have wasted a feat) Resist Ghost (Seems to specific, what if you just don't see that many dead people?) Second Wind (This loses its effectiveness greatly as you increase in levels) Snatch Arrows (Since you can only do this once per round, it loses a lot of its effectiveness) There's more, but I don't feel like going through all of them right now.
phant0m master 11-13-05, 09:48 PM	People may disagree with me. But I think dive for cover is terrible. Even if you make the second reflex save (which you probably won't, since characters w/ high saves wont take the feat) you are still lying prone. PRONE! Being tripped dosn't even make you prone! That like saying "I dodged a fireball, now walk on over and kick the ever loving crap outta me!"
StormCrow42 11-13-05, 10:23 PM	Being tripped dosn't even make you prone! Huh? Of course being tripped makes you prone. That's the definition of what being tripped does to you. In any event, if you're using dive for cover to make a reflex save for an area spell, chances are you're not in melee range of anyone at the moment. Since being prone is a benefit against ranged attacks, that could be considered a good thing. You also have a decent chance, depending on the circumstances, of getting up before anyone does close to melee range.
Keenath 11-13-05, 10:36 PM	People may disagree with me. But I think dive for cover is terrible. Even if you make the second reflex save (which you probably won't, since characters w/ high saves wont take the feat) you are still lying prone. PRONE!Yeah, prone. Whee. Move action to stand up, but take an AOO. Sometimes that's better than eating a fireball. Particularly, you may have missed this, if you have Evasion. You miss your Reflex save, so you take full damage. Go prone to get a second chance and save for no damage? Yes, please! Being tripped dosn't even make you prone!What game are you playing? SRD: Trip attack, under 'Being Tripped' -- "A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action."
FlameLover 11-13-05, 11:38 PM	I agree with some things people have said except the following (or just ellaborating sometimes): Green Ear in complete adventurer. How often do you use bardicmusic on plants??? I would say the same about Requiem in libris mortis, but that really comes in handy if you play with a necromancer... It would be a good feat if they didn't get that +5 bonus on Will saves. I hate it when you take a rather specific, limited-use feat anyway and they load on the punishment. I mean would it *Really* be broken for Bardic Music to just affect platns normally for the cost of a feat? I've houseruled this and I still doubt anyone would take it :| Altitude Adaptation (How often do you play games in high altitudes?) Depends on the campaign, if you're playing a campaign based in the mountains you'll be glad it exists ;) Arachnid Rider (How often is this needed and wouldn't it make more sense to simply use the Ride skill, maybe modified?) Bat Rider (Same as Arachnid Rider) I'me assuming these are from Races of Stone or the Wild. They sound just like mounts who should make you eat a -4 "nonproficiency" penalty or something :P Great Cleave (As you go up in levels, this looses its effectiveness) Deflect Arrows (Only once per round? It would be better if it cost you an Attack of Opportunity) Agreed about Great Cleave, and I also agree on the Deflect Arrows one. I make that use an AoO myself. Desert Dweller (Most games I have played in, the DM doesn't usually worry too much about this) See Altitude Adaption - it depends on the campaign Dirty Fighting (+1d4 damage as a full action? Almost worthless past level 5) Yeah this is one lame feat. I thin giving you an extra 1d4 on every attack during a Full-Attack would rock though :) Dragon Hunter (Unless you are consistently going up against dragons, this isn't going to be very helpful. Also, +2 to your bull-rush against a dragon, you're going to need more than that). I just got Draconomicon recently and I thought some of these were a little weak. And as you said - WTF would someone be trying to do Bull Rushing a Dragon?! Exotic Armor Proficiency (I haven't seen any that really make my kernel pop) Exotic Shield Proficiency (I haven't seen any that really make my kernel pop) If the armours and shields were built like Weapons are I could see a point but as-is they seem kinda useless. Fast Armor (You still probably don't have time) What does this do? I'm thinking it might allow you to move full speed in medium armour or something. Grass Trekker (How often do you really force march?) Again - depends on campaign. But when you can just get a mount then this makes it seem even weaker. Where's this one from btw? Increased Carrying Capacity (just get a bag of holding) Only usefull in low-magic I guess. Again not sure where it's from. Resist Ghost (Seems to specific, what if you just don't see that many dead people?) Campaign specific, I know in the games I run the undead certianly get a run for there money Snatch Arrows (Since you can only do this once per round, it loses a lot of its effectiveness) Yeah making it just piggy-back on Deflect Arrows would work better IMO.
Cadfan 11-14-05, 12:41 AM	The weapon focus feat is actually really good. Take the total number of attack rolls you make in a day. Divide it by 20. That's how many, on average, you will succeed on ONLY because you took weapon focus. Its a meat and potatoes feat. The +2/+2 feats have a few diamonds hidden amongst them. Persuasive is great if you're doing a build which uses Improved Feint, because feinting requires a bluff opposed by an enemy roll, and any bonus you can get on that is worth it. Stealthy is good for the same reason if you're using a shadowdancer or some other build with Hide in Plain Sight. Dodge is worth it as well. Fine, its only one opponent, and you have to remember to declare it. Nine times out of ten, that's all you need. Again, add up the total number of times you've been attacked, divide by 20. That's how many missed you entirely because you took dodge. If you have a high AC build, its even better. If a typical foe only hits you on a 16, lets say, and you use dodge to make that a 17, you've increased how long you can survive in combat by 20%. The two weapon defense feats are terrible in comparison to improved buckler defense. Opening up an item slot is so much better than, you know, NOT opening up an item slot. The saving throw improvement feats are worthwhile. Especially if your character has something to make their saves more useful. Like putting Lightning Reflexes on a character with Evasion. Improved Sunder is phenomenal, except that you end up destroying the items you wanted to loot. But its frequently like improved disarm for the adamantium greatsword wielder, except better. And against someone with a non metal weapon (an axe with a wooden shaft, lets say), its murder.
Kendrick 11-14-05, 01:35 AM	The two weapon defense feats are terrible in comparison to improved buckler defense. Opening up an item slot is so much better than, you know, NOT opening up an item slot. How exactly does TWD open up an item slot?
eigch 11-14-05, 01:59 AM	Before I saw this thread, I posted a couple in the broken feats thread and a couple (Dodge and Martial Weapon Proficiency) have already been mentioned, but I have yet to see anything on... Improved Sunder. As I stated before, This feat is next to useless, except as a prereq. It might be somewhat useful if the +4 bonus you got to hit a weapon or shield was instead a bonus to damage to help overcome the hardness of whatever you are hitting. true, i would never take this as a character. But i certainly would give this feat to an NPC. A lot of these feats are great for NPC builds, but terrible for PCs
memorax 11-14-05, 10:56 AM	First of all, yes, I know you believe all +1 feats to be useless. Youve stated yourself multiple times. Second: I layed out my argument carefully. Its in the logical forms of modus ponens and modus tolens so choose a line and explain why it is wrong because if you can not explain why one of the premises is logically wrong it stands to be necessarily true. You have given no argument at all. What logical arguments? All you said was that you disagreed that certain feats were not broken. Basically a feat is "broken because I think it's broken". I showed you ways in which some of the feats you consider broken could be countered. Espcially the Damage reduction feats. If you choose to ignore what I wrote because it does not agree with what you wrote it's not my problem. The "you must be wrong if you do not agree with me" line of reasoning does not impress me. Nor is using words as "modus tolens" or "modus ponens". Though after some thinking I have changed my stance on the +1 feats. Not useless just way underpowered and still not worth the loss of a feat slot. As for whirlwind attack, while it is a decent feat I have never seen a pc take it. Yes feats are precious but a feat that takes off 2 points from every melee attack is broken and any feat that takes a class only ability and gives it to anyone except better and at an earlier level is also broken. If you wish to argue I will be happy to do so but say something and give an argument or at the very least try to show where a flaw in mine rather then just pointlessly saying, no you're wrong. thanks in advance. The ability to hit mutiple targets within 5 feet useless? If you say so. I have a pc fighter in my group who will tell you otherwise. What other advatage does the fighter have besides hitting things? They do not get any spells, nor special abilites besides extra feats and better chances to hit as they go up. Plus they have weaker will and fortiitude saves. It's not broken. Theare are many feats you need to take before getting it. It's not very useful unless the fighter is within five feet of targets and if you manage to immoblize or paralyze the fighter no Whirlwind Attack. Finally I frankly find it hard to believe no pc you know has ever taken the feat. It's the only feat imo that most figters should strive for at level one. I have been in 3 diifferent games in which we have had a fighter. Every time they took Whirlwind Attack. This is the last I will say on this.
Bob Loblaw 11-14-05, 11:27 AM	Flamelover, Fast Armor allows you to done your armor in half the time. Increased Carrying Capacity improves your Strength by 2 for the purposes of carrying things. Some more that I dug up: Armor Skin [Epic] (This is identical to Improved Natural Armor, but one is Epic the other is not) Extended Life Span (Who plays a character that long and how many effects age your character?) Improved Combat Reflexes (If your Dexterity is high enough, you won't need this feat. You already get 6 Attacks of Opportunity/round if you qualify for this feat so how useful will it be)
DarkWarriorKarg 11-14-05, 02:49 PM	Memorax, I believe you meant to say that fighters have weaker reflex saves. :D
phant0m master 11-14-05, 04:03 PM	Huh? Of course being tripped makes you prone. That's the definition of what being tripped does to you. Ah! Thats my bad. I was under the impression that prone denied your dex to AC and that tripping did no such thing. But I had my definitions mixed up. Yeah, prone. Whee. Move action to stand up, but take an AOO. Sometimes that's better than eating a fireball. Particularly, you may have missed this, if you have Evasion. You miss your Reflex save, so you take full damage. Go prone to get a second chance and save for no damage? Yes, please! Which classes get evasion? Monk? Rogue? They both have high saves+good dex. Are you going to take a feat thats going to possibly save you once in a while at the cost of being prone? And thats assuming you have evasion, if you don't then you will still take half and be prone. How is a fighter supposed to attack the wizard if he has to spend a move action to stand up? Not to mention your easy pickings for any melee character. if you're using dive for cover to make a reflex save for an area spell, chances are you're not in melee range of anyone at the moment. Since being prone is a benefit against ranged attacks, that could be considered a good thing. You also have a decent chance, depending on the circumstances, of getting up before anyone does close to melee range. What does it take to be in melee range? Most baddys have movement of at least 30ft. Not to mention charging. And if your lucky you might make the second save, and if your lucky you can stand up before anyone attacks you in their round and takes an AoO on yours. But if your not lucky you will end up worse then where you began, with one less action and possibly more damage.
memorax 11-14-05, 10:16 PM	Memorax, I believe you meant to say that fighters have weaker reflex saves. :D :embarrass Oops. Thanks for pointing that out DWK.
Keenath 11-14-05, 10:34 PM	Which classes get evasion? Monk? Rogue? They both have high saves+good dex. Are you going to take a feat thats going to possibly save you once in a while at the cost of being prone? And thats assuming you have evasion, if you don't then you will still take half and be prone. How is a fighter supposed to attack the wizard if he has to spend a move action to stand up? Not to mention your easy pickings for any melee character. The feat is situational. So is every feat in the book. No feat is good for every character all the time. Evasion belongs to good-reflex classes: Well, there's always multiclassing to consider. Beyond that, even people with good reflex saves sometimes fail, and a reroll practically guarantees that you'll make most of your saves. How do you attack if you have to stand up? Well, there's always the ranged weapon, and the readied action. Which leads into the next point.... What does it take to be in melee range? Most baddys have movement of at least 30ft. Not to mention charging. And if your lucky you might make the second save, and if your lucky you can stand up before anyone attacks you in their round and takes an AoO on yours. But if your not lucky you will end up worse then where you began, with one less action and possibly more damage. Again, it's situational. Are you going to drop prone while adjacent to dragon? Of course not. When you're next to a goblin? Sure! Or more to the point, when you're adjacent to a wizard? Why not? He won't be making AOOs on you. Typically a fireball or similar spell is much worse than taking an AOO, even with a -4 penalty for being prone. ESPECIALLY for the fighter, whose armor helps against attacks but doesn't do squat against a spell.
Cadfan 11-15-05, 12:01 AM	Kendrick- Though my phrasing was awkward, and I probably should have used parallel sentence structure, I said that Improved Buckler Defense opens up an item slot. And opening an item slot is incredibly powerful. In general, two items which do the same thing and stack will cost half as much as one item that gives the whole benefit in one shot. So, more item slots means more powerful characters per dollar.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-15-05, 01:52 AM	I disagree with a couple of those. Weapon Focus: Turns 5% of my misses into hits. Actually, it's more like 10%. If you hit 50% of the time, then another +1 will give you hits 55% of the time, or a 10% increase in your expected damage output. Two things to note: 1) This becomes more useful at higher levels, due to the lower BAB of iterative attacks (especially for TWF or RF folks). 2) The feat becomes more useful against more powerful monsters. If you're fighting something really tough and only hit 25% of the time, that lowly +1 is now a +20% to your damage output. Silent Spell: I really need a feat for those rare times when someone casts a Silence near me. To be fair, it's quite nice for a Sorcerer or Bard doing stealth work; coupled with Still Spell, one could arguably unleash all kinds of effects from within a crowd with nobody being the wiser (which is especially valuable for the kinds of manipulation abilities the Bard has, such as Charm or Confusion). For a non-subtle caster, though, they're pretty useless.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-15-05, 02:32 AM	The feat isnt worthless if I can name 1 situation where its good to take. Here is an agrument to prove it "Prove" is a very high standard; for something as inherently subjective as "good feat", you're not going to have much luck objectively proving that. In particular, the error in this argument is contained in the first sentence, and repeated below in point #1, namely, the claim that a feat is good if it's good in any one situation. As I can contrive a situation where any feat is valuable, that's not sufficiently discriminative. Something more on the range of "common situations" or "popular builds" would be necessary, and has the advantage of tackling the subjective nature of "good" head-on. No amount of logic will save you from bad premises. That being said, I agree that WF is a decent feat (see my numerical argument, above), and that Roll With It is very powerful at low levels (~25% damage reduction for many lower-CR monsters). YMMV.
Keenath 11-15-05, 11:48 AM	What is a bad feat? All feats are situational. Every feat can be useful under the right circumstances. First, you can't simply declare a feat to be "good" or "bad", black or white. It's a continuum. There are great feats, good feats, mediocre-but-good-in-a-certain-build feats, and poor feats. This last category is probably what we should be talking about in this discussion. Because all feats are situational, a good feat should either apply to a situation that happens a LOT, like making a save, being attacked, or dropping a target, or it should apply to a situation that a character can control, like making a trip attack or a skill check. So, my first definition of a bad feat is one that is not under your control and happens rarely. For example, Clever Wrestling is an example of a bad feat under this definition. It only comes into effect when a small subset of enemies (that is, those two sizes larger than you) takes a fairly uncommon action (grappling). The feat only applies to grapple checks to escape, so it doesn't help you if you want to proactively grapple an opponent. By contrast, Improved Grapple is a good feat, because it is active both when you are grappled and when you MAKE grapple attempts. Of course, sometimes a feat like this can be saved if the bonus is good enough or the situation dire enough -- for example, Diehard only takes effect when you're knocked to negative hit points, which is neither under your control nor (hopefully!) very common. However, it's a huge benefit to stay up when you should be down, and dying is an extremely bad result, so the feat is an exception to this definition. My second definition, and a more common one, is a feat that is numerically weak. That is, it gives a benefit that mathematically doesn't hold up. For example, Toughness is obviously a very weak feat simply because it doesn't increase at all with level. While three HP may be decent at first level, those three quickly become irrelevant compared to even a d4 hit die. Another example is Dodge, primarily due to only applying to a single target rather than all enemies -- especially because its direct analogue is weapon focus, and that feat applies to every attack with the appropriate weapon. And as I've mentioned before, this is an issue of choice -- you don't choose who attacks you, but you choose what weapon you use. This one is harder to come up with exceptions to, but also harder to analyze. How weak is "too weak"? The +2/+2 skill feats are, as we have discussed, somewhat variable. Any skill that requires an opposed roll is probably worth the +2, but other skills tend to be more difficult to deal with. I personally think that these feats were designed for characters who want to up their cross-class skill, who who simply belong to a class that doesn't get many skill points. A fighter might want to take Stealthy or Negotiator as a way to boost a cross-class aspect of his character -- a sneaky duellist, or a battlefield commander -- or a cleric may just want to increase his checks, since clerics are often short on skill points. They're also good for NPC-class characters who usually don't have many levels, and can't look forward to gaining a level in a few weeks or months.
solbergb 11-15-05, 01:30 PM	I agree that feats are situational. I tend to think of them in these categories: 1. NPC feats. These are for characters not expected to advance in level or who aren't "Generalists" the way adventurers are. Every single skill boost feat is in here, as is toughness (for L1 NPC's), the +2 saving throw feats etc. For most Adventurers, only the saving throw feats are worth a look, and with access to other books, you can often do better against what they'll do for you by either multiclassing or taking things like Insightful Reflexes or Force of Personality or whatever. 2. Gateway feats. Dodge/Mobility is the usual example, but improved unarmed strike to get to Grapple is another (for most non-monks, armor spikes do the same job and do it bettter), as is spell focus conjuration to get to augment summoning. Ideally, try to take these feats as close to the "payoff" feat as possible. 3. PRC-qualifying feats. Often these are NPC feats, or Gateway feats, but not always. Sometimes they are otherwise useful feats that are kinda stupid for the PRC flavor/abilities (like the warchanter combat expertise and weapon focus...the PRC is all about chanting your companions into killing machines, often trashing their AC to do so...why are we doing combat expertise? And WF is mostly for PrC's that focus on a weapon, like Exotic Weapon Master, Kensai and Arcane Archer. What is it doing here?). 4. Passive Feats - the other guy needs to do something for this to come up. These have to be weighed against how often this happens in your campaign, and the consequences of not having the feat. Save booster feats are the classic example, but some "good" feats include elusive target (power attack full connecting is bad), close quarters combat (you may not need it often but it can save not just you, but your whole party to NOT be grabbed by the grapplemonster in the surprise round), combat reflexes, etc. Quite often these feats do better with helper feats or class abilities (combat reflexes and close quarters combat make both better, sun school martial arts and abundant step, etc). Deflect arrows is one seen as weak, because you need to be aware of the enemy, have a hand free and getting stuck once with an arrow isn't all that bad usually. Consider however an archer - most archers have great spot checks, their arrow hand free between volleys and engage in missile duels where their AC+cover blocks most shots, but not the lucky ones. Archers who take 2 levels of monk have a strong argument to take this feat instead of combat reflexes, because the same things that make this feat strong argue against combat reflexes (archers don't have reach weapons in hand much, don't want to be next to their enemies, etc) 5. Active feats - these work when You decide they work. Weigh how often they would be chosen (weapon focus/spec score highly here) vs how effective they are when they work (grapple scores highly here). Some score pretty well in both categories (trip, cleave and power attack), some are "often enough to be useful but not first tier" such as sunder or bull rush. Some are a mix of both - great cleave is actually more of a passive feat because usually being surrounded by lots of weak enemies is a DM choice, not a player choice. I'd say only the NPC and gateway feats qualify as "mostly useless". Most active and passive feats work for a given character. Note however that some feats are better on a given character. Dodge, for example, is better on a character that already has a high AC and tends to fight single opponents (if it hits you on an 18 and now needs a 19, you just stripped 50% of the enemy offense away) than on a char with low AC that fights multiple opponenets (like many spike chain/combat reflexes builds).
Thubby 11-15-05, 01:57 PM	i disagree with the grapple feat: i made a character with earth's grasp, could actualy contend with big baddies, and effectively disable them, cant attack outside a grapple. imp disarm: WHAT THE HELL!!! first, most things dont have weapons, and imp trip stops them from atttacking, and lets you get an extra attack on them
Keenath 11-15-05, 02:12 PM	Deflect arrows is one seen as weak, because you need to be aware of the enemy, have a hand free and getting stuck once with an arrow isn't all that bad usually.Calling Deflect Arrows weak makes me laugh a bit, especially in light of my last gaming session -- the party monk has Deflect Arrows, and we were fighting a melee battle while under fire from a distance. The archers were only 2nd level, but most of us were taking at least one hit per turn, or perhaps every other turn... It was driving the DM nuts -- "Okay, the monk gets hit by an arrow--" "No, I don't." "Oh... yeah. Crap!" (And this exchange happened at LEAST four times! The DM just couldn't remember that she had deflect arrows...) The monk saved herself from taking over 30 damage during that battle, just by deflecting arrows!
Forged_Fury 11-15-05, 02:25 PM	To be fair, it's quite nice for a Sorcerer or Bard doing stealth work; coupled with Still Spell, one could arguably unleash all kinds of effects from within a crowd with nobody being the wiser (which is especially valuable for the kinds of manipulation abilities the Bard has, such as Charm or Confusion). Was this changed in 3.5? I thought Bards could not Still their spells... -Forged Fury
Centauri 11-15-05, 02:26 PM	imp disarm: WHAT THE HELL!!! first, most things dont have weapons, and imp trip stops them from atttacking, and lets you get an extra attack on them Depends on your campaign, I'd say. It might be true that most entries in the Monster Manuals aren't thinks that weild weapons, but the DM could pit the party against a lot of humanoids with class levels who carry useful equipment, but may not be easy to trip. Also, remember that you can disarm equipment, too. If the enemy is wearing an item that makes him difficult to attack, you might want to snatch it from him first.
Keenath 11-15-05, 02:31 PM	imp disarm: WHAT THE HELL!!! first, most things dont have weapons,However, most of your opponents will tend to be humanoid weapon-users, unless you're doing a really monster-heavy dungeon crawl, and weapon-using races can often be almost completely neutralized by a successful disarm. and imp trip stops them from atttacking, and lets you get an extra attack on themImproved Trip requires a strength check. Improved Disarm is an attack roll. That means a dex-using finesse character can disarm where his trip check may be utterly useless. Likewise, a really high BAB class like Paladin or Fighter often gets more distance out of an attack roll (which is his specialty) than a straight contest of strength. And now, from a few pages back... Improved Overrun: Have you ever heard of an overrun build? I haven't.Ooh, I know this one. Improved Overrun is Improved Trip for low int, high str, high AC characters -- or just power-attack types who don't have the feats to get both Combat Expertise AND Improved Trip. Improved Overrun lets him make trip attacks (because that's what an overrun essentially is) as long as he's okay with taking AOOs, which may not be such a big deal if his AC is up in the high 20s. It's not as good as Improved Trip, but as I pointed out, IT is just out of reach of a lot of characters.
d_nychus 11-15-05, 02:32 PM	From the Eberron Campaign Setting: Investigate: Lets' you CSI a room wioth search. Gee. I guess simply putting in a "expanded usage for old skills" blurb like in all their other products was just too much. It lowers the Search DC to a base 10, making finding a clue near automatic, You can then basically replace a Knowledge check with a base DC 15 Search check to understand the clue. That's actually a lot for a skill-based feat. Urban Tracking... it lets you use gather information the way you've always done it. It allows you to track someone by word of mouth information, and WILL actually lead you to that person, something that normal Gather Information cannot guarantee. It also takes a lot less time in most cases than a normal Gather Information check, and the DC for this task becomes astronomically lower. Research... gee... waste a feat in how to use filing systems, so that you can use knowledge skills the way you always have. It allows you to RETRY Knowledge checks with the use of a library. That alone is phenomenal. Normally you cannot ever retry a Knowledge check, even with the world's most extensive library at your fingertips. It also drops the DC to a 10, meaning that if you do not have ranks in Knowledge (X), you can still go to a library and make a untrained Knowledge (X) check and still learn a good deal more than you normally could. Remember, if the DC is above 10 for a Knowledge check, you cannot make the check untrained. This feat circumvents that cap. It also allows for some use of the Knowledge skill to examine records, which is not that big of a deal in most cases, but nice to have as a side. All of these are very good feats. It just takes a little careful reading to understand just how good these feats are.
solbergb 11-15-05, 02:37 PM	Deflect arrows is often handy at lower levels. My monk likes it too, it helps a bit with the 14 AC at level 10. Disarm is handy if your campaign has a lot of humanoid enemies. That raging barbarian power attacking for full with his xxx burst scythe is easy meat for a quick disarm, since he trashed his attack roll. Likewise that annoying expertise guy is easy to strip of his equipment. Sunder and disarm can likewise strip casters of their foci/comp pouches, limiting their options. Seriously though. Archers are fairly rare opponents after level 4 in most campaigns. The incoming missile fire is either magical rays or boulders, neither of which can be deflected. That plus the raft of restrictions on when you can use it (the rogues going for the surprise sneak ranged thing are unaffected, and the volley archers who shoot 6 arrows a round at you are only mildly inconvenienced) tends to put it in the weak category for most characters. That's why I said....you have to weigh how often it comes up FOR YOU, and the consequence of feat vs no feat FOR YOU. My sorceress has gloves of arrow snaring. They almost never come up (most times she is shot, it is when she is surprised *sigh*), but when they do it is invariably when somebody readied to shoot her when she is spellcasting. Regardless of actual combat optomization vs some other item, the look ont he DM's face is priceless :D In a campaign with lots of humanoids, all of the tactical feats (disarm, trip, sunder, bull rush, overrun, grapple) are superior than a campaign where the typical enemy is a dinosaur, dire animal or dragon. Feats like blindfight and quick reconnoiter are more useful when you fight a lot of stealthy opponents and you have meaningful attacks (blindfight) or great spot/listen (reconnoiter) to back up the feat. Etc.
d_nychus 11-15-05, 02:51 PM	While what most of you say is true, solbergd, there are a few feats that really seem on the low end for ANY setting. Combat Casting is one. It's more cost effecient to take Skill Focus (Concentration). Dodge just seems to give too small of a bonus unless you are only fighting one opponent at a time, ever. Toughness does have a few uses, but mostly to make up for other shortcomings, like an elf wizard with 2 hp. It deserves a place in the game, but I wouldn't mind a little kick to it as well. Shot on the Run is another one that bothers me. It is a high-end archery feat, but really is limited on utility. Sure, it's adequete if you're at range and have some reason to dart from cover to cover, but since the game allows you to shoot from the corner of cover anyways, the situations where Shot on the Run actually is useful are few and far between, and the effect is simply mediocre. Far Shot is a much more useful feat than Shot on the Run.
20goingon1232 11-15-05, 03:05 PM	lol. may i take this feat as the bonus feat granted by this feat? ahha UNLIMETED FEATS THAT DO NOTHING... DM YOU CANT STOP ME... MY POWER TO TOO GREAT... HAHAHAHA!!!!! any wild feats from 3.5 really suck if your a wildshapeing druid (except for fast wildshape). You have to spend a feat AND a wildshape use AND a standard action to do something that can be done by wildshape itself but better??? um NO thankyou... check please. Actually, if it only applies to Fighters, then anyone with restricted bonus feats (Wizard, Psion, Champ of Cor, etc.) can use that to pick up any feat they REALLY want instead of those from the bonus feat list only. For example, I tend to play Wizards with NO Item Creation feats. I also despise metamagic feats. With Wizard bonus feats, the only thing I have going for me is Spell Mastery. Woo.... Usually when someone lays his hands on my spellbook, I am already dead (I also don't like to be Resurrected...). Being able to apply that bonus feat to Spell Penetration, Spell Focus (for PrC entry or other feat entry) or Precise Shot, etc., would be golden for me.
Centauri 11-15-05, 03:11 PM	Dodge just seems to give too small of a bonus unless you are only fighting one opponent at a time, ever. Is that so uncommon? Shot on the Run is another one that bothers me. It is a high-end archery feat, but really is limited on utility. Sure, it's adequete if you're at range and have some reason to dart from cover to cover, but since the game allows you to shoot from the corner of cover anyways, the situations where Shot on the Run actually is useful are few and far between, and the effect is simply mediocre. Moving from cover to cover might not seem particularly useful, but what about moving from full cover to full cover. The DM of a player who took such a feat could probably contrive lots of useful situations for such a feat.
d_nychus 11-15-05, 03:41 PM	Is that so uncommon? Uncommon, no. Uncommon enough to make the feat weak, yes. Basically, as soon as you start fighitng more than one opponent for any reason (allies, summoned creatures, etc.) this feat get whacked with the nerf stick. Moving from cover to cover might not seem particularly useful, but what about moving from full cover to full cover. You mean total cover, right? I meant total cover when I was posting. I was just using cover in the general definition, and not the game mechanic one. Regardless, even if there is total cover to move between, why do it? You can just stand at the corner and get total cover from most angles, and still fire your full attack. If you use Shot on the Run, you could jump from one area of total cover to another and still make a shot, but I just cannot see when that would be advantageous over shooting around a corner, except in maybe a few rare instances (running from a swarm of nasties with ranged attacks through a room of pillars like The Great Hall of Moria in The Two Towers). The feat's practicallity is so limited I just don't see a point in taking it. The DM of a player who took such a feat could probably contrive lots of useful situations for such a feat. The DM should not need to mold encounters around the utility of a feat. A feat should be good enough to be useful in encounters that the DM has already planned out.
Centauri 11-15-05, 04:10 PM	Uncommon, no. Uncommon enough to make the feat weak, yes. Basically, as soon as you start fighitng more than one opponent for any reason (allies, summoned creatures, etc.) this feat get whacked with the nerf stick. And as soon as you've whittled down the opposition a bit, it becomes more useful again. You mean total cover, right? I meant total cover when I was posting. I was just using cover in the general definition, and not the game mechanic one. Regardless, even if there is total cover to move between, why do it? You can just stand at the corner and get total cover from most angles, and still fire your full attack. I was not aware that you could have total cover from something and still target it. If you can see your target, can't he see you? Sure he might have penalties to hit, but what if he's not attacking with something that requires a roll? Can you tell me where shooting from a corner is explained? If you use Shot on the Run, you could jump from one area of total cover to another and still make a shot, but I just cannot see when that would be advantageous over shooting around a corner, except in maybe a few rare instances (running from a swarm of nasties with ranged attacks through a room of pillars like The Great Hall of Moria in The Two Towers). Interesting that you would say that, given the recent Wizards article I read that admitted that The Lord of the Rings was a big influence on some of the feats. Oh, and that scene was in The Fellowship of the Ring. The DM should not need to mold encounters around the utility of a feat. A feat should be good enough to be useful in encounters that the DM has already planned out. That's one way to play. Another way, which takes advantage of the fact that you have a human DM and aren't playing a pre-programmed video game, would be for the DM to look at his characters and what they can do, and mold the challenge to them. The DM can, and should make the game fun based on the choices his players make.
solbergb 11-15-05, 04:27 PM	While what most of you say is true, solbergd, there are a few feats that really seem on the low end for ANY setting. Combat Casting is one. It's more cost effecient to take Skill Focus (Concentration). Dodge just seems to give too small of a bonus unless you are only fighting one opponent at a time, ever. Toughness does have a few uses, but mostly to make up for other shortcomings, like an elf wizard with 2 hp. It deserves a place in the game, but I wouldn't mind a little kick to it as well. Shot on the Run is another one that bothers me. It is a high-end archery feat, but really is limited on utility. Sure, it's adequete if you're at range and have some reason to dart from cover to cover, but since the game allows you to shoot from the corner of cover anyways, the situations where Shot on the Run actually is useful are few and far between, and the effect is simply mediocre. Far Shot is a much more useful feat than Shot on the Run. Combat casting is usually ADDED to skill focus concentration. It benefits from stacking. I had a wizard in a party with two rogues who until level 6 had the most hp in the party, and stacking these feats let me be an "anchor" for the rogues while still casting spells. You don't usually need a +7 to concentration - unless you are a low level caster forced to tank. Again, low level NPCs are more likely to benefit from the combo than a typical adventurer. Dodge stacks with everything else. At the high end of AC, each point counts. Mostly it is a helper feat, but on some characters, it is used for the same reason many fighter types take weapon focus. A +1 is a +1. Toughness is 100% an NPC feat, but it is a good one for low hit die or low constitution enemies, especially if it gets them from "down in one swat" to "down in two swats" range for the EL. Shot on the run - yeah, I'll give you that one. It is the weakest of the "spring-attack-like" feats. It is so situational I'd only put it on specialized assassins - maybe something like grimlock snipers who zip into blindsight range, shoot, zip out, while covered by fog spells or something. It is far too narrow to be a good PC feat, but you could build an organization whose tactics depend on everyone in it having the feat, and give PC's fits until they figure out how to counter it.
Alienfreak 11-15-05, 05:00 PM	Tougness is one of the worst feats out there. That is exactly why they introduces improved toughness in the complete warrior. It doenst even need toughness as a prerequirement. And +1 HP/HD is pretty worth the bucks ... especially for fighters at later levels!
killbot 11-15-05, 05:15 PM	I am not sure as I have never used it, and have never seen anyone else use it in all my years of playing, but WA seems pretty weak. I believe you are much better off concentrating on one enemy and dropping him as fast as possible rather than hurting all enemys a little bit. If you took attack modifiers foir being damaged or something like that I could see WA being good, but as it is I think fullattacking 1 enemy and then cleaving is much better, especially by the time WA becomes available.
d_nychus 11-15-05, 07:17 PM	And as soon as you've whittled down the opposition a bit, it becomes more useful again. See? That's why I think it does not provide enough of a bonus. It only is truly useful in certain circumstances, and a +1 to AC even this just does not seem worth the feat. I was not aware that you could have total cover from something and still target it. If you can see your target, can't he see you? Sure he might have penalties to hit, but what if he's not attacking with something that requires a roll? Can you tell me where shooting from a corner is explained? You can extrapolate how it works from the Cover section of the SRD/PHB. COVER To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). If you choose the corner at the tip of a corner of cover, you can often get off a ranged attack against a foe while most others cannot get a straight shot off against you. In most other cases, you still have normal cover from the bulk of your enemies. At the very least, you can always 5-foot step back into total cover after making your full-attack. This is actually better illustrated in the Miniature's Handbook. Interesting that you would say that, given the recent Wizards article I read that admitted that The Lord of the Rings was a big influence on some of the feats. Oh, and that scene was in The Fellowship of the Ring. Yeah, such as Manyshot. At least they didn't make a shield surfing feat. :p That's one way to play. Another way, which takes advantage of the fact that you have a human DM and aren't playing a pre-programmed video game, would be for the DM to look at his characters and what they can do, and mold the challenge to them. The DM can, and should make the game fun based on the choices his players make. Err, I take a little offense to that. I have my own storyline, and my own scenarios that I feel are best for the games that I run, and I do not feel that I need to change them just so that one or two characters can actually use a feat that I already feel is inadequete. That does not mean that I'm on some sort of autopilot and immutable, just that I don't want to drastically alter my game just to cater to one feat that would be better sevred by improving its effects. Combat casting is usually ADDED to skill focus concentration. It benefits from stacking. I had a wizard in a party with two rogues who until level 6 had the most hp in the party, and stacking these feats let me be an "anchor" for the rogues while still casting spells. You don't usually need a +7 to concentration - unless you are a low level caster forced to tank. Again, low level NPCs are more likely to benefit from the combo than a typical adventurer. That is a very poor argument, because most characters who would take Combat Casting/Skill Focus (Concentration) do not have a lot of feats to begin with. Taking a decent feat just so that it stacks with a subpar feat does not make it somehow balanced. I would rather have Combat Casting be superior for casting in combat, and Skill Focus (Concentration) better for overall Concentration use. As it stands, Combat Casting does not do its job. Stacking is not enough to save the utility of this feat. If you can spare the feats to take both, it just turns a poor feat into a half-way decent one. If you can't take both, which is most likely, it's mechanically better to take Skill Focus (Concentration) in all builds, except those that need Combat Casting for a prerequisite. Even in that case, it still makes the character slightly weaker than most of his peers. Dodge stacks with everything else. At the high end of AC, each point counts. Mostly it is a helper feat, but on some characters, it is used for the same reason many fighter types take weapon focus. A +1 is a +1. But it's not a +1 to AC. It's a +1 to AC against only one opponent. Yes, it stacks, but so do most feats that improve AC. It is like only having a shield that works once a round, or a ring of protection that works only against touch attacks. THe utility is not powerful enough to make a terrific impact that most feats do. And it pales compared to Weapon Focus. Dodge is reactive, meaning you do not control when the feat takes effect. On a round, you could have the opponent you declared your Dodge against not attack you, and suffer attacks from multiple other opponents. On rounds like that, the feat is utterly worthless. Weapon Focus, on the other hand, is a proactive bonus, meaning you know exactly when and how it will be used. You are in utter control of how often it comes into effect, barring the rare instances that you are not properly equiped. Toughness is 100% an NPC feat, but it is a good one for low hit die or low constitution enemies, especially if it gets them from "down in one swat" to "down in two swats" range for the EL. In some senses, I agree with that, but I would prefer the feat to be improved somewhat, just enough to make it worth occasionally taking as a PC...aside from the elf wizard with 2 hp scenario. Shot on the run - yeah, I'll give you that one. It is the weakest of the "spring-attack-like" feats. It is so situational I'd only put it on specialized assassins - maybe something like grimlock snipers who zip into blindsight range, shoot, zip out, while covered by fog spells or something. It is far too narrow to be a good PC feat, but you could build an organization whose tactics depend on everyone in it having the feat, and give PC's fits until they figure out how to counter it. That's not a bad use for this feat, but I would prefer something that has more common useage, or more powerful effects, just so that PCs can take this feat and still maintain a proper power level. I am not sure as I have never used it, and have never seen anyone else use it in all my years of playing, but WA seems pretty weak. I believe you are much better off concentrating on one enemy and dropping him as fast as possible rather than hurting all enemys a little bit. If you took attack modifiers foir being damaged or something like that I could see WA being good, but as it is I think fullattacking 1 enemy and then cleaving is much better, especially by the time WA becomes available. Well, other factors like reach, and also the special attacks like tripping and disarming make this feat pretty good in some builds. Magical effects can make this feat insane (enlarge person comes to mind). The fact that you get an attack for each opponent you can hit means that good use of this feat can give you more attacks per round than you could ever normally get. Yes, it usually is better to concentrate on one foe at time, but there are plenty of situations to call for 'softening up' a large group so that they can be whittled away more easily. See area attacks by the spellcasters.
killbot 11-15-05, 07:29 PM	Well, other factors like reach, and also the special attacks like tripping and disarming make this feat pretty good in some builds. Magical effects can make this feat insane (enlarge person comes to mind). The fact that you get an attack for each opponent you can hit means that good use of this feat can give you more attacks per round than you could ever normally get. Yes, it usually is better to concentrate on one foe at time, but there are plenty of situations to call for 'softening up' a large group so that they can be whittled away more easily. See area attacks by the spellcasters. It still seems like a massive investment to me for a very situational feat. Even with reach your enemy will probably have cover if you are getting guys in the second ranks, and by the time you get it single hit kills are going to be very rare. It sounds like you have played with it and it works, but I think I prefer high strength cleave kind of guys. (I am a terrible sword and board fan ;)) Maybe if you had both, whirlwinded first and then finished of and cleaved the next round, but that is a lot of feats and stat pre reqs.
Centauri 11-15-05, 07:48 PM	See? That's why I think it does not provide enough of a bonus. It only is truly useful in certain circumstances, and a +1 to AC even this just does not seem worth the feat. Are there any feats out there that just boost your AC straight up? All the ones I can think of, such as Mobility, Combat Expertise and Two-Weapon Defense are just as or even more situational than Dodge, and/or require prerequisites that not everyone likes to meet. I like it, especially for Fighters, since one feat isn't much of an opportunity cost for them, and it opens the door to other feats I like. That's not a good reason for a feat to be poor, but if it favors Fighters over other classes, I'm not going to shed a tear. If you choose the corner at the tip of a corner of cover, you can often get off a ranged attack against a foe while most others cannot get a straight shot off against you. I'm still not seeing it. If you're shooting from an arrow loop, or something I could see you being able to take total cover, while still being able to shoot, but a corner can't do more than give you an AC bonus. In most other cases, you still have normal cover from the bulk of your enemies. At the very least, you can always 5-foot step back into total cover after making your full-attack. Yes, but only every other turn. When you want to attack on your next turn, you'll have to step back out and remain there until your next turn. At least they didn't make a shield surfing feat. :p Sh. Don't give them ideas. Err, I take a little offense to that. I have my own storyline, and my own scenarios that I feel are best for the games that I run, and I do not feel that I need to change them just so that one or two characters can actually use a feat that I already feel is inadequete. That does not mean that I'm on some sort of autopilot and immutable, just that I don't want to drastically alter my game just to cater to one feat that would be better sevred by improving its effects. Well, if possible, adventures shouldn't exist in a vacuum. Once he know the make up of the party that will be facing them, it behooves the DM to make tweaks that challenge those characters appropriately. This might mean making certain encounters tougher or easier, or altering them somewhat to favor (or frustrate) certain choices the players have made. That doesn't mean changing your dungeon crawl to a summit meeting just because all the characters invested heavily in Diplomacy, but it does mean noting if anyone has a means to get past a locked door before using one to seal off the key room of your adventure, or making at least some of your monsters accessible to melee fighters if no one is good at range. Things like that. And what sort of a drastic change would it take to favor the player who wanted to take Shot on the Run? Unless you only run combat in perfectly open fields, there should be trees, rocks, walls, and the like from and to which the character with Shot on the Run can run and gain total cover.
Keenath 11-15-05, 07:55 PM	I am not sure as I have never used it, and have never seen anyone else use it in all my years of playing, but WA seems pretty weak. I believe you are much better off concentrating on one enemy and dropping him as fast as possible rather than hurting all enemys a little bit. If you took attack modifiers foir being damaged or something like that I could see WA being good, but as it is I think fullattacking 1 enemy and then cleaving is much better, especially by the time WA becomes available.You're correct, in MOST cases. However... Thinking about this earlier, I realized what the great thing about whirlwind is. You make each attack at your full BAB! That means you can afford to power attack for quite a bit, usually, making the attacks more deadly. You are using a two-handed weapon, right? And you still have a better chance to hit than that third iterative attack at -10. Most of the time, you won't be fighting things that go down in one hit. If you are, feats don't matter much, because they're just mooks. However, consider the case of fighting something that takes two hits to drop... Assume you roll well. Your full-bab attack hits, then the -5 attack drops him. You cleave at that -5, then make your -10 attack. That means your cleave attacks are not as likely to actually connect as a whirlwind would be. However, I will declare right up front that I think the prereqs are too harsh. I still completely fail to see how Spring Attack has anything to do with Whirlwind -- in what way is SuperCleave linked to a highly mobile fighting style? If I had my way, I'd make Cleave and Great Cleave the prereqs to Whirlwind, and make it a feat-chain parallel to Spring Attack. So, yeah, it may not be the BEST feat you can come up with, but I think it's still worth it, particularly with the much-maligned spiked chain.
killbot 11-15-05, 08:09 PM	You make each attack at your full BAB! That means you can afford to power attack for quite a bit, usually, making the attacks more deadly. You are using a two-handed weapon, right? And you still have a better chance to hit than that third iterative attack at -10. Yes that does make it sound a lot better. I still think it is slightly expensive, but not to bad. Can you cleave on the same round you WA?
Keenath 11-15-05, 08:10 PM	I'm still not seeing it. If you're shooting from an arrow loop, or something I could see you being able to take total cover, while still being able to shoot, but a corner can't do more than give you an AC bonus.I'm not sure what the original poster was getting at, but this is what I see: You stand around a corner from the battlefield. Half the battlefield has their line blocked, perhaps half has cover from you, and half has a clear shot. Like this: ******X***** Archer ******====== Wall ************ A***B***C***D Targets See what I mean? C and D can't hit the archer at all. B has to deal with cover, for the AC boost, while A has a clear line of effect. A smart archer would move to keep the cover blocking the dangerous targets, but whoever he's firing on still always gets to see him with at least cover. I think Shot on the Run isn't terrible, but it really doesn't hold up to the other Spring Attack-like feats, nor to its own prerequisite list. It needs an additional benefit to make it worth my archer giving up the rest of his attacks.
Keenath 11-15-05, 08:14 PM	Yes that does make it sound a lot better. I still think it is slightly expensive, but not to bad. Can you cleave on the same round you WA?Nope. Not since 3.5 came out. "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That includes cleave. This change was made specifically to avoid the "Bag of Rats" trick -- that is, throw a bag of rats or other weak animals around a tough enemy, then whirlwind the rats. Each rat that dies gives you a cleave (via Great Cleave), which you target against the tough guy, then continue your whirlwind by killing another rat. End result, ten or twelve attacks against the tough guy, each at your full BAB. Abusive cheese, though, and so the feat was modified to include this caveat.
phant0m master 11-15-05, 11:21 PM	Don't forget that the WA pre reqs are not just for that feat. After reading this thread I realized that pretty soon my own spike chain-tripping-karmic striking-deft opprotunist is already going to have the pre reqs for WA and that it's the perfect feat for my charcter.
d_nychus 11-15-05, 11:22 PM	Are there any feats out there that just boost your AC straight up? All the ones I can think of, such as Mobility, Combat Expertise and Two-Weapon Defense are just as or even more situational than Dodge, and/or require prerequisites that not everyone likes to meet. I like it, especially for Fighters, since one feat isn't much of an opportunity cost for them, and it opens the door to other feats I like. That's not a good reason for a feat to be poor, but if it favors Fighters over other classes, I'm not going to shed a tear. There is Improved/Greater TWD, prereq TWD, BAB +6/+11, Dex 17/19, TWF/ITWF, +2/+3 shield bonus, +4/+6 when fighting defensively. (CW) Draconic Skin, prereq Draconic Heritage, gives a +1 natural armor bonus.(CAr) Aerial Superiority +1 dodge bonus to AC against nonflying creatures or creatures with lower maneureability while flying. (RoW) Expeditious Dodge, prereq Dex 13, +2 dodge bonus to AC when you move more than 40 feet in a round, and you can use this as Dodge for the purposes of prereqs. Focused Sheild [Psionic], prereq shield proficiency, +1 to shield AC while psionically focused. (Basically constant for psychic warriors. (RoS) Heavy Armor Optimization/Greater HAO, prereq armory proficiency (heavy) BAB +4/+8, increase armor AC bonus by 1/1 and decrease armor check penalty by 1/2. Both stack (RoS). Good for fighters, btw Heavy Lithoderms, prereq Goliath, +1 natural armor bonus. Psionic Dodge [Psionic], prereq Dodge, +1 dodge bonus while psionically focused and stacks with Dodge. That's a list I can find right off the bat. There are not a lot of feats that offer AC bonuses, but all of them apply an AC bonus against all opponents as far as I can see. I understand that they wanted Dodge to be a little weaker than that because it can be taken at so low a level, but I think that just giving a +1 dodge bonus would be balances, especially with feats like Aerial Superiority and TWD. I'm still not seeing it. If you're shooting from an arrow loop, or something I could see you being able to take total cover, while still being able to shoot, but a corner can't do more than give you an AC bonus. See Keenath's example. Basically, a good archer can position himself to take tactical advantage just using a little cover, and suffer no or very little penalties for it. Yes, but only every other turn. When you want to attack on your next turn, you'll have to step back out and remain there until your next turn. Maybe. That depends on the exact setup. Sh. Don't give them ideas. I'm sure it's already been considered. Well, if possible, adventures shouldn't exist in a vacuum. Once he know the make up of the party that will be facing them, it behooves the DM to make tweaks that challenge those characters appropriately. This might mean making certain encounters tougher or easier, or altering them somewhat to favor (or frustrate) certain choices the players have made. That doesn't mean changing your dungeon crawl to a summit meeting just because all the characters invested heavily in Diplomacy, but it does mean noting if anyone has a means to get past a locked door before using one to seal off the key room of your adventure, or making at least some of your monsters accessible to melee fighters if no one is good at range. Things like that. I do take the player's selections into account, but I have a problem with dropping in a bunch of columns and a reason to run between them just for the sake of letting someone use a feat. In most combats, I just do not see the potential for Shot on the Run to be useful. And what sort of a drastic change would it take to favor the player who wanted to take Shot on the Run? Unless you only run combat in perfectly open fields, there should be trees, rocks, walls, and the like from and to which the character with Shot on the Run can run and gain total cover. Letting a PC go up against a horde of goblins or something once or twice just so the fighter can use Great Cleave a few times for a showy combat, or a pack of charging worgs for Hold the Line is one thing, since those feats tend to have potential use in most normal encounters. Adding a cavern full of large boulders just so that Shot on the Run is useful just seems too contrived, and it seems like it would NEED to be added just so that the feat is useful. Besides, if there is any decent cover, an archer is more likely to hang right beside it, take his full attack, and then 5-foot step to maximize the cover. With Shot on the Run, you only get one shot and the movement, which I do not see as useful. Killbot: One other thing to remember about WWA. 5-foot step can take place in the middle of a full attack. It makes a difference.
killbot 11-16-05, 12:14 AM	Killbot: One other thing to remember about WWA. 5-foot step can take place in the middle of a full attack. It makes a difference. All of a sudden a INt fighter with tricky feats is looking more attractive.
Centauri 11-16-05, 02:13 AM	There is Improved/Greater TWD, prereq TWD, BAB +6/+11, Dex 17/19, TWF/ITWF, +2/+3 shield bonus, +4/+6 when fighting defensively. (CW) Situation: using two weapons. Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: high Dexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting. Draconic Skin, prereq Draconic Heritage, gives a +1 natural armor bonus.(CAr)Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: Draconic Heritage Aerial Superiority +1 dodge bonus to AC against nonflying creatures or creatures with lower maneureability while flying. (RoW)Situation: while flying. Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: the ability to fly. Expeditious Dodge, prereq Dex 13, +2 dodge bonus to AC when you move more than 40 feet in a round, and you can use this as Dodge for the purposes of prereqs. Situation: moving more than 40 feet. Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: being able to move that fast. Focused Sheild [Psionic], prereq shield proficiency, +1 to shield AC while psionically focused. (Basically constant for psychic warriors. (RoS)Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: psionics. Heavy Armor Optimization/Greater HAO, prereq armory proficiency (heavy) BAB +4/+8, increase armor AC bonus by 1/1 and decrease armor check penalty by 1/2. Both stack (RoS). Good for fighters, btw Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: wearing heavy armor. Heavy Lithoderms, prereq Goliath, +1 natural armor bonus. I'm not sure what Goliath is, but i have a feeling it's not something everyone likes to meet. Psionic Dodge [Psionic], prereq Dodge, +1 dodge bonus while psionically focused and stacks with Dodge.Prerequisite not everyone likes to meet: psionics. That's a list I can find right off the bat. There are not a lot of feats that offer AC bonuses, but all of them apply an AC bonus against all opponents as far as I can see. And all of them are situational and/or have prerequisites that not everyone likes to (or can) meet. I understand that they wanted Dodge to be a little weaker than that because it can be taken at so low a level, but I think that just giving a +1 dodge bonus would be balances, especially with feats like Aerial Superiority and TWD. I agree that it probably wouldn't be unbalancing, but since it has an easy prerequisite, works (however poorly) all the time, and - significantly - doesn't require anything outside the core rules, it's also not that bad as is. See Keenath's example. Basically, a good archer can position himself to take tactical advantage just using a little cover, and suffer no or very little penalties for it. I see. But if, in Keenath's example, I wanted to shoot D but not expose myself fully to B and C for a round, I'd probably need Shot on the Run. Maybe. That depends on the exact setup. The only setup I can think of in which you could move out of cover, shoot, and then move back into cover is one in which you can fall prone behind the cover as a free action. What setup are you thinking of? Not that Shot on the Run doesn't have a problem: if they know where you're going to pop out, they can just ready an attack to shoot you (perhaps with Manyshot) when they see you. Not so great. I do take the player's selections into account, but I have a problem with dropping in a bunch of columns and a reason to run between them just for the sake of letting someone use a feat. I don't think you're giving the idea a fair shake. It doesn't have to be columns. It can be areas of antimagic, from which the player emerges to shoot magical arrows before retreating to safety from magical counterattacks. It can be areas of fog, or magical darkness, or smokestick smoke. Actually, the players themselves can set those up, if they want the feat to be used. In most combats, I just do not see the potential for Shot on the Run to be useful. That's acceptable to me. Apart from readied attacks and carefully positioned area attacks, a character with an area of total cover is immune to ranged attacks. In certain cases, the character might be able to advance on an enemy position, softening it up with ranged attacks, while avoiding their attacks (or at least their full attacks), before closing to where he can charge in with a melee weapon to finish them off. That's powerful, and shouldn't get to work every time. Adding a cavern full of large boulders just so that Shot on the Run is useful just seems too contrived, and it seems like it would NEED to be added just so that the feat is useful. What do you usually fill your caverns with? Besides, if there is any decent cover, an archer is more likely to hang right beside it, take his full attack, and then 5-foot step to maximize the cover. Like I said, that's fine, but he can only do it once. The next time he goes for his full attack, he'll have to take a full attack (or several) in return.
solbergb 11-16-05, 01:04 PM	I am not sure as I have never used it, and have never seen anyone else use it in all my years of playing, but WA seems pretty weak. I would have agreed with you if the Elder Fire Elemental hadn't used it on our party, totally messing us up. Of course we had a right to be surprised, most fire elementals are intelligence 6 and thus can't get the feats together to make it work. This one however.... As with most feats, it is situationally strong or weak. Is a situation where a large number of weak enemies surround you common? If so, then the feat is pretty good. If not (as is true of most PC's), it sucks. For a BBEG with 40' of reach though, who can hit the PC's even while power attacking full on his first iterative attack? For him, it's pretty damn good.
solbergb 11-16-05, 01:16 PM	In some senses, I agree with that, but I would prefer the feat to be improved somewhat, just enough to make it worth occasionally taking as a PC...aside from the elf wizard with 2 hp scenario. . I fundamentally disagree with this. The needs of NPC's are not the needs of PC's. PCs are adventurers, that is their profession. An NPC might be primarily, say, a locksmith and take two skill focus feats (craft locks, lockpicking) and whatever the +2/+2 feat is to get his lockpicking into the range where he can do amazing locks and service his customers. An NPC band of criminals has a different need in feats than PC's and as they typically pick on those weaker than themselves, they don't gain 5 levels in a year and have to worry about what happens at level 10. Feats a PC would never take can work very well for them. A couple examples from an adventure I wrote - a half-orc fighter/barb who specalized in intimidation and breaking things. She was used in protection rackets. Her abilities made her an unusual and interesting opponent for the PC's, but weren't choices that you would make on a character who faces constructs, undead and plants on a regular basis. She was teamed with a sorcerer who had draconic presence and a mix of fear and disabling spells, designed to reduce uppity shopkeepers to a quivering pile of terror, but not actually killing them. Together they gave low-will-save PC's fits, sometimes really messing up the party as they tried to intervene, but just as often, they were overwhelmed by feat choices designed to work on those weaker than them, not those stronger than them. Various suboptimal feats/PRC choices - for the barb, she had skill focus intimidation, intimidating rage, show-off from exotic weapon master, several menacing brute levels from races of destiny (it scaled from level 2-12, so she didn't have all the abilities at all levels). The sorc had no direct damage spells, but mixed fear spells, heightened color sprays, empowered rays of enfeeblement, fatigue spells and draconic presense to really mess up those around him and break up the opposition. His draconic presence was almost guaranteed not to work on a PC (he's a level below the average PC level in the tiering, only a character, cohort or animal companion who is at least 2 levels/hit dice below average is going to be affected) The two of them were teamed with an optomized sneak-attack rogue to actually put down the disabled opposition, and a leader whose primary skills were in running away (enhanced movement, fleet of foot, missile deflection, evasion, great saves, etc) and had to be chased. If all feats were "equal" there would be no room to trick out a specialist in running away, or a specialist in intimidation, or a specialist in crafting pottery. If you separate "adventurer" feats from "I have some other profession" feats, a lot of the choices make more sense. Note how many monsters and animals have "alertness". In their everyday life, spot+listen matters more than being more dangerous in a single fight.
Centauri 11-16-05, 02:13 PM	And it pales compared to Weapon Focus. Dodge is reactive, meaning you do not control when the feat takes effect. Sometimes you do. If you want to attempt an action that will provoke an attack of opportunity against a single opponent, you can focus Dodge on them and have a slightly better chance of avoiding the hit. If they choose not to take the attack, well fine, you're not out anything. You can even apply it to multiple characters per round. If you need to double-move and will be leaving the threatened areas of two opponents at different points, you can focus Dodge on the first threatening opponent, then change it to the second opponent on your next move. On a round, you could have the opponent you declared your Dodge against not attack you, and suffer attacks from multiple other opponents. On rounds like that, the feat is utterly worthless. True. I would think that, most of the time, you would have a pretty good idea of who's going to attack you, and you could Dodge one of them. Furthermore, you might know who is likely to do the most damage, and Dodge them. If they don't attack you, it doesn't matter that Dodge didn't work, since you still avoided the attack you were most concerned about. And if they chose some other target over you because they could see you were being extra Dodgy toward them, then Dodge has proven quite useful indeed. Weapon Focus, on the other hand, is a proactive bonus, meaning you know exactly when and how it will be used. You are in utter control of how often it comes into effect, barring the rare instances that you are not properly equiped. You know when you are using it, but you don't really know if it's going to make a difference. You can figure out over the long run what the benefit will be, but unless Weapon Focus brought the roll you needed from a 20 to a 19, there's a chance that you would have hit without the feat.
solbergb 11-16-05, 03:24 PM	[QUOTE=Alienfreak]Tougness is one of the worst feats out there. That is exactly why they introduces improved toughness in the complete warrior. QUOTE] Improved toughness is only better than toughness if your hit dice > 4. It is worse if hit dice < 3. Most people in the world are 1 hit die. It's bad for adventurers. That doesn't make it a bad feat.
d_nychus 11-16-05, 07:25 PM	And all of them are situational and/or have prerequisites that not everyone likes to (or can) meet. Well there are enough options out there that most characters can pick another feat instead of Dodge; one that would go along better with their speicifc build. A TWF will always take TWD over Dodge. A scout or barbarian will always take Expeditious Dodge over Dodge, etc. I agree that it probably wouldn't be unbalancing, but since it has an easy prerequisite, works (however poorly) all the time, and - significantly - doesn't require anything outside the core rules, it's also not that bad as is. I would disagree that it works on two levels. One, it seems a lot weaker than most other feats, and most people I know take it merely for a prerequisite, and a good many bemoan how is often leave a character weak until he gets the higher level feats to make up for it. I know very few players to who take Dodge just to have Dodge, and to be frank, I really don't know too many feats or PrCs that are worth that much hit to power for a number of levels, at least ones that are not fundamentally overpowered to begin with. Two, on the metagame level, it really gets annoying having to declare Dodge, remembering who Doidge was declared against (it is sometimes forgotten), and as a DM remembering to have opponenets use it against the PCs correctly (i.e. Did orc #5 have Dodge declared against the barbarian or the rogue?). Minor quibble, I know, but one that does occasionally matter. I see. But if, in Keenath's example, I wanted to shoot D but not expose myself fully to B and C for a round, I'd probably need Shot on the Run. Or you could just reposition, possibly still getting a full attack, or a Manyshot. In most situations that I can imagine, running from cover to cover and taking one shot instead of taking a full attack is almost always going to be mechanically weaker. The only setup I can think of in which you could move out of cover, shoot, and then move back into cover is one in which you can fall prone behind the cover as a free action. What setup are you thinking of? Ah, yes, falling prone is another reason SotR is weak. But I should point out that I'm not saying that you can easily move out of total cover, make a full attack, and still attain total cover. However, in most cases, you can step out of total cover into an area that still provides total cover from most of your enemies and have cover from the rest, AND still make a full attack. To do that in a game, all I need is a single 10' section of total cover. Not that Shot on the Run doesn't have a problem: if they know where you're going to pop out, they can just ready an attack to shoot you (perhaps with Manyshot) when they see you. Not so great. Or cast a grease spell (heh, archer Slip-n-Slide), or throw a tanglefoot bag, etc., etc., etc. I don't think you're giving the idea a fair shake. It doesn't have to be columns. It can be areas of antimagic, from which the player emerges to shoot magical arrows before retreating to safety from magical counterattacks. It can be areas of fog, or magical darkness, or smokestick smoke. Actually, the players themselves can set those up, if they want the feat to be used. Again, that is so situational that I hardly feel that it justifies the feat. How often does an effect like this come up? Is darting in and out going to be the best option even in those cases? That's acceptable to me. Apart from readied attacks and carefully positioned area attacks, a character with an area of total cover is immune to ranged attacks. In certain cases, the character might be able to advance on an enemy position, softening it up with ranged attacks, while avoiding their attacks (or at least their full attacks), before closing to where he can charge in with a melee weapon to finish them off. That's powerful, and shouldn't get to work every time. I just don't see how that is powerful enough to be worth the feat, simply because the situations where that can happen are so remote, and there are plenty of counters against it. Readied actions, for one thing, tactical movment on the opponent's part, and even Deflect Arrow are some good counters to this use of SotR, and not exactly hard to pull off. The point is that even though SotR has some occasional good uses, they are not common enough to be used frequently, and not powerful enough to be worth the wait. What do you usually fill your caverns with? Streams lakes, stalagmites, stalagtites, pits, chasms, lava, mushroom forests. In the bulk of those environments, SotR is near worthless, and even in situations where it is not, there are still usually much better options. Like I said, that's fine, but he can only do it once. The next time he goes for his full attack, he'll have to take a full attack (or several) in return. Ah, yes, but almost always with a +4 AC bonus from cover against most enemies that can hit him. I fundamentally disagree with this. The needs of NPC's are not the needs of PC's. PCs are adventurers, that is their profession. An NPC might be primarily, say, a locksmith and take two skill focus feats (craft locks, lockpicking) and whatever the +2/+2 feat is to get his lockpicking into the range where he can do amazing locks and service his customers. An NPC band of criminals has a different need in feats than PC's and as they typically pick on those weaker than themselves, they don't gain 5 levels in a year and have to worry about what happens at level 10. Feats a PC would never take can work very well for them. That is true, but at least the bulk of those feats can have good use for a PC in certain builds. Most characters will not have a use for SKill Focus (Craft [blacksmithing]), but a warforged fighter with plenty of feats and few skill points does quite well with it for self-healing. A couple examples from an adventure I wrote....Various suboptimal feats/PRC choices... Actually, I wouldn't call that suboptimal at all. Yes, the sorcerer is only really good against those with lesser HD than himself, but he is pretty potent against them, and still has enough of a kick to be a threat against even charcters above his own level. The two of them were teamed with an optomized sneak-attack rogue to actually put down the disabled opposition, and a leader whose primary skills were in running away (enhanced movement, fleet of foot, missile deflection, evasion, great saves, etc) and had to be chased. Again, I see those as useable builds. They do their jobs, and can actually do their jobs effectively enough to be reasonable PC builds. The bait-and-trap concept is not a horrible way to go with PCs, especially in a group set up to full take advantage of it. If all feats were "equal" there would be no room to trick out a specialist in running away, or a specialist in intimidation, or a specialist in crafting pottery. I don't buy that. If all feats were equal based on their prerequisites, like they are supposed to be, then the builds you described should have equal influence in the game based around their particular specialties. There is still room in the game for one-trick ponies, and, in fact, the game actually rewards specialists. Balancing out the feats does nothing against versitility, but makes versitility available for the PCs as well If you separate "adventurer" feats from "I have some other profession" feats, a lot of the choices make more sense. Note how many monsters and animals have "alertness". In their everyday life, spot+listen matters more than being more dangerous in a single fight. But there is no game disticntion. There is no list of feats that are specifically adventurer feats and NPC professional feats. A feat is a feat is a feat. Yes, a feat can be useless to a character with a certain build (Power Attack with a light weapon specialist, ot Spell Focus with a fighter), but in the proper builds the feats should be effective at what they do, and relatively equal to other feats of that level of prerequisites. However, as with many other things in the game, feat balance is sometimes questionable. I'm not decrying WotC for this, as, frankly, a game this complex will always have balance issues. However, I do want a personal fix for my game, and want to point out such weaknesses so that WotC might one day do something about it, like they did with righteous might and divine power. Of course, I'm not holding my breath on that last bit.
d_nychus 11-16-05, 07:44 PM	Sometimes you do. If you want to attempt an action that will provoke an attack of opportunity against a single opponent, you can focus Dodge on them and have a slightly better chance of avoiding the hit. If they choose not to take the attack, well fine, you're not out anything. You can even apply it to multiple characters per round. If you need to double-move and will be leaving the threatened areas of two opponents at different points, you can focus Dodge on the first threatening opponent, then change it to the second opponent on your next move. That's not terrifically much control. In most casses, I feel it would be wiser to simply avoid the AoO altogether, though I know that is not practical all the time. However, a +1 dodge bonus is not a large enough bonus for me to want to chance the risk more. True. I would think that, most of the time, you would have a pretty good idea of who's going to attack you, and you could Dodge one of them. Furthermore, you might know who is likely to do the most damage, and Dodge them. If they don't attack you, it doesn't matter that Dodge didn't work, since you still avoided the attack you were most concerned about. And if they chose some other target over you because they could see you were being extra Dodgy toward them, then Dodge has proven quite useful indeed. But, again, if they don't attack you, the feat is useless. Everyone else who attacks you ignores the very presence of the feat. For that round in which your chosen opponent does not attack or would not normally hit anyways, and others do, which I find is more common than not, you are better off having another feat. And it is only on rounds that that particular opponent makes a hit that would have missed by one with the feat that the feat actually makes a difference. Ths is highly conditional, and the bonus is not that great. If Dodge applied to every attack, or it gave a better bonus against that one opponent, I would see it as a good feat. But they way it is now, I just cannot validate its use except as a prerequistie. And I really think prerequisite feats are bad for game balance. You know when you are using it, but you don't really know if it's going to make a difference. You can figure out over the long run what the benefit will be, but unless Weapon Focus brought the roll you needed from a 20 to a 19, there's a chance that you would have hit without the feat. That argument can be given for BAB and Strength modifier as well, then. WF adds a consistant bonus that cannot be negated, and can always be relyed upon. Yes, the die may betray you at any moment, but the fact that your attack is +7 instead of +6 is still useful enough in nearly every encounter that the feat is definately impressive. With Dodge, there is always a question to its usefulness, and the bonus is not usually enough to matter. Again, if Dodge gave a flat bonus, or a large bonus in certain situations, the feat would not be a problem. Improved toughness is only better than toughness if your hit dice > 4. It is worse if hit dice < 3. Most people in the world are 1 hit die. It's bad for adventurers. That doesn't make it a bad feat. Well, maybe not for the elf wizard with 2 hp. :p
rinagar 11-17-05, 01:25 AM	I haven't thoroughly investigated these, but the numerical metamagic feats always seemed like a waste to me. When I calculated for some spells what maximize or empower would do to their damage, and then compared it to spells of their new level (the metamagic requires higher spell slots), then it seemed you always end up with: a wasted feat for a low level spell that takes up a higher slot to do damage aproximately equal to spells its new level. Heighten, widen and the like seem comparable. There is another reason to do this. Sorcerers have a limited # of spells they can learn. A widened or maximized fireball may not be better than damaging spells of the higher level, but they can be used as such, leaving the sorcerer able to have some other spells in her repertoire in the higher level, and not just more damage spells. They maxed, empowered, or whatever spells may not be quite as good, but do allow the sorcerer to have a wider range of capabilities.
danzig138 11-17-05, 02:34 AM	Eschew Materials: Useful when your spell component pouch has been stolen. Which happens how often?IMG? Hardly ever. But then, in most of my games, the SCP isn't available. Eschew Materials then becomes much more useful.
syntaxerror37 11-17-05, 03:49 AM	Another note on whirlwind attack, Making that many attack, your chance of threatning a critical starts to increase, and since it's at your highest BAB, you've got a prety good chance of making the conformation roll. This helped make the Weapon Master PrC so devistating, especialy since keen and improved crit stacked in 3.0. As for my vote to worthless feats, great cleave. Only usefull against one-hit foes, where as cleve is usefull whenever you are up against more than one foe in melee. I was toying around with a version similar to combat reflexes, where you can cleve a number of foes equal to your dex bonus, weather or not they drop. That would be a bit more usefull.
Matherdon 11-17-05, 07:17 AM	Because it's not a just +1 shield bonus. It's potentially a +6 shield bonus from your +5 mithril buckler. Even better: Animated shield. Cost is +3, so if you create an animated Large Steel shield +2 FI, you can throw in a Heavy Fortification for immunity to Crits and sneak attacks aswell! A must for the 2handed user or dualwielder:) and totally feat-free! :p
Keenath 11-17-05, 11:58 AM	Animated shield. Cost is +3, so if you create an animated Large Steel shield +2 FI, you can throw in a Heavy Fortification for immunity to Crits and sneak attacks aswell! A must for the 2handed user or dualwielder:) and totally feat-free! :p Yes, and that's why a huge number of DMs outlaw that particular enchantment. It's just too stupid, and makes sword-and-board a useless style.
CaoSlayer 11-17-05, 02:05 PM	Not really maybe at lower after that an extra +1 does not mean much. dont matter levels, unless extreme cases, a +1 means always an extra +5% to hit... it is really useful for those those first attack have not a 100% chances to hit like rogues, bards or clerics and halves the penalties of rapid shot and two weapon fighting. Also if you have power attack and a two handed weapon, it is a weapon specialization that works without being a fighter.
trollbill 11-17-05, 02:38 PM	I started a human monk out with the idea I was going for Spring Attack, so my two first level feats were Dodge and Mobility. I also maxed out Tumble and Jump because I saw Tumble, like most people, as trumping Mobility. I soon found, however, there were plenty of times I prefered having Mobility than Tumble. The reason for this is that there are times when you actually want to provoke an AoO. I saw a potential for this early on with the character and started focusing on ways of using this to my advantage. At low levels, for example, I would often deliberatly provoke an AoO from monsters with the +5 to my AC that Dodge + Mobility afforded. Combined with my already good AC, low level monsters seldom hit me and now I had cleared a temporary "AoO free corridor" for the rest of my party to exploit (our parties usually run 7-9 strong). My Monk is now 12th-level and has just picked up the Elusive Target tactical feat from the Complete Warrior. Amoungst other things, this feat allows me to make a free trip attack against targets who miss me when making AoOs provoked by movement. Now I have Improved Trip, a trip check of +13 (20 ST + Improved Trip + +1 Sweeping Ki-Strike Spiked Chain) and an AC of 30/31 against such attacks (18 DX + 20 WS + Ring of Protection +1 + Bracers of Armor +3 + +3 Monk Bonus from a Monk's Belt). Now most CR12 monsters still have a descent chance of hitting me, but their minions don't. Combining all of these together with my base move of 60-ft. and I essentially have a much improved version of Whirlwind attack. Albeit its a very selective path, but right now Mobility isn't looking so bad to me.
trollbill 11-17-05, 02:41 PM	Also if you have power attack and a two handed weapon, it is a weapon specialization that works without being a fighter. Not really. Weapon Focus doesn't add to BAB. You can only use your BAB to add points to Power Attack.
WunderGoat 11-17-05, 03:52 PM	I have rarely found weapon focus useless for any character. The disadvantage is the opportunity cost for classes without lots of feats and high attack bonuses, like barbarians. Overall, that +1 ends up being a lot. Yes, a +1 is 5% of the D20. Yes, there is a 5% chance that it will turn a miss into a hit. However, it does not increse your damage output by 5%. Rather, if you would normally hit 50% of the time, your damage output increses by 10%. If you would hit on a 20, then your damage output doubles. If we look at the gp price of a +1 to attack, it increases exponentially, looking at strength/dex boosting items and at +x weapons, among other things. At high levels, that +1 to attack for a feat ends up being a great buy. Personally, I like to play AC machine fighters. The end goal of the AC machine is to prolong combat via reducing damage output as to either get the upper hand (i.e. waiting out a barbarian rage) or to tank for party members for as long as possible (i.e. letting the mage get off some spells, the rouge get into sneak attack position, or the cleric getting buffed). One of the most powerful tactics avaliable to the AC machine is to use improved combat expertise to pump AC high enough that the opponent can only hit on 20s, while the machine can hopefully hit on more. The important thing to consider is not the attack and AC bonuses, but rather the differential between to-hit numbers. The combination of weapon focus and dodge, along with heavy armor optimization and other AC feats, allow the AC machine to increase this differential, which theoreticly vastly increases the differential between the opponent's damage output and his own.
00_Whupass 11-17-05, 05:47 PM	I have rarely found weapon focus useless for any character. The disadvantage is the opportunity cost for classes without lots of feats and high attack bonuses, like barbarians. Overall, that +1 ends up being a lot. Yes, a +1 is 5% of the D20. Yes, there is a 5% chance that it will turn a miss into a hit. However, it does not increse your damage output by 5%. Rather, if you would normally hit 50% of the time, your damage output increses by 10%. If you would hit on a 20, then your damage output doubles. If we look at the gp price of a +1 to attack, it increases exponentially, looking at strength/dex boosting items and at +x weapons, among other things. At high levels, that +1 to attack for a feat ends up being a great buy. Personally, I like to play AC machine fighters. The end goal of the AC machine is to prolong combat via reducing damage output as to either get the upper hand (i.e. waiting out a barbarian rage) or to tank for party members for as long as possible (i.e. letting the mage get off some spells, the rouge get into sneak attack position, or the cleric getting buffed). One of the most powerful tactics avaliable to the AC machine is to use improved combat expertise to pump AC high enough that the opponent can only hit on 20s, while the machine can hopefully hit on more. The important thing to consider is not the attack and AC bonuses, but rather the differential between to-hit numbers. The combination of weapon focus and dodge, along with heavy armor optimization and other AC feats, allow the AC machine to increase this differential, which theoreticly vastly increases the differential between the opponent's damage output and his own.The problem with this kind of defensive tactic is that you're no longer a threat to the enemy, sure they can't hit you, but you cant hit them, in such a situation a smart opponent will just walk past you, let you take your AoO, since you won't hit anyway, and get at the squishier members of the party.
Keenath 11-18-05, 01:27 AM	Some combat actions don't care what your BAB looks like. Trip attacks work just as well when you've completely dumped your BAB into Combat Expertise, for example.
Earthcrosser599 11-18-05, 01:39 AM	Tougness is one of the worst feats out there. That is exactly why they introduces improved toughness in the complete warrior. It doenst even need toughness as a prerequirement. And +1 HP/HD is pretty worth the bucks ... especially for fighters at later levels! So at level 1 Imp. Toughness gets you what, 1 hp? You have to survive until 4th level for it to be better than Toughness. Assuming your PC isn't invulnerable via DM cheese, an extra 1-2 hp at low levels means alot.
Kendrick 11-18-05, 02:48 AM	So at level 1 Imp. Toughness gets you what, 1 hp? You have to survive until 4th level for it to be better than Toughness. Assuming your PC isn't invulnerable via DM cheese, an extra 1-2 hp at low levels means alot. In my experience, levels 1 and 2 go fast in the games they even get played. I haven't met a player over the age of 14 stupid enough to take the +2 HP immediately over the long term power, when 2 HP is not likely to be an issue even at level 1.
CaoSlayer 11-18-05, 03:06 AM	Not really. Weapon Focus doesn't add to BAB. You can only use your BAB to add points to Power Attack. Well, unless you are a human that dont matters because you will not get the second feat until level three and then you will have 2-3 BAB and it is unlikely to power attack for all your bab at lower levels.
trollbill 11-18-05, 10:04 AM	Well, unless you are a human that dont matters because you will not get the second feat until level three and then you will have 2-3 BAB and it is unlikely to power attack for all your bab at lower levels. That's why I said, 'Not Really' rather than just 'No.' Weapon Focus helps you offset the penalties for using Power Attack but it doesn't actually let you do more damage with Power Attack.
CaoSlayer 11-18-05, 11:16 AM	Well, actually helps to turn a 0 hit point damage attack into a lot of damage attack with a 5% chance... ejem. Anyway the thing I meants, that if you takes both focus and power attack and you always use power attack for exchanging the +1 to hit into a +2 to damage, you are just emulating weapon specialization with two feats a no fighter levels. Of course WF+PA it is more versatile since allows you get more damage from situations like when charging a flatflooted flanked enemy. (+2 charge +2flank +1 WF = +10 to damage without penalty for that round). Also if you wants an improved dodge feat, you can use WF+Combat expertise for a free +1AC that works against every enemy. the thing it is that weapon focus it is a very versatile feat when combined with others.
DuctShuiTengu 11-18-05, 03:01 PM	Surprised no-one's mentioned this one yet, but... Goad (Complete Adventurer or Miniature's Handbook) Okay, despite how much they went out of their way to nerf this one, I can still see some uses for it. That said, I reallly can't see it requiring a feat instead of just being an application of say... Diplomacy (possibly Bluff or Intimidate, depending on how you go about it). I mean really, how much special training does it take to shout "Your mother was an elf!" at the Orc Barbarian?
Cadfan 11-18-05, 08:39 PM	Boosts to armor class are more valuable than boosts to attack rolls. Lets say my opponent can only hit me on an 18, because I have an excellent armor class. If I take the dodge feat, he can only hit me on a 19... meaning that I will last about 33% longer in combat against him. The only way to get a similar shift in combat effectiveness from taking Weapon Focus is if you could only hit on an 18... which is a situation you never want to be in, as a melee combatant. The fact that its only +1 versus only one opponent is easily offset by the fact that once your AC is in the higher ranges already, +1 more is incredibly valuable. If your AC is such that your opponent hits on an 8, though, dodge is pretty worthless. And really, if you're doing an AC build, you're going to take Dodge AND weapon focus, because when you use your combat expertise, its better to spend down from a higher number. So they synergize well.
Keenath 11-18-05, 10:24 PM	Goad: Okay, despite how much they went out of their way to nerf this one, I can still see some uses for it. That said, I reallly can't see it requiring a feat instead of just being an application of say... Diplomacy (possibly Bluff or Intimidate, depending on how you go about it).It's the inverse of diplomacy, really. And I think the main reason it's pretty good is the fact that it's a mind effect. It's not just hurling insults; it's practically supernaturally insulting.
neilthrun 11-18-05, 11:03 PM	These might have already been said, but I want to put my word in. Toughness and Improved Toughness are great feats, but could be increased a little. A +4 hp bonus for toughness wouldn't be out of line. And heres an idea. Instead of having that lame +2 fort requirement on Imp Toughness, make toughness its prerequisite!! An amazing idea. Improved Grapple does not suck. Most grapplers aren't monks. Most are barbarians, psy warriors, and druids. Druids don't need it. But Barbarians and Psywarriors sure do. Silent spell is not weak either, sometimes you want that charm person spell cast silently on the dude in next toilet stall, or the guard who isn't paying attention to you. I could never imagine playing an Arcane Trickster, or any caster/rogue combo, with out it. Still spell on the other hand... Thats a bit more sketchy. and here are some feats I think, are really weak. Great Cleave, you'll rarely use it. By the time you'd be facing hordes of kobolds and goblins, the wizard will be clearing rooms with fireballs and cones of cold. Combat Casting, Skill focus(concentration) is ALOT better. Shadow(via Song and Silence), a plus to bonus to hide and move silent. Okay, not bad. But wait!! Its only while I'm following someone! LAME. Obscure Lore(via complete adventurer), its an awesome idea for a feat. But very underpowered. A +6 bonus or a +4 with an aditional use of bardic knowledge would make it better.
Keenath 11-19-05, 12:39 AM	Silent spell is not weak either, sometimes you want that charm person spell cast silently on the dude in next toilet stall, or the guard who isn't paying attention to you. I could never imagine playing an Arcane Trickster, or any caster/rogue combo, with out it. Still spell on the other hand... Thats a bit more sketchy.All the metas are much better for spontaneous types than prepared casters. A sorc with Silent can apply it any time, at the cost of a move action (essentially). Same with still. Meanwhile, a wizard has to plan ahead of time that he needs to stick Silent on a spell, and if it turns out that he doesn't particularly need to be quiet when he casts that spell, he's pretty much wasted the slot. As a wizard, I'd rather have Sudden Silent... I doubt I'd need stealth more than 1/day except in unusual circumstances. Obscure Lore(via complete adventurer), its an awesome idea for a feat. But very underpowered. A +6 bonus or a +4 with an aditional use of bardic knowledge would make it better.What do you mean "an additional use"? Are you suggesting working out a new type of information you could recall with this BK and this feat?
johnkretzer 11-19-05, 12:54 AM	Still Spell is useful when you are grappled or tied up or etc. So it is feat no wizard should be with out since most anti-wizard character will try to grapple you.
Kendrick 11-19-05, 06:01 PM	Still Spell is useful when you are grappled or tied up or etc. So it is feat no wizard should be with out since most anti-wizard character will try to grapple you. You'd still have to be an idiot to take it. What are the chances each day that you will: 1. Fight against an anti-mage grappler. 2. Your fighter, rogue, and cleric will all screw up and fail to block for you. 3. You actually remembered to prepare a stilled dimension door or whatever for the 2% chance that 1 and 2 occur in the same day. A sorcerer could actually use it in the situation you describe, but it's still a waste of a feat given how rarely that will actually occur.
Dhavaer 11-19-05, 06:14 PM	[QUOTE=Kendrick] 3. You actually remembered to prepare a stilled dimension door or whatever for the 2% chance that 1 and 2 occur in the same day. QUOTE] You can't still a dimension door. It only has a verbal component, so it's effectively stilled already.
MBAlbright 11-19-05, 07:40 PM	I know other people have brought this up, but I wanted to weigh in on Power Attack, quoting a post I put in the Broken Feats Compendium: An earlier poster commented that you can generally tell a feat is broken (powerful) when everyone takes it. I'd like to suggest another tell-tale sign: A feat is generally worthless when it's been made a prerequisite to a bunch of other feats. (In other words, Wizards knows when they're screwing you.) And Power Attack definitely qualifies on that account. Even if it weren't such a common prereq, I'd still say that it stinks. Here's why: 95% of the time, if a creature has a lot of hit points, it's also harder to hit. There is almost never a time when you are so confident that you'll take -n to hit, unless you're fighting someone really weak--dropping Kobolds or what have you--in which case the extra damage is generally unnecessary. Maybe really huge creatures are an exception, but I really wouldn't know as really huge creatures almost never come up in our adventures (which is probably the case for most players who take a character through the first 20 levels). Perhaps some of you have a common circumstance under which this feat is useful? That's my two pennies.
Dhavaer 11-19-05, 07:44 PM	Power attack is good against Giants. Can't think of anything else.
CryoSilver 11-19-05, 08:59 PM	I always thought TWFing was weak. That is, until they published CV and Wraithstrike. Needless to say, one of the NPCs the party will being facing uses UMD on his wand of Wraithstrike as well as Greater Invisibilty, Haste, etc. Anyways... Improved Turning. +1 level!!!! WOOOOT!
Kendrick 11-19-05, 09:02 PM	You can't still a dimension door. It only has a verbal component, so it's effectively stilled already. Doh. Well, that would be yet another reason you'd have to be a) an idiot b) an epic spellcaster to take still spell.
Keenath 11-20-05, 12:15 AM	You'd still have to be an idiot to take it. What are the chances each day that you will: 1. Fight against an anti-mage grappler. 2. Your fighter, rogue, and cleric will all screw up and fail to block for you. 3. You actually remembered to prepare a stilled dimension door or whatever for the 2% chance that 1 and 2 occur in the same day.Moreover, you have to have a fifth-level spell slot that has nothing better to do than hold a stilled dimension door. Silent is great for the Silent Featherfall (which has actually saved my butt a few times), but I've never taken Still as a wizard, and I never missed it. A sorcerer could actually use it in the situation you describe, but it's still a waste of a feat given how rarely that will actually occur.Depends on the game. Still and Silent are great for a sorcerer in a more social-based game, because sometimes it's not acceptable to stand around pinwheeling your arms and shouting Words of Power. Sometimes you can cast from the shadows, and it's best to use Silent and avoid alerting the guards. Other times, you need Still because your hands are tied or you're being watched. Mostly you use the two together, for mental-only spell effect.
Kendrick 11-20-05, 02:08 AM	Depends on the game. Still and Silent are great for a sorcerer in a more social-based game, because sometimes it's not acceptable to stand around pinwheeling your arms and shouting Words of Power. Sometimes you can cast from the shadows, and it's best to use Silent and avoid alerting the guards. Other times, you need Still because your hands are tied or you're being watched. Mostly you use the two together, for mental-only spell effect. True, but that's kinda like saying that monks might be a good choice if no weapons exist in your campaign. It's technically true, but it requires a very, very unusual campaign that very few players will ever encounter. I've played in games that were "social-based", and Still Spell still doesn't compare to the 500 other feats you could take instead - Toughness, for example. Or Weapon Specialization (Net). To make Still Spell better than your other options would require a game so intensely social that you can hardly call it D&D any more, and even then you'd be better off playing a bard anyways.
tec-goblin 11-20-05, 08:03 AM	Toughness Combat Casting Enlarge Spell Widen Spell All +2/+2 skill feats Honorable mention to Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will. They aren't total crap - you can take them after you run out of good feats and not feel like you wasted a slot. The +2 to saves, however, just isn't worth it unless you have truly exhausted all other possibilities. +3 would be fine. I heavily disagree. I've put +2/+2 skill feats into great use in many campaigns. It depends on how much fighting you have in the campaign. And had you played Ravenloft you would see how good can Iron Will be (many of my players had it, even clerics) And the same goes with Great Fortitude and d20 modern (oooh, you took a bullet, give me a fortitude. Oh, shame, you are down at -1)
tec-goblin 11-20-05, 08:15 AM	I know other people have brought this up, but I wanted to weigh in on Power Attack, quoting a post I put in the Broken Feats Compendium: That's my two pennies. No, I'll have to disaggree: Power Attack can be a killer when you surprise the opponent. A rogue/fighter can do amazing things with this against low-armoured characters. There is also a deadly-broken class in Complete Adventurer which uses the damage done by power attack as a dc to kill the opponent.
Keenath 11-20-05, 12:13 PM	True, but that's kinda like saying that monks might be a good choice if no weapons exist in your campaign. It's technically true, but it requires a very, very unusual campaign that very few players will ever encounter.It's not THAT unusual to have a game where at least part of it happens in cities, instead of crawling around in caves. It's not that unusual to have situations where a charm or suggestion would be nice, except that everyone would notice you casting it. The whole campaign doesn't have to be social; it may just be a social section of a broader campaign. I've played in games that were "social-based", and Still Spell still doesn't compare to the 500 other feats you could take instead - Toughness, for example. Or Weapon Specialization (Net). To make Still Spell better than your other options would require a game so intensely social that you can hardly call it D&D any more, and even then you'd be better off playing a bard anyways.Now you're just being rude. And a bard is often a worse choice, because they have no option but to sing for their magic. I'm sorry, but being able to charm somebody with a look is NOT a weak ability.
Kendrick 11-20-05, 07:15 PM	It's not THAT unusual to have a game where at least part of it happens in cities, instead of crawling around in caves. It's not that unusual to have situations where a charm or suggestion would be nice, except that everyone would notice you casting it. The whole campaign doesn't have to be social; it may just be a social section of a broader campaign. Now you're just being rude. And a bard is often a worse choice, because they have no option but to sing for their magic. I'm sorry, but being able to charm somebody with a look is NOT a weak ability. It's not unusual to have games played in a city, but it is unusual for the social aspect to be so restrictive that you can't get around it without Still Spell and take another feat. In the situations where Still Spell is useful, there are almost always other feats that are more useful.
tec-goblin 11-21-05, 05:06 AM	Well, stilled charms are tricky. If they work, they work very very well. If the opponent makes the save, though, you don't want him into court starting searching who is charming him! It depends on how obvious it is that you are a magician. If it's not, then it's a good thing to have. My players would love to have a stilled charm handy in some situations - but hopefully, they had lots of diplomacy or a friend with lots of diplomacy nearby. IMO, Combat Casting is THE useless.
CaoSlayer 11-21-05, 08:02 AM	Well, stilled charms are tricky. If they work, they work very very well. If the opponent makes the save, though, you don't want him into court starting searching who is charming him! It depends on how obvious it is that you are a magician. So it is usually a good idea to use heavy armor :-P really still spell it is a great feat if you desire to build a spell-sword without complete books, just get a typical eldritch knight build and start to prepare almost every spell with still spell, althrought seems a waste you usually get this way more spellcasting that any kind of class combination or multiclassing.
Pliskit 11-21-05, 09:42 AM	Somebody probably already mentioned this one:ALL the druid Wildfeats stink to high heaven. Why would you for example have your hands change into bears claws for the cost of one wildshape, while at the same cost you can wildshape into a bear, have 2 clawattacks, 1 bite attack, a strength that MUST be better then your character's standard strength, improved grapple at large size etc. etc. etc. Same goes for practically every other wildfeat there is. Maybe they're written for roleplaying purposes (1 advantage of course being you can still speak), but the advantages are SO meager noone in his/her right mind is going to offer a featslot for one of those.
Alienfreak 11-21-05, 03:38 PM	Yeah right dude ... just like Oaken resilence. Immune to crits, polymorphing, stunning and poison for 10 minutes for 1 Wildshape attemp. Or getting 50ft base speed for 1 hr or +7 natural armor for 1 hr ... nobody would ever want that!!
yrogerg 11-22-05, 09:31 AM	I kinda skimmed the rest of this thread, but did anyone else point out that, in addition to sometimes not being able to sacrifice the speed or cross-class ranks on tumble, there is something else that makes Mobility a fairly non-useless feat? The ability to soak AoOs. It's valuable tactical ability, particularly when the party spellcaster casts Shocking Grasp on his next turn.
Pliskit 11-22-05, 09:57 AM	Yeah right dude ... just like Oaken resilence. Immune to crits, polymorphing, stunning and poison for 10 minutes for 1 Wildshape attemp. Or getting 50ft base speed for 1 hr or +7 natural armor for 1 hr ... nobody would ever want that!! - The effects of Oaken resilience you can get by plantshaping at higher level but for almost a full day instead of 10 minutes at the same cost: out go the benefits of a spent featslot. - 50ft basespeed is standard for a longstriding bearshaped druid. Will cost you one spell for one day. - +7nat AC? You get +5 for 2hrs at 12th lvl if you cast the lvl2 spell barkskin. And now I still have all my featslots for USEFUL feats.
Keenath 11-22-05, 10:01 AM	Somebody probably already mentioned this one:ALL the druid Wildfeats stink to high heaven. Maybe they're written for roleplaying purposes (1 advantage of course being you can still speak), but the advantages are SO meager noone in his/her right mind is going to offer a featslot for one of those. Wellllll... I think you're missing something important, and this is the fact that Polymorph (and by extension, Wildshape) grants only EX special attacks, but not special qualities. SOME of the feats are worth it because of this, particularly the ones in Complete Adventurer. Just glancing over the CD list -- Cheetah's Speed? You can't dash with just wildshape. Dash is a special quality of the cheetah. Same with the Wolverine's Rage; that's an SQ and doesn't come with Wildshaping. The Serpent's Venom feat is of questionable value; there is debate over whether or not Polymorph (and thus wildshape) allow you to produce venom that works, depending on whether injecting it into a target constitutes "seperation from the body" and thus ends the polymorphing effect. Boar's Ferocity is useful because it's an immediate action (that is, you don't have to know you'll need it ahead of time) for a character who may not have the prereqs for Diehard. I can kind of see a point to Elephant's Skin and Eagle's Wings, but if I were a druid I'd never waste a feat on these. Lion's Pounce is sort of the same; the only person I can imagine it would be useful to is some sort of Druid multiclass, but it still seems a waste of a wildshape. Pounce is a special attack, so you may's well just turn into a lion or tiger. Griz Claws is definitely useless; just BE A BEAR instead... Oaken Resiliance is very good, though, since it gives you all the plant traits that you don't get from Polymorphing. Swim like a Fish and Climb like a Monkey are useless as well, since you gain the movement modes from wildshaping, but a lot of the CV feats are good. Blindsense and Scent are pretty good, granting abilities you wouldn't gain from just turning into the creature. Cougar's Vision (for low light) and Hawk's Vision (for daylight) are questionable; I think you DO get the racial skill bonuses when 'shaped, so Hawk's Vision might count as useless, and Cougar's Vision grants LLV, which is not that hard to pick up from other sources (if you don't have it already!) Savage Grapple doesn't require use of a wildshape, it just allows you to sneak-attack with a grapple while wildshaped, and that's a great feat for a druid/rogue build. So, basically, I think it's a mixed bag. I wouldn't make such a sweeping declaration as you, but a few of those are definitely useless compared to a full wildshape. If they specified that the feat's effect persisted when you use Wildshape, THEN it might be worth something -- you could produce winged tigers and elephants with claws -- but then you're sort of stepping on the Master of Many Forms, so that's not very nice.
Centauri 11-22-05, 10:05 AM	These Wildfeats sound like what Wildshape should have been.
Keenath 11-22-05, 10:05 AM	- The effects of Oaken resilience you can get by plantshaping at higher level but for almost a full day instead of 10 minutes at the same cost: out go the benefits of a spent featslot. No, I'm sorry, you can't. "Plant Traits" is listed in the Special Qualities block, and you don't gain SQs from wildshaping (except turning into Elementals). So feel free to wildshape into a Treant, but don't expect to be immune to crits.
Keenath 11-22-05, 10:11 AM	These Wildfeats sound like what Wildshape should have been.I've suggested for a while that Druids should gain the SQs of animals they turn into (but not plants). Animals don't have any of the really abusive, unbalancing SQs like Fast Healing or Regeneration, so that isn't an issue (though some plant creatures do have these, and thus the plants need to be restricted; besides, the Plant Traits immunity list is too powerful all on its own). So, by my suggestion, turning into a wolf nets you scent, turning into a bat gets you blindsense, and a porpoise-wildshape can use his echolocation for blindsight. Does this make wildshaping more powerful? It makes it more useful, but I tend to think that it would make the druid actually LESS combat-monsterish. If you allow Wildshape to be a tool rather than only a weapon, a druid is less likely to turn into a bear in every combat, because he may need wildshapes outside of fighting -- which is rarely the case right now.
Centauri 11-22-05, 10:16 AM	So, by my suggestion, turning into a wolf nets you scent, turning into a bat gets you blindsense, and a porpoise-wildshape can use his echolocation for blindsight. Oh, I meant that, instead of turning into an animal, you would turn partway into an animal, or don't change outwardly but adopt some trait of the animal, such as scent, or even speed. As much as I realize that skinchanging is a classic part of fantasy, imagining a druid turning into T-rex for the whole day and just communicating with Speak With Animals turns my stomach.
Pliskit 11-22-05, 10:21 AM	No, I'm sorry, you can't. "Plant Traits" is listed in the Special Qualities block, and you don't gain SQs from wildshaping (except turning into Elementals). So feel free to wildshape into a Treant, but don't expect to be immune to crits. This bothers me greatly: I had a thread running some time ago about how useless plantshaping was: most of the interesting plantforms are completely outweighed by the animal counterparts an druid would be able to shape into at lower levels. I got totally whiped off of the boards by numerous posters telling me the great thing about plantshaping was gaining the plant traits. I told them in the MM the plant traits are listed under special qualities, but most of the people reacting were of the opinion that was bollocks: wether they were ALSO listed there or not, a plantshaper would get the plant traits because a plantcreature well... IS a plant! Damn, how I wish now I had listed that thread in my favorites...
Pliskit 11-22-05, 10:31 AM	Oh, I meant that, instead of turning into an animal, you would turn partway into an animal, or don't change outwardly but adopt some trait of the animal, such as scent, or even speed. As much as I realize that skinchanging is a classic part of fantasy, imagining a druid turning into T-rex for the whole day and just communicating with Speak With Animals turns my stomach. I'm not at home right now so I haven't got the books with me to back this one up, but there's a spell in either the Complete adventurer or the Complete divine that will grant you an animals senses: spot and listenchecks, scent, and even tremorsense and the like.
Keenath 11-22-05, 02:49 PM	This bothers me greatly: I had a thread running some time ago about how useless plantshaping was: most of the interesting plantforms are completely outweighed by the animal counterparts an druid would be able to shape into at lower levels. I got totally whiped off of the boards by numerous posters telling me the great thing about plantshaping was gaining the plant traits. I told them in the MM the plant traits are listed under special qualities, but most of the people reacting were of the opinion that was bollocks: wether they were ALSO listed there or not, a plantshaper would get the plant traits because a plantcreature well... IS a plant!Huh. Wish I'd seen that. Now, I gotta say I agree, that there is no good reason to include plant forms if you don't get Plant Traits, but I'm just going by the RAW. And by the rules, you gain only EX Special Attacks and no other abilities. Frankly, I think I'd be much happier to totally divorce Druids from the Polymorph spell. Make it a unique ability that operates differently!
Pliskit 11-22-05, 05:22 PM	Huh. Wish I'd seen that. Now, I gotta say I agree, that there is no good reason to include plant forms if you don't get Plant Traits, but I'm just going by the RAW. And by the rules, you gain only EX Special Attacks and no other abilities. Frankly, I think I'd be much happier to totally divorce Druids from the Polymorph spell. Make it a unique ability that operates differently!No kidding... a supernatural ability that is like spell A except for... where spell A is like spell B except for... It doesn´t make it any easier. Edit: It makes me want to cry, but you´re completely right. I did some superficial research into the RAW: Alternate Form This supernatural special quality works much like the polymorph spell; here's an overview, with the differences between the alternate form ability and the polymorph spell called out. (...) Unlike polymorph, the creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. Gaining the new creatures type and therefore traits was SO going to be the basis for my defense... Okay, back to the 1001 silly feats. :(
Keenath 11-22-05, 06:24 PM	Edit: It makes me want to cry, but you´re completely right. I did some superficial research into the RAW: Gaining the new creatures type and therefore traits was SO going to be the basis for my defense... Let's move this to a new thread entirely (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7818504).
Marshall 11-22-05, 07:08 PM	Somebody probably already mentioned this one:ALL the druid Wildfeats stink to high heaven. . Elephant Hide. +7 Nat Armor that stacks with everything. Go ahead and shapechange into that bear...then add 7 to your AC...Nice...
solbergb 11-22-05, 07:19 PM	Elephant Hide. +7 Nat Armor that stacks with everything. Go ahead and shapechange into that bear...then add 7 to your AC...Nice... Actually if you read the feat, it replaces any nat armor you have naturally. So...it usually isn't a win unless you're in a humanoid form, or your animal form doesn't have much nat armor.
rat_bastard 11-22-05, 09:41 PM	not really a weak feat so much as an unnessesary feat but dragoncrafter gets on my nerves. basicly it lets you part out a dragon to make non magical improved masterwork items - somthing you should have no trouble with if you have the appropriate craft skills and the the knowledge: arcana skill. but since wotc preferes to have 6000 feats for feats sake, there you go. It would bother me less if they had not stoped defining what you could make with a dead dragon halfway thru the dragoncraft items section. following that, look at dragonsteed, this feat gives you a pegusus with scales... that you could buy, or call as a paladin's mount... umm, yeah. basicly if you paid more than 10$ for the draconomicon you where screwed.
Kendrick 11-22-05, 09:50 PM	Yeah, Dragoncrafter is pretty ridiculous. Craft skills already suck like California, no reason to punish them further by requiring a feat for making the only nice craftable items int he game which require rare components and 3-4 different craft skills to fully utilize your feat. What needs to happen there is forget about the feat and jack the difficulties up to the point that it requires 10 ranks and appropriate magical equipment to make the stuff. Give your players a non-roleplaying reason to invest the ranks, so they don't feel like they're just throwing their skill points into a friggin' hole.
Junkyard Dog 01-05-06, 03:00 AM	What is a bad feat? All feats are situational. Every feat can be useful under the right circumstances. First, you can't simply declare a feat to be "good" or "bad", black or white. It's a continuum. There are great feats, good feats, mediocre-but-good-in-a-certain-build feats, and poor feats. This last category is probably what we should be talking about in this discussion. Because all feats are situational, a good feat should either apply to a situation that happens a LOT, like making a save, being attacked, or dropping a target, or it should apply to a situation that a character can control, like making a trip attack or a skill check. So, my first definition of a bad feat is one that is not under your control and happens rarely. My second definition, and a more common one, is a feat that is numerically weak. That is, it gives a benefit that mathematically doesn't hold up. Keenath, thanks for adding a voice of reason to some of the hot air on this board. I agree about the notion of the continuum of usefulness. For instance, Endurance, which pops up quite a bit on this thread, could be useful with the right DM in the right kind of campaign (i.e., one in which you're making the kinds of checks for which the feat gives you bonuses or one in which you're getting attacked while the party sleeps). But what's so annoying for me about the feat is that it isn't worth a damn in and of itself in the campaigns I play in, but it seems to be a prerequisite for just about every prestige class I want to take. That's probably what's fueling a lot of the frustration about the feat. Someone wrote the LOL-funny comment that if want to find the bad feats, check the prerequisites of any good published prestige class. I'll give a corollary: if you want to find the bad feats, check any published feat which you'd like to take and look at the prerequisite feats. Having said all that, here are the worst feats I've ever seen: Spell Focus (conjuration). A prerequisite for Augment Summoning, which is a good feat, this one has almost no practical use whatsoever, since it gives you +2 on the save DC against your conjuration spells. Problem is, almost every conjuration spell in the book either 1) allows no save or 2) is harmless. Weapon Specialization (net). That's a hilarious entry from someone else. You get a +2 on damage with a weapon which doesn't do any damage! Is this actually a prerequisite for anything? If it is, whoever made it one should have to face the firing squad. Greater Weapon Specialization (net). Not only is it one of the few demonstrably worthless feats, it requires Weapon Specialization (net) as a prerequisite. I'd say this one takes the cake. If you'd like to top off the build with a flourish, you could opt for Improved Critical (net).
grelna 01-07-06, 06:31 PM	Why would you for example have your hands change into bears claws for the cost of one wildshape, while at the same cost you can wildshape into a bear, have 2 clawattacks, 1 bite attack, a strength that MUST be better then your character's standard strength, improved grapple at large size etc. etc. etc. Same goes for practically every other wildfeat there is. Well, a partial wildshape for limited abilities does allow the character to retain all the benefits of normal and magical equipment carried. Unless a druid has the Wilding ability applied to everything he/she owns, there will be times when that equipment will be missed in animal or plant form.
DoombreedTrollsan 01-27-06, 11:01 PM	I know the OP said not to do this BUT... if you're building a CHARACTER rather than a die-roller, then those Skill +2/+2 are great. I almost always take one of those for my characters because that's what they end up focusing on. It's only useless if you don't plan on ROLE playing. Sorry, had to. ... hmm... was going to actualy add to the list but I can't honestly think of a Feat that wouldn't be usefull to at least a few character concepts... maybe if this was on the Character Optimization board it would be different. I completely agree. I am glad to say in the years I've played the various versions of D&D and the other PnP games, I've never "power gamed" a character...but I will say that compared to the other feats, the +2/+2 skill feats are pretty crappy. Maybe...maybe...+4 to one skill or +3/+3 instead of +2/+2. But I'm getting off topic of the thread, so I'll shut my alehole :P
LordRoberts 08-25-06, 11:25 AM	In deffense of the two weapon fighting tree. Remember a staple of adventure movies and DM open moves. A friend of mine PC fell off a tower, but had a ring of feather fall so he survived the landing. Landed in the midle of a group of 23 shadows. He was lucky. He had long sword and a short sword with ghoast touch, and improved two weapon fighting. He was able to hold them off and kill half of them till the cleric was able to dust the rest of them. Ofcourse, the PC was drain to lvl 1 before then. We werer sweating bullet let me tell you.
Ventifax 01-25-07, 10:41 PM	Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. Improved Grapple: Ditto.I think those are reasonable for a fighter, if you're fighting things that aren't horrifying to touch. And they're good monster feats for monsters that are horrifying to touch.
Crimson_Concerto 01-25-07, 10:44 PM	I'm sure this MUST have been mentioned before, but it bears mentioning again even if it has: Skill Focus (Speak Language)
Orion Polaris 01-26-07, 02:08 AM	Speaking of useless feats, I just dug out my Players Guide to Eberron. It has them in abundance. Someone never told the book's authors that stacking a bunch of smaller pitiful bonuses to extremely limited situations isn't worth a feat! -Aerenal Arcanist (A minor bonus to Knowledge Arcana? Sorry not worth it.) -Aerenal Half-Life (Much too specialized to be worth a feat. Not only do you need to be a Cleric, but an Elf as well, and even then Spell Focus(Necromancy) will almost always be better.) -Friend Of The Tribes (Okay...so you're cool with halflings. Guess what? I can be cool with everyone by putting skill ranks in Diplomacy. Why should I waste a feat for this?) -Talenta Drifter(Oh it can come in handy when you're on the plains, but it's useless everywhere else. Pretty much a DM only feat who wants his pet halfling tribe to be able to get the drop on his party) -Galifaran Scholar(Oh wow a +4 bonus on Knowledge History checks in certain situations! Why don't I take Skill Focus: Knowledge(History) and get a +3 bonus EVERYTIME I use it? BTW, if you're a feat that sucks more than Skill Focus, you should really consider ending your life.) -Child Of The Swamps (Useless outside of a Swamp. Even in a Swamp, a high tumble skill and skill focus (survival) will most assuredly serve you better. -Battlebred (Extended Rage is better than this feat in almost every aspect. The extended duration of certain spells on you is so narrow it's not even worth mentioning.) -Pretty much all of the Planar Mastery feats...I have to give up a bunch of skillslots and feats for a couple of piddly spell-like abilities? No way!) -Shield Of Blades (Hey guess what! I'll take dodge and I won't have to worry about overspecializing with the crappy Valenar Scimitar, and it's STILL better in most situations!) -Spirit Of The Stallion (Lol, I'll spend 2k and get my weapon magicked rather than waste a feat slot(two if you count the prerequisite feat! I don't see how the valenar are feared warriors if they are wasting feats on crap like this and shield of blades....)
navar100 01-26-07, 05:00 AM	Mobility - entirely trumped by Tumble. Toughness - 'nuff said. Augment Summoning - cost is too high (try finding a use for Spell Focus (conjuration)) Greater Two Weapon Fighting - unless you can full attack while moving, this will never outweigh it's stealing of your feat. Healing spells are Conjuration spells. Spell Focus Conjuration is good when using said spells against undead. There are some conjuration spells that allow a save. Divine Vengeance and Comet Fall are good. My cleric did alright with Spell Focus Conjuration. However, Augment Summoning was awesome. My summoned creatures packed a wallop.
navar100 01-26-07, 05:03 AM	Weapon Specialization Net Not quite as bad Weapon Specialization Whip Not quite as bad Combat Casting (come on guys you can take Skill Focus Concentration and always get +3) Yes, but having it in addition with Combat Casting and max Concentration allows your spellcaster to cast defensively in a threatened area to avoid AoO for even your highest spell all the time even if you roll a 1. With a 14 Con this starts at level 4. If you are a spellcaster in melee often, such as a cleric, this goes a long way to being able to cast a spell safely when you really to. Without Combat Casting you have to wait a few levels, which can be costly.
CaoSlayer 01-26-07, 08:17 AM	Healing spells are Conjuration spells. Spell Focus Conjuration is good when using said spells against undead. There are some conjuration spells that allow a save. Divine Vengeance and Comet Fall are good. My cleric did alright with Spell Focus Conjuration. However, Augment Summoning was awesome. My summoned creatures packed a wallop. There is some low level conjuration spells that are really useful, grease, web, stinky cloud, cloud kill and glitterdust really benefits from the feat, those spells are useful from level 1 to level 20.
navar100 01-26-07, 06:34 PM	The fact that you can take a feat to feel superior about what an awsome roleplayer you are doesn't negate the fact that doing so cripples your character. Most people are capable of building a functional character and roleplaying it without deliberately gimping it to prove what a dedicated roleplayer they are. It depends on the campaign. For my group's first and second campaign, I'd agree with you, vis-a-vis the +2/+2 skill feats. I stopped putting ranks in Diplomacy when I realized the DM only cared about what I, the player, said instead of how my character would be able to say it. However, the DM realized that wasn't a good idea. For our third campaign he is purposely making an effort to have skills matter, which is a good thing. We are having to make more skill rolls than ever before, even for things the DM would just "roleplay" what happens. It matters now what my skill modifiers are. That's why I'm glad I have +20 Diplomacy. The Negotiator feat, giving me +2/+2 in Diplomacy and Sense Motive, helps a lot. I need every plus I can get to reach the juicy DC 30 Diplomacy check I need. It will become easier as I increase ranks as the levels progress. I'm having to make more Sense Motive rolls. Having a +0 Wisdom modifier hurts here, which is why I'm glad I have Negotiator. Skills, other than the rogueish ones, are only as important in the game as the DM makes them.
navar100 01-26-07, 06:54 PM	I disagree Weapon focus on it's own is relatively useless. The only real reason for taking it is to get Weapon Specialization. Power Attack is not as strong as people make it out to be. Who in his right mind is going to take a penalty to melee attack rolls at low level. Power Attack imo is a feat that should be taken at high levels. Otherwise it does not matter if you can do a lot of damage if you cannot hit anything. Plus not everyone uses a 2 handed weapon or two weapon fighting. ST 14 warrior type wielding a greatsword, 1st level, weapon focus, power attack. +4 to hit, 2d6+3 damage. Using Power Attack for one, he's at +3 to hit for 2d6+5 damage. Cleric casts Bless, he's back at +4 to hit for 2d6+5 damage. Same guy at 5th level, +8 to hit 2d6+3 damage. The guy flanks and cleric casts Bless and bard Inspires Courage. Warrior puts in 4 for power attack. He's now at +8 to hit and deals 2d6+12 damage. Make warrior type a fighter for weapon specialization, a barbarian for rage, a martial adept for a manuever strike damage, etc. Not everyone will take Power Attack. It does not synergize well with two-weapon fighting rangers ad rogues. Weapon & shield types might take it for a little extra damage or have the option to drop shield and use weapon two-handed when they really need the damage or eventually they get an animated shield. Just because not everyone takes a feat doesn't make it worthless. Not every cleric has 18 charisma wanting to spend three feats for Divine Metamagic (Persistent) or if no 18 charisma spend four feats to get Extra Turning.
navar100 01-26-07, 07:17 PM	Yes that does make it sound a lot better. I still think it is slightly expensive, but not to bad. Can you cleave on the same round you WA? You could in 3.0, which led to bringing along a bag of rats joke. In 3.5 they specifically made it so you can't.
navar100 01-26-07, 07:18 PM	I think Shot on the Run isn't terrible, but it really doesn't hold up to the other Spring Attack-like feats, nor to its own prerequisite list. It needs an additional benefit to make it worth my archer giving up the rest of his attacks. It would synergize well with Manyshot.
navar100 01-26-07, 07:31 PM	Not really. Weapon Focus doesn't add to BAB. You can only use your BAB to add points to Power Attack. But the +1 from Weapon Focus gives you back the 1 point modifier you spent on Power Attack such that you are rolling your effect BAB number and getting +2 damage, using a two-handed weapon. Given Power Attack, every +1 to hit from every source over your BAB up to your BAB using a two-handed weapon can be converted into +2 damage, and you still attack with a to hit modifier equal in value to your BAB.
navar100 01-26-07, 07:56 PM	It's been mentioned once, but I reoffer Cooperative Spell. No PC could ever really benefit because in reality it is not common to have multi same-class spellcasters in the party and for those whoa re of different classes to share enough same spells known to be worthwhile. Further, everyone is better off casting their own spells on their own initiative. If a spellcaster really cares enough to pay special attention to overcoming spell resistance and boost hi DC, he'ls take the Spell Penetration feats, School Focus feats, and improve his casting ability score which he's probably doing already. It is logical the Mage of the Arcane Order prestige class requires it. It is a logical NPC mageguild school, but even should a mageguild be under attack, the members are better off each casting their own spells. If anything, the feat is useful should you be using any of the various Ritual Magic from various source books where a groups of casters is spending a significant amount of time to cast one particular spell they really, really want to succeeed.
navar100 01-26-07, 08:00 PM	For the record, I like Dodge for its own sake. I'm not always going to be attacked by multiple opponents. Heck, that's the arguement against Whirlwind Attack. I've experienced time and time again that every +1 matters for any reason. Not all my characters would take it. No feat is an everyone must have feat. It would depend upon the character's combat tactics.
DMsDelight 02-22-07, 03:47 PM	I have decided to start a counterpart to the broken feats thread. Which feats do you think are useless or at the very least not even worth a feat slot? My list for those feats is: Any of the +1 feats. The only time I take these is when I need to qualify for another feat. Dodge to get Whirlwind, Weapon focus to get Weapon Speacilization. Feats that last for 1 round. Unless you are a fighter feats slots are at a premimum. Why would I want to take a feat that only lasts 1 round? Damage Reduction Feats. Not useless but way underpowered. To get any real benefit you have to take them at least 3 times just to make it worth it. At the very least they stack. I have to counter these, even if it has already.... Those +1 feats can be highly useful. Consider a fighter with dodge, all the weapon focus/specialization feats, and...say...some of the branch feats like spring attack attached to dodge/greater dodge. All it takes is a 1 point difference to make or break a battle. At 15th level (in say Breastplate and Heavy Steel Shield, dex+3) thats AC 18, which can be 19 if dodge is used. Include magic mithral armor/shield and ring of protection, and that AC gets even higher, counted as light armor to move at full speed, and can attack and get out of the way of an incoming attack, making him harder to hit in the first place and forcing the oppoonent to move, thus denying him the full attack action. Now the wepon focus/specialization feats (lets say he has a +3 flaming longsword, Str 16). That equals a full attack action of +23/+18/+13, as opposed to +21/+16/+11 (avg rolls (rolling 10) equal 33/28/23 as opposed to 31/28/21), at a damage of 1d8+1d6+10 (I count the +3 weapon as both attack and damage, not sure if your actually supposed to do that as per RAW), as opposed to 1d8+1d6+6 (average damage 17 as opposed to 13). As we can see, the chance to hit and evade is even better, and who wouldn't want that? Feats that last for one round? As I have said before, 1 round can spell the difference between victory and death. For example, one of my mages used a metamagic feat that allowed him to stun for 1 round when he cast a damage dealing spell. Thats 1 round of free hits...useless? I think not. As per damage reduction feats...even 1 point of DR means one less point of damage PER ATTACK negated...that definitely adds up. Combine that with improved toughness (mentioned as useless), and thats a few extra hit points and DR to make em last. Highly useful. So there we have it, my 2 cents.
memorax 02-22-07, 10:51 PM	I have to counter these, even if it has already.... Those +1 feats can be highly useful. Consider a fighter with dodge, all the weapon focus/specialization feats, and...say...some of the branch feats like spring attack attached to dodge/greater dodge. All it takes is a 1 point difference to make or break a battle. At 15th level (in say Breastplate and Heavy Steel Shield, dex+3) thats AC 18, which can be 19 if dodge is used. Include magic mithral armor/shield and ring of protection, and that AC gets even higher, counted as light armor to move at full speed, and can attack and get out of the way of an incoming attack, making him harder to hit in the first place and forcing the oppoonent to move, thus denying him the full attack action. Now the wepon focus/specialization feats (lets say he has a +3 flaming longsword, Str 16). That equals a full attack action of +23/+18/+13, as opposed to +21/+16/+11 (avg rolls (rolling 10) equal 33/28/23 as opposed to 31/28/21), at a damage of 1d8+1d6+10 (I count the +3 weapon as both attack and damage, not sure if your actually supposed to do that as per RAW), as opposed to 1d8+1d6+6 (average damage 17 as opposed to 13). As we can see, the chance to hit and evade is even better, and who wouldn't want that? A +1 feat does in some cases make a difference in a battle and most of the time at lower levels. At higher levels when an extra +1 to hit does not mean much it's useless imo. I'm in a higher level game at the moment and while I'm not playing the Fighter the extra point does not really give him and advatage since were fighting creatures that have high to hit modfiers. Second every game i have been in no Fighter I know wears light armor at high level. Not unless it's because of multiclassing or a prestige class requirement. Most wear the heavy armor times slowing them down. Weapon Focus is great at low levels not so great at higher levels and most players who play fighters only take it to get Weapon Specialization. It's all a numbers game and the +1 just not as useful as other feats. Feats that last for one round? As I have said before, 1 round can spell the difference between victory and death. For example, one of my mages used a metamagic feat that allowed him to stun for 1 round when he cast a damage dealing spell. Thats 1 round of free hits...useless? I think not. Quite a few people seem to forget that there are a limited number of feats. Feats need to count. Your example just proves it. You can stun someone for.... 1 round. That's assuming your character hits the stunned character and he makes his easy save as many feats like the one you mention have an easy DC save. So I need to have good rolls in my favor to get the most out of the feats no thank you. So yes I still think their useless. As per damage reduction feats...even 1 point of DR means one less point of damage PER ATTACK negated...that definitely adds up. Combine that with improved toughness (mentioned as useless), and thats a few extra hit points and DR to make em last. Highly useful. So there we have it, my 2 cents. Once again your assuming that whatever hits you is going to roll low consistently and that almost never happens. The rare case is when a DM has a bad night with the dice. Otherwise it's fairly easy to overcome if the oppsition has the right weapon. Not to mention I have to waste limited feat slots to get a high enough DR to make it count. Toughness is only really useful for the Rogue and Wizard/Sorcerer types that have low hit points but same problem as the DR feats in terms of spending limited feat slots to really make them count.
IrishRover 02-23-07, 12:26 PM	Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. Improved Grapple: Ditto. I've taken Improved Unarmed Combat very frequently with fighters. When a fight breaks out and limited force is necessary, it's a battle winner. In a bar, the watch will nail the ones that pull weapons--but if you defend yourself with just your fists, they'll likely not hassle you too much. And of course, the brawlers provoke attacks of opportunity on you because you're considered armed. Likewise, if you're disarmed, it's a lifesaver. When negotiations break down--and both sides are unarmed--it's again a lifesaver. If you want to subdue someone, not having the -4 to hit is nice. And if you're fighting in a city--someone's after you with a dager, and you're unarmed, which side is the city watch likely to consider more dangerous? Not to mention that it's darned useful if you usually use weapons like a greatsword, and find yourself in a grapple, or inside a big critter.
DMsDelight 02-24-07, 01:17 PM	A +1 feat does in some cases make a difference in a battle and most of the time at lower levels. At higher levels when an extra +1 to hit does not mean much it's useless imo. I'm in a higher level game at the moment and while I'm not playing the Fighter the extra point does not really give him and advatage since were fighting creatures that have high to hit modfiers. Second every game i have been in no Fighter I know wears light armor at high level. Not unless it's because of multiclassing or a prestige class requirement. Most wear the heavy armor times slowing them down. Weapon Focus is great at low levels not so great at higher levels and most players who play fighters only take it to get Weapon Specialization. It's all a numbers game and the +1 just not as useful as other feats. You have great points, of course, of that I don't deny. But thats really the point of the feat (Weapon Focus), for use at lower levels. It would pretty stupid to take at higher levels. My point (which you got, I'm sure) was that all the number can add up. Even a point of difference can spell defeat or victory. RP speaking, it represents training with one specific weapon, thus it's "useless" for a reason. Some feats are just "meant" for certain classes, and Weapon Focus is mostly for your Martial characters, particularly fighters. As per light armor...that was an example, I know that quite a few people like not reducing their speed, so I used that example. If I were to use Full Plate and a different feat tree of "useless" feats, the two would mesh great in the same manner. Quite a few people seem to forget that there are a limited number of feats. Feats need to count. Your example just proves it. You can stun someone for.... 1 round. That's assuming your character hits the stunned character and he makes his easy save as many feats like the one you mention have an easy DC save. So I need to have good rolls in my favor to get the most out of the feats no thank you. So yes I still think their useless. This is true, so pick your one round feats wisely. Your not supposed to take all of them, lol. At any rate, most good characters can find a way to bump up that save considerably, as I STILL have trouble beating his save DC. Ability Focus, etc. Its all a matter of wise feat choice. SOME of them are useful, yes, but not all. Once again your assuming that whatever hits you is going to roll low consistently and that almost never happens. The rare case is when a DM has a bad night with the dice. Otherwise it's fairly easy to overcome if the oppsition has the right weapon. Not to mention I have to waste limited feat slots to get a high enough DR to make it count. Toughness is only really useful for the Rogue and Wizard/Sorcerer types that have low hit points but same problem as the DR feats in terms of spending limited feat slots to really make them count. True, some DR is not as good, but, for example, DR 2/- negates 2 from EVERY attack, multiply that a bit, thats a lot of hp conservation.
Qwicksilver 02-26-07, 03:48 AM	For my party, we have resolved to use Dodge as +1 to all attackers, until one utilizes feats which require dodge bonus to be assigned. As a prereq, i find that there are few feats that state "affects character you assign a dodge bonus to", so dodge's inherent worth does seem to be in being a prerequisite. I can't remember all of the feats, but elusive target from the CW is one. Thus in our campaign, one must choose to have a straight +1 bonus to AC or forfeit it for more abilities against one opponent. For Whirlwind attack, i don't know if anyone has mentioned the possibility of a spiked chain fighter utilizing it. The feat states that one may make a melee attack for all enemies within reach. With the all-powerful, ungodly, spiked chain that means that all within 5 and 10 feet of you or even greater when enlarged. Yes, at later levels, I admit there's a tendency to fight fewer opponents, and more BBEGs, thus it wears with time. However, this goes back to the dodge argument, as many feel that dodge is bad because it only applies to one attacker. If this is true, then would the feat not progress from bad to acceptable if we were all in agreement that the tendency from 1-20 lvl is to go from multiple to single opponents? Of course depending on your DM, the BBEG may be caster based or melee based and you can buy any number of goods that enhance AC. Regardless, I'm merely pointing out that dodge by RAW may actually increase in usefulness at higher levels. Is the usefulness significant enough to make it "not bad", well I don't know, but again there are many other feats available from the initial dodge feat.
DMsDelight 02-26-07, 01:33 PM	I've taken Improved Unarmed Combat very frequently with fighters. When a fight breaks out and limited force is necessary, it's a battle winner. In a bar, the watch will nail the ones that pull weapons--but if you defend yourself with just your fists, they'll likely not hassle you too much. And of course, the brawlers provoke attacks of opportunity on you because you're considered armed. Likewise, if you're disarmed, it's a lifesaver. When negotiations break down--and both sides are unarmed--it's again a lifesaver. If you want to subdue someone, not having the -4 to hit is nice. And if you're fighting in a city--someone's after you with a dager, and you're unarmed, which side is the city watch likely to consider more dangerous? Not to mention that it's darned useful if you usually use weapons like a greatsword, and find yourself in a grapple, or inside a big critter. Applause, to you. Improved Unarmed and Grapple is great for that DM who thinks that your uber strong and takes many opportunities to disarm you. "Son of a--I liked that sword! *smack**grapple* cough it up you scaly pimple!!"
starvinmarvin07 02-27-07, 06:06 PM	K, I've seen several people say Eschew Materials is a pointless feat, and a lot of the time it is (it can be duplicated by a 15g item). However, there is a character type where it comes into play, along with silent and still spell; the beguiler type. If you want to be in a social situation and cast a spell, and not have anybody know it, these feats (excepting still, which can be replicated by other means) are nearly necessary. It doesn't get more obvious that you're casting a spell than when you pull a live spider out of a little pouch on your waist and eat it, then proclaim some jibber jabber in a language nobody else speaks, while theatrically waving your hands. Also, dodge. Yes, relatively pointless (unless you're fighting 1 big monster). Quick easy house rule fix; Dodge applies to every opponent you're in melee with.
inspired 06-27-07, 08:41 AM	i played a scout that lived off shot on the run. meat and potatoes, son.
pupilofyah 06-28-07, 10:56 PM	Two Weapon Fighting is not a weak feat. TWF is a fine feat, it simply depends on the build. HOWEVER... Improved TWF and Greater TWF are absolutely terrible feats. What other chain of feats gives you smaller and smaller benefits while slapping you with greater and greater prerequisites? Just have a look at Greater TWF. It requires you have superhuman dexterity to take it (short of being an 11th level Ranger), and what do you get in return? A single attack at -10 that will probably only hit on a natural 20 against an on-level enemy. And enemies that aren't on-level usually won't be alive to take a sixth attack in any case! And compare the benefit of GTWF with the benefit of Improved Precise Shot, which has equivalent prerequisites -- an attack at -10 versus ignoring cover and concealment, the two most frustrating hurtles for archer characters (that is, those most likely to take the feat). This one, fortunately, I have a solution for. Leave TWF alone, but use my houserule feats for ITWF and GTWF. Basically, leave the prereqs the same, but the benefits change... ITWF gives you an off hand attack for *each* primary hand attack, and any turn when you have your off hand weapon drawn, but don't attack with it, you gain a +1 AC. GTWF allows you to gain the +1 AC any time your off hand weapon is drawn, regardless of whether you attack with it, and gives you the benefits of the Dual Strike feat (found in Complete Adventurer) though I'm considering lowering the Dual Strike penalties, so that this feat (with its much higher prereqs) will be more valuable than just Dual Strike with an AC bonus. If you use these rules, you should remove Two-Weapon Defense (a weak feat anyway) from the game, and consider removing Dual Strike (though Dual Strike has much easier prereqs to GTWF, and may be worth keeping). If anyone is interested in the full text, I can send them my houserule feats in private messaging. you are idiot. it is not giving you less of a benifit is basicly working towards a second full attack a round. so the extra attacks are not as good as the first main attack. boo whoo. making ITWF give you a full attack IS broken however because that would make it as if you get to full attack twice a round for two feats. two weapon fighting is not a bad feat in any arena.
Irving 06-29-07, 07:38 AM	Er, worded less abusively... In most analyses of TWF that I've seen, TWF only seriously comes into its own when there's bonus damage involved, such as burst weapons or sneak attack damage. TWF is all about generating extra chances to hit at a lower probability of success. It's generally not worth the extra gamble... unless the payoff is higher than average. Improved and Greater TWF generate one more chance to roll the dice. Even if your chance to hit goes down to 20 (not at all a certainty against leveled opponents... some monsters have high AC, some high hp), would you take a feat that offers a 5% chance to do an extra 3d6 damage every full attack? It's a more tempting offer than dodge. Heck, it's comparable to Power Critical. The feat's worth it.
Irving 06-29-07, 08:36 AM	imp disarm: WHAT THE HELL!!! first, most things dont have weapons, and imp trip stops them from atttacking, and lets you get an extra attack on them Remember how much people rave about the uber-awesome power of clerics on this board? Improved Disarm bones clerics. Check out how many cleric spell require a divine focus... you can disarm someone of an object they're wearing. A whole lot of their spell list goes out the window at that point. Standard technique for eliminating casters in my campaign: The rogue disarms the holy symbol or spell component pouch, the monk grapples. ("Why, I can keep him from talking at my option? Yes, please.") No verbal, somatic, or material components at that point.
pupilofyah 06-29-07, 11:52 AM	I'm sure this MUST have been mentioned before, but it bears mentioning again even if it has: Skill Focus (Speak Language) ok this is funny. there is no situation for which this is useful. this one qualifies as useless. (even weapon spec net has one use i have seen barbed/razor nets so there exist one kind of net that does low damage; still would not wast a fest in it) Speaking of useless feats, I just dug out my Players Guide to Eberron. It has them in abundance. Someone never told the book's authors that stacking a bunch of smaller pitiful bonuses to extremely limited situations isn't worth a feat! -Aerenal Arcanist (A minor bonus to Knowledge Arcana? Sorry not worth it.) -Aerenal Half-Life (Much too specialized to be worth a feat. Not only do you need to be a Cleric, but an Elf as well, and even then Spell Focus(Necromancy) will almost always be better.) -Friend Of The Tribes (Okay...so you're cool with halflings. Guess what? I can be cool with everyone by putting skill ranks in Diplomacy. Why should I waste a feat for this?) -Talenta Drifter(Oh it can come in handy when you're on the plains, but it's useless everywhere else. Pretty much a DM only feat who wants his pet halfling tribe to be able to get the drop on his party) -Galifaran Scholar(Oh wow a +4 bonus on Knowledge History checks in certain situations! Why don't I take Skill Focus: Knowledge(History) and get a +3 bonus EVERYTIME I use it? BTW, if you're a feat that sucks more than Skill Focus, you should really consider ending your life.) -Child Of The Swamps (Useless outside of a Swamp. Even in a Swamp, a high tumble skill and skill focus (survival) will most assuredly serve you better. -Battlebred (Extended Rage is better than this feat in almost every aspect. The extended duration of certain spells on you is so narrow it's not even worth mentioning.) -Pretty much all of the Planar Mastery feats...I have to give up a bunch of skillslots and feats for a couple of piddly spell-like abilities? No way!) -Shield Of Blades (Hey guess what! I'll take dodge and I won't have to worry about overspecializing with the crappy Valenar Scimitar, and it's STILL better in most situations!) -Spirit Of The Stallion (Lol, I'll spend 2k and get my weapon magicked rather than waste a feat slot(two if you count the prerequisite feat! I don't see how the valenar are feared warriors if they are wasting feats on crap like this and shield of blades....) most of these feats are good in the situation and not otherwise. for that reason i would never take them as a PC but as a DM i would and have given simular feats to NPC's such as skill focus(craft weaponsmithing). A PC should not take that feat b/c he is an adventurer not an artisan. skill focus gemcutting. skill focus speak language is still making me laugh...i think qualifies as the all time worst feat. please if you know of a worse choice i want to hear it. Healing spells are Conjuration spells. Spell Focus Conjuration is good when using said spells against undead. There are some conjuration spells that allow a save. Divine Vengeance and Comet Fall are good. My cleric did alright with Spell Focus Conjuration. However, Augment Summoning was awesome. My summoned creatures packed a wallop. i have seen both of these used to great success with a druid that a friend of mine is playing It would synergize well with Manyshot. very true but i think many shot and a spring attack should be combined as a single feat.
Iskitim 07-02-07, 12:36 PM	So... Weapon Focus. Weapon Focus increases your chance to hit with any attack by five percent. It's effects therefore depend upon the amount of damage that you're dealing with each attack in addition to your likeliness of hitting without the feat. For example, consider a fighter who has a 50% chance to hit an enemy. Weapon Focus increases his chance to hit to 55%, meaning that the change in expected damage is equal to 10%([0.55-0.50]/0.50=0.10). To be equal to Weapon Specialization, the fighter must be doing an average of twenty damage on an attack, which becomes reasonable at about level 15. It should be easy to see that Weapon Focus therefore becomes better as you deal more damage and are less likely to hit your opponent. It also becomes better with multiple attacks, as in the case of high-level characters or two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. This is contrary to the belief of many posters that its acceptable at low levels, but becomes weaker as the game goes on. It may become weaker relative to other available feats, but its absolute power actually increases. It's also interesting to note that fighters aren't particularly well set up to take advantage of Weapon Focus. They tend to have a much higher chance to hit than other classes, and don't always do more damage. Furthermore, Weapon Focus is useless in most "only hit with a 20" and all "only miss with a 1" situations, which 20+ fighters are guaranteed to experience at least one of on a full attack, and high-level fighters are quite likely to experience in general. In our groups, we actually see rogues and rangers take it as often as fighters, because they're well suited to take advantage of it. They would take it much more often than fighters if it weren't a prerequisite for important fighter feats. Also: Damage reduction. The problem with damage reduction is that its value decreases as you go up in levels. When you first grab a DR feat, it might prevent thirty percent of all damage that would be dealt to you. In my opinion, thirty percent is awesome. However, as you level up, the value of DR 3/- might easily fall to ten or fewer percent damage reduction, which is much less impressive. The same is true of all feats that add a static value or increase a roll that isn't success/failure (e.g., Weapon Specialization). Whether they're worth the feat or not depends primarily upon how you value immediate rewards as compared to long term rewards. Submitted to the Compendium: Grizzly's Claws. I like my claws to come with a ridiculous strength score, thank you very much.
pupilofyah 07-03-07, 12:47 PM	this feat is one that i like but from the raw and half of the boards oppion it sucks after lvl 16 for monks. superior unarmed strike. damage for monks as if 4 lvl higher. epic rules monks damage does not increase after 20. so at lvl 20 the feat says i quit. even toughness is better than that at 20. you dont suddenly loose 3 hp...they just dont matter much. at least it is better than skill focus (craft press flowers) <---I actually know someone that picked this as a joke and the DM did not know about the ridiculas feat choice. he ran an alice in wonderland horror module that he had from somewhere(which we did not know when we were making chars). we had to fight flowers the first night...'i want make a craft check!' if they errata it to being goes up a die step then it would be ok.
Xeorsos 09-19-07, 09:23 AM	In the campaign I'm playing in right now, there is no form of ressurection magic. To counter this, our DM changed the formerly weak Toughness feat to an increadibly potent version. The Toughness feat grants you +3 hit points, and then an additional +1 hit point per hit die. Essentially, you get to treat your CON as if it just bumped up 2 points, and this is retroactive. It's been a big hit with the group, since I think half of us have it.
NoldorForce 09-19-07, 10:42 PM	this feat is one that i like but from the raw and half of the boards oppion it sucks after lvl 16 for monks. superior unarmed strike. damage for monks as if 4 lvl higher. epic rules monks damage does not increase after 20.It's a very useful feat for all the "fake monks" out there. You know, the characters who have something like one real monk level and then a bunch of stuff that adds up to another fifteen virtual levels - that's what the feat is good for. Why not just take the fifteen monk levels in the first place? Because you're doing better things...like being a full-power egoist.* Basically, treat it as "Practiced Monk". It's silly for those who keep their progression going, but rather useful for those who branch out into other fields. *I'm running an arena character with this exact setup, capable of doing 16d8 per unarmed strike. Yes, you can get up to fifteen effective monk levels on your unarmed damage if you have no actual monk levels, but then you lose out on the fun that the monk's unarmed strikes can be, such as attacking with giant claws as well.
CaoSlayer 09-20-07, 07:03 AM	Also from level 1, if you have power attack and a two handed weapon, weapon focus is better than weapon specialization cause you can use it always for a +2 to damage and disable it for a +1 to hit when needed. and as have been said, is a useful feat regardless your level because a +1 improves your chances to hit the same at level 1 than at level 20 because is a raw +5% hit chance.
deathbane 09-20-07, 09:05 AM	It's a very useful feat for all the "fake monks" out there. You know, the characters who have something like one real monk level and then a bunch of stuff that adds up to another fifteen virtual levels - that's what the feat is good for. Why not just take the fifteen monk levels in the first place? Because you're doing better things...like being a full-power egoist.* Basically, treat it as "Practiced Monk". It's silly for those who keep their progression going, but rather useful for those who branch out into other fields. *I'm running an arena character with this exact setup, capable of doing 16d8 per unarmed strike. Yes, you can get up to fifteen effective monk levels on your unarmed damage if you have no actual monk levels, but then you lose out on the fun that the monk's unarmed strikes can be, such as attacking with giant claws as well. How did you get 16d8 per unarmed attack?
The_Sentin3l 09-20-07, 09:31 AM	My take on the TWF feat tree: The -10 to attack for GTWF, considering it's fromy your highest base attack bonus. One of your main attacks by this level is already at -10 from your base attack bonus. Hell, you might have one at -15 from your base attack bonus. Do I see you complaining about that? No. Instead, you're poking holes in a feat that actually INCREASES your chance of hitting something, rather than decreasing. More attacks mean more chances of hitting stuff. Every argument must have a counter argument.
april151978 09-20-07, 11:25 AM	I disagree with a couple of those. Weapon Focus: Turns 5% of my misses into hits. Yes, please. Would you rather take a feat that gives you a +2, +3, or even +4 bonus to something you do every once in a while, or a +1 to something you do, at high levels, over 100 times a day? 5% is 5% in my book, and some seem to forget that 5% can ass up to a lot... Eschew Materials: Useful when your spell component pouch has been stolen. Which happens how often? Actually, this is the same mentality that players have the 1st time they play with me about watch at night - the DM would never do that... I have no problem using realism in my games... If you are that good, someone will try to limit or remove your power... Also, sorcerers in my world get it for free (it's in thier blood)... Silent Spell: I really need a feat for those rare times when someone casts a Silence near me. And I'm sooo likely to have prepared just the right spell for that situation. Okay, Dispel Magic, maybe, to get rid of the silence. But a whole feat for this contingency? Please. Look at some of the epic feats that this is a lead into... Again, a good villian (which is an extension of the DM, so replace if needed in the following) will make attempts to limit the power of certain party members if it suits thier interests... I have done it before, and continue to from time to time... Stop making or playing under a DM that make bond-like villians that don't take every possibiltiy for an advantage... Improved Unarmed Attack: Has anyone ever actually taken this? Other than a monk, I mean. I have made very effective fighter and barbarian builds around this feat... Nasty suprise when someone thinks you are unarmed, or even better in bar fights... :eek: Improved Grapple: Ditto. Ditto... Improved Overrun: Have you ever heard of an overrun build? I haven't. No, but if someone did (maybe I will look at this), a bonus is a bonus is a bonus... If it works, why say it doesn't?...
april151978 09-20-07, 11:31 AM	So... Weapon Focus. Weapon Focus increases your chance to hit with any attack by five percent. It's effects therefore depend upon the amount of damage that you're dealing with each attack in addition to your likeliness of hitting without the feat. For example, consider a fighter who has a 50% chance to hit an enemy. Weapon Focus increases his chance to hit to 55%, meaning that the change in expected damage is equal to 10%([0.55-0.50]/0.50=0.10). To be equal to Weapon Specialization, the fighter must be doing an average of twenty damage on an attack, which becomes reasonable at about level 15. It should be easy to see that Weapon Focus therefore becomes better as you deal more damage and are less likely to hit your opponent. It also becomes better with multiple attacks, as in the case of high-level characters or two-weapon fighting with the same weapon. This is contrary to the belief of many posters that its acceptable at low levels, but becomes weaker as the game goes on. It may become weaker relative to other available feats, but its absolute power actually increases. It's also interesting to note that fighters aren't particularly well set up to take advantage of Weapon Focus. They tend to have a much higher chance to hit than other classes, and don't always do more damage. Furthermore, Weapon Focus is useless in most "only hit with a 20" and all "only miss with a 1" situations, which 20+ fighters are guaranteed to experience at least one of on a full attack, and high-level fighters are quite likely to experience in general. In our groups, we actually see rogues and rangers take it as often as fighters, because they're well suited to take advantage of it. They would take it much more often than fighters if it weren't a prerequisite for important fighter feats. while I do not want to get into a fighter debate, I have made a slight fix to the Weapon Focus feat, and the rest of the feats in that chain... It works like Spell Mastery for fighters; you get the +1 bonus to hit with a number of weapons equal to your intelligence bonus plus one (minimum 1)... Then, when you take Weapon Specialization, you get the bonus in the same weapons as you got from your Weapon Focus block and so on... Many a fighters in my world are now little happy men-o'-war... :fight!: