Most Useless Feat

[Morithias]

What do you think the most useless feat in D&D is?

My money is on the "investigate" feat from Eberron Campaign setting. You can use a search check to discover and get information from clues left at crime scenes! Great just what you need to blow a feat on "The DM can railroad us better now".

What do you people think?

[olentu]

Skill focus speak language.

[Morithias]

Skill focus speak language.

Are you even allowed to take skill focus in a skill that doesn't have ranks!?

Well...RAW I guess you might be right. Ok close the thread we have a winner.

[Daftendirekt]

What do you think the most useless feat in D&D is?

My money is on the "Track" feat from the Player's Handbook. You can use a survival check to discover and get information from clues left on the ground! Great just what you need to blow a feat on "The DM can railroad us better now".

What do you people think?

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

[Wyntonian]

Here I was all ready to say Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basket Weaving), but you guys got it pretty much done.

[Morithias]

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

How about we just say "Investigate, Urban Tracking, and Track are all similar" however one thing I have to argue is that at least Track and Urban Track can be used to enter some good prestiege classes, I have seen ONE class that requires Investigate and it basically is "detective". So the ability to see through lies and find clues. An NPC class.

[Draz74]

Oooh, this is always a fun debate. :smallamused:

The challenge is to find something more useless than Skill Focus: Speak Language. Preferably a feat that actually makes the character less powerful.

Monkey Grip actually qualifies, for most characters. Although I guess it doesn't take away the option for them to use normal-sized weapons ... it just makes non-rules-savvy players more likely to try.

[Daftendirekt]

I dunno, I think Track is more useless than Monkey Grip. It's fine when you get it for free as a Ranger, because as somebody pointed out: Yes, it's a railroading tool, but the DM may decide that since you have a tracker in the party, instead of being railroaded into an ambush or following the wrong trail, you follow the correct path and sneak up behind the ambushers, thus ambushing THEM.

However, I still would never take it outside of getting it for free from Ranger.

[Eldest]

No, since we have a literally useless feat (skill focus: speak languages) we need to find a feat the makes you less powerful. Make sense?

[Daftendirekt]

No, since we have a literally useless feat (skill focus: speak languages) we need to find a feat the makes you less powerful. Make sense?

Again, one could argue that Skill Focus: Speak Language does not exist since the skill has no ranks.

[Flickerdart]

Blessed by Tem-et Nu gives you some benefits, but not very useful ones. What's more, it can actually kill you if you're weakened when you break its vow.

[Hirax]

Stigmata is pretty terrible. For every 2 points of con you sacrifice as temporary damage, you heal a whopping 1 damage per level for up to 6 people. Not good at any level, the returns are way too low for the sacrifice.

[ericgrau]

Vow of peace. If you accidentally step on a bug you lose the feat forever.

[Aemoh87]

The ability to turn/rebuke hippos is no doubt a valuable feat in every campaign setting!

[gorfnab]

The ability to turn/rebuke hippos is no doubt a valuable feat in every campaign setting!
Blessed By Tem-Et-Nu (Sandstorm)

Chosen of Iborighu (Frostburn) is kinda sub-par as well.

[TroubleBrewing]

Stigmata is pretty terrible. For every 2 points of con you sacrifice as temporary damage, you heal a whopping 1 damage per level for up to 6 people. Not good at any level, the returns are way too low for the sacrifice.

Are you ineligible for the feat if you're immune to Con damage? I'm AFB so I can't check, but if you aren't, then that's a pretty sweet "free heals" feat.

Not that there aren't better ones.

[Rossebay]

Eschew Materials has always seemed useless to me...

[Hirax]

Are you ineligible for the feat if you're immune to Con damage? I'm AFB so I can't check, but if you aren't, then that's a pretty sweet "free heals" feat.

Not that there aren't better ones.

Its only requirement is the nimbus of light feat. Which is also not all that swell. You could do what you're describing, I don't know if I'd call it sweet though, it's still pretty marginal for the cost of a feat.

[Zaq]

This looks like a job for the terribly worded Truenamer chapter!

Check out Focused Lexicon (ToM 229). RAI, I believe it's intended to increase the save DCs of your utterances against a certain creature type. However, RAW, I believe that it increases the Truespeak DCs of those utterances, thereby making you less likely to succeed without giving you anything in return.

Bam. Actively detrimental feat. Thanks, terrible wording!

[Ksheep]

Vow of Purity: If you touch dead flesh, you must purify yourself with holy water or lose the bonuses of the feat.
Newsflash! You outermost layer of skin is dead. Dust is flakes of dead skin. You'll break the vow on a daily basis just by walking around, meaning that you'd eat your way through HUGE amounts of holy water each day. Talk about a waste of money AND a feat.

[tiercel]

While not strictly useless... does anyone *ever* actually take the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat?

Then there is the "gimp everything in the Monster Manual" feat, Toughness. Yes, 3hp isn't *useless*, but the opportunity cost is pretty appalling, especially for creatures with significantly more than 1 HD. About the only excuse is PrC prereqs, really.

Other feats that aren't really useless but... not really worth it either: Forge Ring and Craft Construct (unless your entire build revolves around craft-o-mancy cheese, spending a feat to craft a very small number of expensive items isn't very impressive compared to Craft Wondrous Item or even Arms & Armor).

Yes, these aren't feat choices genetically engineered to be maximally useless, but they are still feats that make you scratch your head and think, "why would you?"

-----

As for a feat that reduces your power... how about Cooperative Spell. It does *nothing* on its own, and if you actually use it by having someone else with the same silly feat, you get a single spell effect that's less effective than if you'd just each cast the spell separately. (Plus, you have to synchronize your actions and bunch up to make a nice target.)

Yes, it's a prereq, but so what? Toughness would at least give you 3hp, Cooperative Spell actually reduces your power if you ever use it.

[GoatBoy]

Any feat which messes around with your sub-type can actually hurt you if you're dealing with a ranger with the right favored enemy.

Does "useless" mean which feat has the least actual effect? Or which feat is the absolute worst choice to take?

[AmberVael]

Well, there are reasons to take this feat, but that doesn't make it a good feat-

Unarmored Body, for Warforged. It grants you the stunning ability to not have one of your racial bonuses.

The reason you would take this feat, of course, is that your racial bonus gives you arcane spell failure, which would be bad if you wanted a warforged wizard or something. But the fact remains that you're taking a feat to lose a feature rather than gain something- a feat that was like "Flexible Joints" and just negated their spell failure would have been perfectly fine.

[Greenish]

However, I still would never take it outside of getting it for free from Ranger.Maybe for a prerequisite. Pure caster entry into Wind Walker, say.

[Edit]:
While not strictly useless... does anyone *ever* actually take the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat?Well, if you don't have any proficiencies (don't ask me how), it'd give the largest variety of weapons for a single feat.

Also, duskblades aren't proficient with any simple weapons, so in a campaign where you have to scavenge weapons where you find them…

[Drasius]

Eschew Materials has always seemed useless to me...

Depends rather heavily on if you actually track spell components. If you don't, then yes, it is very pointless, but if you do, it is actually worthwhile for 2 reasons. 1) To reduce book-keeping and 2) to never be completely helpless for the sake of a few cp's of thyme or hummingbird feathers etc.

[Ernir]

It's not topping Skill Focus: Speak Language, but Dancing Blade from Ghostwalk really deserves honorable mention for being a nerfed version of Weapon Focus.

[sonofzeal]

Depends rather heavily on if you actually track spell components. If you don't, then yes, it is very pointless, but if you do, it is actually worthwhile for 2 reasons. 1) To reduce book-keeping and 2) to never be completely helpless for the sake of a few cp's of thyme or hummingbird feathers etc.
It's pretty much completely replaced by a 5gp mundane item that a lot of people don't bother tracking even then. About the only time it comes up is if you're taken prisoner and are completely gearless.

[Venger]

Blessed by Tem-et Nu gives you some benefits, but not very useful ones. What's more, it can actually kill you if you're weakened when you break its vow.


Are you ineligible for the feat if you're immune to Con damage? I'm AFB so I can't check, but if you aren't, then that's a pretty sweet "free heals" feat.

Not that there aren't better ones.

I think you have to be able to take con damage since otherwise you'd be dividing by zero, essentially, which wouldn't heal your friends at all



Maybe for a prerequisite. Pure caster entry into Wind Walker, say.

[Edit]: Well, if you don't have any proficiencies (don't ask me how), it'd give the largest variety of weapons for a single feat.

Also, duskblades aren't proficient with any simple weapons, so in a campaign where you have to scavenge weapons where you find them…
if you took a level of commoner to get into survivor, you'd only be proficient with 1 simple weapon, so there's that (though you'd still be better off taking MWP, which is another worthless feat since you could just dip a class that gives it)

investigator (or whichever one was mentioned to get into "detective", the 3.0 version of vigilante) is a little lacklustre, but it does let you into detective and get you their absolutely hilarious good cop/ bad cop ability where you and another detective can infinitely stack bonuses onto bluff/intimidate checks against a perp.

I'd say whirlwind attack. looking at how many feats it takes (each of which has not-insignificant prereqs on its own) it's astounding that it's really only useful when you are surrounded by 5 or more enemies (because that happens so often)

[sonofzeal]

It's not topping Skill Focus: Speak Language, but Dancing Blade from Ghostwalk really deserves honorable mention for being a nerfed version of Weapon Focus.
...it can't be that bad...


*reads*

............it's worse. Wow. Tougher pre-reqs, weapon-specific, situational, and only a +1 on attack rolls even in the absolute best case scenario? And no other benefits?

Whoever wrote this feat should be shot!

[sreservoir]

I think you have to be able to take con damage since otherwise you'd be dividing by zero, essentially, which wouldn't heal your friends at all

nope, multiplying by zero, which yields very different results.

[Cespenar]

Run, perhaps?

[Dimers]

Stigmata is pretty terrible. For every 2 points of con you sacrifice as temporary damage, you heal a whopping 1 damage per level for up to 6 people. Not good at any level, the returns are way too low for the sacrifice.

The cost is minor if you have a wand of lesser restoration, which costs 750 gp because it's a first-level spell for paladins. And while Stigmata isn't useful in combat, the fact that it can nearly guarantee disease removal for an entire village worth of people (emphasis mine: "every character you touch can immediately make a saving throw against disease with a sacred bonus equal to the Constitution damage you took") makes it quite handy for curing masses of NPCs. That in turn could greatly influence people's reactions or even alter the course of a war. Even if it's only useful in one specific situation, it's then basically the most useful feat.

Paladins being pretty close to exalted anyway, I once built a healer-paladin based around Stigmata and Sacred Healing.

[vegetalss4]

What do you think the most useless feat in D&D is?

My money is on the "Track" feat from the Player's Handbook. You can use a survival check to discover and get information from clues left on the ground! Great just what you need to blow a feat on "The DM can railroad us better now".

What do you people think?

I really don't get this sentiment.:smallconfused:
I have never seen track used to rail-road somebody and I have seen it uses to prevent villains from getting away to plague the party as a recurring badie.

[Cieyrin]

If we want to include PF, I present the gem, Prone Shooting. Removes the penalties for shooting while prone.

...THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR SHOOTING WHILE PRONE. What's worse is if you want to use the feat with slings, you need ANOTHER feat that ENABLES shooting with a sling while prone. WTF, Mate?

[Madara]

Run, perhaps?

I had a PC take the Run feat for his dwarf once, simply because he liked the mental image. The fact that you can "run" without the RUN feat is plenty of reason not to take it.

I'd say taking Spell Focus: Conjuration as a summoner or a non-caster

[Greenish]

I'd say taking Spell Focus: Conjuration as a summoner or a non-casterI should think great many summoners pick SF: Conjuration. Not because it's useful in itself, granted.

[Madara]

But simply so they can get augment summoning(which they can get without wasting a feat by using other options)

Which doesn't make it useful.

[Dr.Epic]

Toughness

At least Improved Toughness adds an additional hit point each level. Regular Toughness - yeah, 3 HP. That's only going to make a difference at really low level. The only people who'd really need the additional HP are wizards and sorcerers and a toad familiar will grant them the exact same thing.

[Dimers]

I really don't get this sentiment.:smallconfused:
I have never seen track used to rail-road somebody and I have seen it uses to prevent villains from getting away to plague the party as a recurring badie.

Railroading is the DM sending you where she wants you to go. Telling someone "you find tracks that lead north" generally sends that person north. Between flight, burrowing, swimming, teleportation, pass without trace, weather control, terrain alteration and more, many enemies can avoid leaving tracks. So if you find some, chances are the DM wants them to be found. It's not blatant or forceful, but it's still the DM feeding you a location to find.

Which is not a bad thing. It's just not what most people want to spend a feat on. The DM has lots of ways to feed you locations that don't require expenditure of a rare resource.

[Blisstake]

Toughness

At least Improved Toughness adds an additional hit point each level. Regular Toughness - yeah, 3 HP. That's only going to make a difference at really low level. The only people who'd really need the additional HP are wizards and sorcerers and a toad familiar will grant them the exact same thing.

Which means it's useful in at least one stage of your characters' level, unlike many of the other feats listed here.

I've seriously taken Toughness as a feat in a few 1-shots, and it has actually ended up saving my life :smalltongue:

***

Also, for Prone Shooter: It's supposed to enable you to use ranged attacks while prone, since the prone condition prevents you from making ranged attacks normally in PF. It's just wordeded incorrectly.

[Cieyrin]

Also, for Prone Shooter: It's supposed to enable you to use ranged attacks while prone, since the prone condition prevents you from making ranged attacks normally in PF. It's just wordeded incorrectly.

That's a hell of incorrect wording, then, since it's only usable with crossbows and firearms (plus slings with the extra feat), which specifically have wording that enables that. The feat's text removes the penalty imposed on ranged attacks while suffering the prone condition; prone doesn't provide a penalty for doing so. I have no idea what they were trying to do.

[Zeta Kai]

This looks like a job for the terribly worded Truenamer chapter!

Check out Focused Lexicon (ToM 229). RAI, I believe it's intended to increase the save DCs of your utterances against a certain creature type. However, RAW, I believe that it increases the Truespeak DCs of those utterances, thereby making you less likely to succeed without giving you anything in return.

Bam. Actively detrimental feat. Thanks, terrible wording!

Well, this has just about won the thread. It's a feat that nobody needs, actually harms the character, & provides no benefit. Truenamers win (at sucking) again!

[Blisstake]

That's a hell of incorrect wording, then, since it's only usable with crossbows and firearms (plus slings with the extra feat), which specifically have wording that enables that. The feat's text removes the penalty imposed on ranged attacks while suffering the prone condition; prone doesn't provide a penalty for doing so. I have no idea what they were trying to do.

Oh.

That is incredibly unusual. :smallconfused:

[LansXero]

Maybe the AC penalty?

[zegram 33]

i think the feat is to remove the penalties for shooting once you've been KNOCKED prone.
not for when your lying prone as in sniping.
as written on the SRD, you can only use crossbows while prone, and at a -4 penalty. That could be thepenalty they're talking about in the feat?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm

[FMArthur]

i think the feat is to remove the penalties for shooting once you've been KNOCKED prone.
not for when your lying prone as in sniping.
as written on the SRD, you can only use crossbows while prone, and at a -4 penalty. That could be thepenalty they're talking about in the feat?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm

Are you looking at the "Prone" entry (which does not support what you're saying), or is there something else on that page that indicates that you take a -4 penalty when shooting with a crossbow while prone and that there are two types of prone-ness?

[lesser_minion]

nope, multiplying by zero, which yields very different results.

It's pretty much what he meant. If you're immune to constitution damage, then no matter how much damage you declared you were activating the feat with, the amount of damage you 'took' would still be zero, meaning that the feat does nothing but make you bleed cosmetically for an hour.

The mass disease removal also doesn't work, since that effect is covered by the very next paragraph which limits how many people are valid targets for your healing touch.

As the designers has pointed out, toughness was designed for one very specific use case, and it is potentially somewhat helpful in that situation.

[Cieyrin]

i think the feat is to remove the penalties for shooting once you've been KNOCKED prone.
not for when your lying prone as in sniping.
as written on the SRD, you can only use crossbows while prone, and at a -4 penalty. That could be thepenalty they're talking about in the feat?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm

The -4 penalty is on melee attack rolls, which shooting a crossbow or firearm is not.

[Doug Lampert]

The cost is minor if you have a wand of lesser restoration, which costs 750 gp because it's a first-level spell for paladins. And while Stigmata isn't useful in combat, the fact that it can nearly guarantee disease removal for an entire village worth of people (emphasis mine: "every character you touch can immediately make a saving throw against disease with a sacred bonus equal to the Constitution damage you took") makes it quite handy for curing masses of NPCs. That in turn could greatly influence people's reactions or even alter the course of a war. Even if it's only useful in one specific situation, it's then basically the most useful feat.

Paladins being pretty close to exalted anyway, I once built a healer-paladin based around Stigmata and Sacred Healing.

Wands of level 1 paladin spells cost 1,500 GP in core. You can't make a magic item with a caster level lower than is needed to cast the spell, and a Paladin is caster level 2 when he gets first level spells.

Still cheaper than other classes, but not 750 GP.

[ORione]

I recently got the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I'm having trouble understanding the Vow of Abstinence.
It gives you a +4 saving throw against poisons and drugs. If you purposely take drugs (including things like alcohol and caffeine), you lose the benefit of the feat forever. That sounds fine.
The thing I'm having trouble understanding is that you also lose the feat if you accidentally* drink poison or drugs until you get an atonement. So... it gives you a bonus to saving throws against poisons and drugs, but if you ever drink poisons or drugs, you lose the feat?

*It specifically mentions magical compulsion and drugs being slipped into drinks as examples of this.

[noparlpf]

I think the epic feat Plant Wild Shape is pretty darn useless considering the Druid gets that at 12th level anyway.

[Eldest]

So most use-impaired feat(s): Skill focus: speak languages and plant wildshape.
Worse feat: Focused Lexicon.

[dextercorvia]

Wands of level 1 paladin spells cost 1,500 GP in core. You can't make a magic item with a caster level lower than is needed to cast the spell, and a Paladin is caster level 2 when he gets first level spells.

Still cheaper than other classes, but not 750 GP.

I almost corrected him, but if Archvists exist, then the wands should be available for 750 GP.

[SirFredgar]

I almost corrected him, but if Archvists exist, then the wands should be available for 750 GP.

I had an Archivist in my game try and use this argument to get Lesser Resto as a first level spell. I told him that if he could find an NPC paladin that had the scribe scroll feat, and was willing to make it... sure, he could have it. Otherwise, he'd have to pick it up like a Cleric, as his class feature describes his default spell selection method.

Also: He never found a Paladin with Scribe scroll.

[Draz74]

I recently got the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I'm having trouble understanding the Vow of Abstinence.
It gives you a +4 saving throw against poisons and drugs. If you purposely take drugs (including things like alcohol and caffeine), you lose the benefit of the feat forever. That sounds fine.
The thing I'm having trouble understanding is that you also lose the feat if you accidentally* drink poison or drugs until you get an atonement. So... it gives you a bonus to saving throws against poisons and drugs, but if you ever drink poisons or drugs, you lose the feat?

*It specifically mentions magical compulsion and drugs being slipped into drinks as examples of this.

Keyword is "drink." There are plenty of other ways to be introduced to poisons (and possibly even drugs). The feat functions as-intended as a save bonus vs. contact poisons and injury poisons and inhaled poisons.

I still doubt anyone would ever take it, mind you, unless they have Vow of Poverty and they've run out of useful Bonus Exalted Feats. But there you have it ...

[ORione]

Keyword is "drink." There are plenty of other ways to be introduced to poisons (and possibly even drugs). The feat functions as-intended as a save bonus vs. contact poisons and injury poisons and inhaled poisons.

I still doubt anyone would ever take it, mind you, unless they have Vow of Poverty and they've run out of useful Bonus Exalted Feats. But there you have it ...

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[dextercorvia]

I had an Archivist in my game try and use this argument to get Lesser Resto as a first level spell. I told him that if he could find an NPC paladin that had the scribe scroll feat, and was willing to make it... sure, he could have it. Otherwise, he'd have to pick it up like a Cleric, as his class feature describes his default spell selection method.

Also: He never found a Paladin with Scribe scroll.

Archivists have Scribe Scroll, he should have been able to find a Paladin willing to work with him, especially if he was willing to pay all of the costs and make a donation to the order, or poor, etc.

[The Glyphstone]

Skill Focus: Decipher Script (or Use Magic Device, or Spellcraft, or any Trained-only skill) without ranks in the skill itself is pretty useless.

[sreservoir]

Skill Focus: Decipher Script (or Use Magic Device, or Spellcraft, or any Trained-only skill) without ranks in the skill itself is pretty useless.

but you can take ranks and then it wouldn't be useless.

[ORione]

Skill Focus: Decipher Script (or Use Magic Device, or Spellcraft, or any Trained-only skill) without ranks in the skill itself is pretty useless.

Isn't having ranks in a skill a prerequisite for Skill Focus in that skill?

[Flickerdart]

Isn't having ranks in a skill a prerequisite for Skill Focus in that skill?
It isn't. And casting spells isn't a prerequisite for Spell Focus or metamagic.

[dextercorvia]

Isn't having ranks in a skill a prerequisite for Skill Focus in that skill?

You'd think so, wouldn't you...


Skill Focus [General]

Choose a skill.
Benefit

You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.
Special

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

[dextercorvia]

Glitchyglitch

[The Glyphstone]

It isn't. And casting spells isn't a prerequisite for Spell Focus or metamagic.

Yeah, there are a lot of feats that provide a net negative benefit by virtue of doing nothing if taken in the right circumstances but still using a feat slot. I think the as-written Focused Lexicon does take the cake for being actively harmful to the character.

[Venger]

I recently got the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I'm having trouble understanding the Vow of Abstinence.

It gives you a +4 saving throw against poisons and drugs. If you purposely take drugs (including things like alcohol and caffeine), you lose the benefit of the feat forever. That sounds fine.

The thing I'm having trouble understanding is that you also lose the feat if you accidentally (it specifically mentions magical compulsion and drugs being slipped into drinks as examples) drink poison or drugs until you get an atonement. So... it gives you a bonus to saving throws against poisons and drugs, but if you ever drink poisons or drugs, you lose the feat?

that is exactly how the feat works and why it's not used very often

[ericgrau]

It's not topping Skill Focus: Speak Language, but Dancing Blade from Ghostwalk really deserves honorable mention for being a nerfed version of Weapon Focus.
You mean greater weapon focus / super-greater weapon focus since you can get both feats. So it's actually pretty good; stronger than every single core feat for the cost in fact (assuming the core feats aren't used to get a better non-core feat).

I'd say spell focus (abjuration) is pretty useless. The spell save DC is higher whenever you cast... um, oh crud. OTOH there are a dozen ways to take a useless sub-option in a feat. I wonder if there are any that are useless even when used well or (more?) feats so bad they actually make you weaker if you take them.

[The Glyphstone]

You mean greater weapon focus since you can get both feats. So it's actually pretty good; stronger than every core feat for the pre-reqs even (assuming the core feats aren't used to get a better non-core feat).

I'd say spell focus (abjuration) is pretty useless. The spell save DC is higher whenever you cast... um, oh crud.

Abjuration does have some Save-or-X spells. Dismissal, Banishment, Imprisonment, Prismatic X, Sanctuary, plus more out of core. Sure, you may never end up actually casting Banishment, but that one time you do, you'll get +1 DC, so it's not automatically useless.



I wonder if there are any that are useless even when used well or (more?) feats so bad they actually make you weaker if you take them.

Focused Lexicon as-written, apparently.

[deuxhero]

I think the epic feat Plant Wild Shape is pretty darn useless considering the Druid gets that at 12th level anyway.

Wildshape Ranger could use it.

[dextercorvia]

I think Focused Lexicon is getting a bad rap. As it is written, it makes it harder to use Truespeak, which means you are less likely to try.

That's right, it is a feat that discourages the use of Truenaming -- that may be the most useful feat in that third of the book.

[Randomguy]

What about vow of poverty? Doesn't that just make you weaker? Or could you just keep your stuff, which makes it a waste of a feat slot rather than a nerf?

Now that I think about it, if the only penalty to using items is losing the benefit of the feat, then taking it might be situationaly good, such as in a campaign where you're often robbed of all your stuff.

Toughness becomes even less useful when compared with improved toughness, which gives one extra hp per level.

[Ernir]

You mean greater weapon focus / super-greater weapon focus since you can get both feats. So it's actually pretty good; stronger than every single core feat for the cost in fact (assuming the core feats aren't used to get a better non-core feat).

I'd call that a bad assumption, since including Ghostwalk in the discussion automatically means we are not playing a core only game. I am aware of the value of a +1 to hit.

[Leon]

Also: He never found a Paladin with Scribe scroll.


Archivists have Scribe Scroll, he should have been able to find a Paladin willing to work with him, especially if he was willing to pay all of the costs and make a donation to the order, or poor, etc.




Metamagic Feats on a non casting class - nothing stops them from being a legitimate choice other than they are useless for the classes without spells.

[FMArthur]

You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a feat that you can't make 100% useless with deliberately unsynergistic build choices. That doesn't affect how good the feat is at all. :smallconfused:

[deuxhero]

Improved Initiative?

[dgnslyr]

Improved Initiative is actually quite good, though. Most initiative scores are going to be rather low, being based off dex bonus only, so a +4 to initiative is absolutely massive. 3.5 can easily become a game of rocket tag, so being able to shoot first makes a world of difference.

[FMArthur]

It was a reply to me about how hard it is to find feats you can't make useless if you optimize your ineptitude. Improved Initiative was one of those things I thought of that would be really difficult to nullify. Maybe by being a Dire Tortoise or ignoring intitiative by some other way could work, or just having such an obscenely low or high one without the feat that it cannot possibly affect the outcome with its +4.

[Reluctance]

What about vow of poverty? Doesn't that just make you weaker? Or could you just keep your stuff, which makes it a waste of a feat slot rather than a nerf?

Now that I think about it, if the only penalty to using items is losing the benefit of the feat, then taking it might be situationaly good, such as in a campaign where you're often robbed of all your stuff.

Toughness becomes even less useful when compared with improved toughness, which gives one extra hp per level.

Intentionally breaking a Vow feat means you lose the benefit for good. You can use gear if you're willing to lose the feat slot, but you don't get it back if you're later captured and stripped of all your stuff.

[Mikeavelli]

There are a few monsters out there that explicitly always act last (I think this applies to Zombies? I don't have my books on me to go checking) in the initiative order.

Throw Improved Initiative on one of those and you've got it as a useless feat.

[sreservoir]

toughness! sure, it's terrible compared to actual feats, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a build where toughness is worse than no effect.

[Flickerdart]

Throw Improved Initiative on one of those and you've got it as a useless feat.
Zombies can't take feats, even if they had this property.

[Venger]

What about vow of poverty? Doesn't that just make you weaker? Or could you just keep your stuff, which makes it a waste of a feat slot rather than a nerf?

Now that I think about it, if the only penalty to using items is losing the benefit of the feat, then taking it might be situationaly good, such as in a campaign where you're often robbed of all your stuff.

Toughness becomes even less useful when compared with improved toughness, which gives one extra hp per level.

vow of poverty is actually quite obscenely powerful if used by a player who knows what they're up to with it. you get all those crazy deflection bonuses and stuff, especially if you're a class that doesn't need gear (druid)

[Flickerdart]

vow of poverty is actually quite obscenely powerful if used by a player who knows what they're up to with it. you get all those crazy deflection bonuses and stuff, especially if you're a class that doesn't need gear (druid)
That's so wrong that it isn't even close to being right. Vow of Poverty is never good. Having items is always better. It's just that Druids are so overpowered already that losing items doesn't hurt them one bit.

[Venger]

That's so wrong that it isn't even close to being right. Vow of Poverty is never good. Having items is always better. It's just that Druids are so overpowered already that losing items doesn't hurt them one bit.

I don't understand. the boards have quite a lot of VoP munchkins destroying games with their craziness. having items is always great, it's just some classes are more dependent ton them than others (artificers, fighters, etc) than druid or what have you. I don't really like VoP much either, but it's far from the most useless

[Morph Bark]

Most useless feat?

Martial Weapon Proficiency: Arrow.


Stigmata is pretty terrible. For every 2 points of con you sacrifice as temporary damage, you heal a whopping 1 damage per level for up to 6 people. Not good at any level, the returns are way too low for the sacrifice.

One of my fellow players in our current campaign has a Healer follower. Level 3. Stigmata as one of her feats. One of the other ones is Bind Vestige for Naberius. Hell yeah!


Vow of Purity: If you touch dead flesh, you must purify yourself with holy water or lose the bonuses of the feat.
Newsflash! You outermost layer of skin is dead. Dust is flakes of dead skin. You'll break the vow on a daily basis just by walking around, meaning that you'd eat your way through HUGE amounts of holy water each day. Talk about a waste of money AND a feat.

Live inside a water tank filled with holy water. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

I don't understand. the boards have quite a lot of VoP munchkins destroying games with their craziness. having items is always great, it's just some classes are more dependent ton them than others (artificers, fighters, etc) than druid or what have you. I don't really like VoP much either, but it's far from the most useless
Ok, let me put it this way.

WBL is alone powerful enough to make a Commoner into a credible threat to lower tiers (through cross-class UMD and other nonsense, but nevertheless). The Druid is three "characters": a full spellcaster, a bear on steroids and a shapeshifter. When you take away the potential fourth "character" of WBL, he's still got three left. You don't need to add the benefits that Vow of Poverty gives on top of a naked Druid for the Druid to be powerful.

Any accomplishment in which VoP is involved could likewise have been achieved without VoP, by simply feeding all your magic items into a blender and then continuing on without anything.

[PEACH]

I don't understand. the boards have quite a lot of VoP munchkins destroying games with their craziness. having items is always great, it's just some classes are more dependent ton them than others (artificers, fighters, etc) than druid or what have you. I don't really like VoP much either, but it's far from the most useless

There is no build I ever heard of that uses VoP to break the game; it's possible to make, say, a Druid that breaks the game and happens to have VoP, but I can't see a way to make it break the game more than good item optimization.

After all, even Druids can get some great bonuses and just put Wilding Clasps on everything.

[sonofzeal]

You mean greater weapon focus / super-greater weapon focus since you can get both feats. So it's actually pretty good; stronger than every single core feat for the cost in fact (assuming the core feats aren't used to get a better non-core feat).
It's still terrible. Like, unusably terrible. It's strictly inferior to a feat with much broader application and easier requirements that is still considered a terrible feat. It is strictly inferior to "terrible". Just because you can take both to double your pain doesn't improve it in the slightest.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Here I was all ready to say Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basket Weaving), but you guys got it pretty much done.

You're going to regret saying this some day way down the line, when you're thrown off a pirate ship into the deep ocean with a metric ton of wicker and the Aquatic Elf in your party says, "I have a plan."

[pffh]

I don't understand. the boards have quite a lot of VoP munchkins destroying games with their craziness. having items is always great, it's just some classes are more dependent ton them than others (artificers, fighters, etc) than druid or what have you. I don't really like VoP much either, but it's far from the most useless

The thing is if you use money to buy all the bonuses that the vow gives you'll end up with a hefty pile of cash leftover that can be used to either buy better stuff or more utility that you can't get with the vow (flight, miss chance, teleportation etc).

Druid breaks the game despite vow of poverty not because of it.

[sreservoir]

One of my fellow players in our current campaign has a Healer follower. Level 3. Stigmata as one of her feats. One of the other ones is Bind Vestige for Naberius. Hell yeah!

sadly, naberius does not grant Faster ability healing when bound with Bind Vestige. would need actual effective binder levels for that.

[Blisstake]

The thing is if you use money to buy all the bonuses that the vow gives you'll end up with a hefty pile of cash leftover that can be used to either buy better stuff or more utility that you can't get with the vow (flight, miss chance, teleportation etc).

Druid breaks the game despite vow of poverty not because of it.

Yes, but that's assuming you have unlimited access to magical items at any point in the game. While that is how many game sessions operate, that isn't universal. In many of my games, for example, a player can't just point to any item in a sourcebook they want and expect that to be available for purchase in any given settlement.

So it certainly has uses, even if it's not a practical choice for most players.

[The Glyphstone]

Yes, but that's assuming you have unlimited access to magical items at any point in the game. While that is how many game sessions operate, that isn't universal. In many of my games, for example, a player can't just point to any item in a sourcebook they want and expect that to be available for purchase in any given settlement.

So it certainly has uses, even if it's not a practical choice for most players.

It's a given that if a DM does not give a party the WBL expected of their level, either unintentionally or deliberately, then VoW does become better. You don't need a Magic Mart to be better than VoP, you just need what the game is 'balanced' (for 3.X's wonky definition of balance) around having.

[pffh]

Yes, but that's assuming you have unlimited access to magical items at any point in the game. While that is how many game sessions operate, that isn't universal. In many of my games, for example, a player can't just point to any item in a sourcebook they want and expect that to be available for purchase in any given settlement.

So it certainly has uses, even if it's not a practical choice for most players.

Even if we say you have a party of 4 and the DM follows the WBL so the total party wealth is always +/-10% from WBL and the loot is generated by rolling randomly and there is no magic mart you'll still be better off without vow of poverty.

Now if you get significantly less wealth then WBL then sure it becomes useful but then again less wealth is more detrimental the weaker classes then the more powerful ones.

[Dazed&Confused]

That's so wrong that it isn't even close to being right. Vow of Poverty is never good. Having items is always better. It's just that Druids are so overpowered already that losing items doesn't hurt them one bit.

While I agree that the talent is really bad, almost all the benefits are Ex, so it could be better than items on a AMF-focused Initiate of Mystra. Unless there is a way of using your items inside it, of course. But I don't know how to do that.

Edit: actually, on a Monk/Sacred Fist/AMF Initiate of Mystra, it can be quite cool - use your WBL for inherent bonuses then take the feat(a normal Initiate with 1 level in Monk for AC and this talent, using magic weapon on a mace, is better, but this one looks cooler!). The only case I can think of though, and it's probably not an optimal build either, but it's still one case in which it's better than items(again, if there's a way of using items inside AMF, that becomes false).

[Ksheep]

That's so wrong that it isn't even close to being right. Vow of Poverty is never good. Having items is always better. It's just that Druids are so overpowered already that losing items doesn't hurt them one bit.

VoP is one of the easiest ways to make Monks "good"… or at least better. Helps mitigate the fact that they kinda cant use much in the way of armor, and their best weapon isn't lost to VoP, as it's their own body. It also gives some other things which, when combined with Monk, are utterly broken, meaning that it's been banned in just about every game I've played in.

[sreservoir]

While I agree that the talent is really bad, almost all the benefits are Ex, so it could be better than items on a AMF-focused Initiate of Mystra. Unless there is a way of using your items inside it, of course. But I don't know how to do that.

Edit: actually, on a Monk/Sacred Fist/AMF Initiate of Mystra, it can be quite cool - use your WBL for inherent bonuses then take the feat(a normal Initiate with 1 level in Monk for AC and this talent, using magic weapon on a mace, is better, but this one looks cooler!). The only case I can think of though, and it's probably not an optimal build either, but it's still one case in which it's better than items(again, if there's a way of using items inside AMF, that becomes false).

pity that it's [exalted], and therefore (Su).


VoP is one of the easiest ways to make Monks "good"… or at least better. Helps mitigate the fact that they kinda cant use much in the way of armor, and their best weapon isn't lost to VoP, as it's their own body. It also gives some other things which, when combined with Monk, are utterly broken, meaning that it's been banned in just about every game I've played in.

monk is among the most equipment-dependent classes, due to the fact that their class features are ... quite unsynergistic. VoP monk is a "I don't want to be useful."

[RandomLunatic]

(Greater) Weapon Specialization (Net) sits on the same unhappy level as Skill Focus (Speak Language), in that it modifies something you never actually roll.

It does not actually hurt you, but Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting is pretty miserable, since it is another feat on top of an already feat-intensive fighting style, and generally only nets a single point of extra damage on half of your attacks. Two if you go from light weapons to hand-and-a-halfers.

The Magic of Faerun version of Spell Thematics sucks, since it it costs a feat to do something that several other books encourage you to do as part of RP, and has pretty much no mechanical effect at all.

For actively detrimental, try EWP (Siangham, Kama, Nunchaku, or Sai). All are handily outperformed by Simple weapons, let alone Martial. If you were not already proficient in them by being a Monk, then you have much better options available.

[pffh]

While I agree that the talent is really bad, almost all the benefits are Ex, so it could be better than items on a AMF-focused Initiate of Mystra. Unless there is a way of using your items inside it, of course. But I don't know how to do that.

Edit: actually, on a Monk/Sacred Fist/AMF Initiate of Mystra, it can be quite cool - use your WBL for inherent bonuses then take the feat(a normal Initiate with 1 level in Monk for AC and this talent, using magic weapon on a mace, is better, but this one looks cooler!). The only case I can think of though, and it's probably not an optimal build either, but it's still one case in which it's better than items(again, if there's a way of using items inside AMF, that becomes false).

To bad the bonuses aren't retroactive. That is to get the full bonus from it you must spend two feats for it at level 1.

Take the feat at level 1 and get to level 6 = you get the level 6 bonuses.
Take the feat at level 3 and get to level 6 = you get level 4 bonuses.
Take the feat at level 6 and be level 6 = you get level 1 bonuses.



The Magic of Faerun version of Spell Thematics sucks, since it it costs a feat to do something that several other books encourage you to do as part of RP, and has pretty much no mechanical effect at all.

Well it does increase the spellcraft DC to identify the spell so that's something, not good but something.

[Dazed&Confused]

pity that it's [exalted], and therefore (Su).

Oh, I forgot that. Blame the christmas wine.

Still kinda stupid that the bonuses are shown as Ex while the whole feat is Su though.

[navar100]

I dunno, I think Track is more useless than Monkey Grip. It's fine when you get it for free as a Ranger, because as somebody pointed out: Yes, it's a railroading tool, but the DM may decide that since you have a tracker in the party, instead of being railroaded into an ambush or following the wrong trail, you follow the correct path and sneak up behind the ambushers, thus ambushing THEM.

However, I still would never take it outside of getting it for free from Ranger.

Pathfinder got rid of the feat. Now everyone can track using the Survival skill by virtue of the skill itself. Rangers get a class bonus.

I will add Toughness to the list. +3 hit points for a feat is stupid. Also Spell Focus (Abjuration) since very, very few abjuration spells have a saving throw. Unless the campaign is all about dealing with outsiders to banish and dismiss, fine, but really you don't need the feat.



I think the epic feat Plant Wild Shape is pretty darn useless considering the Druid gets that at 12th level anyway.

In 3.0 druids couldn't wildshape into plant creatures, so the feat made sense then. The 3.5 change just made it obsolete.

[ericgrau]

I'd call that a bad assumption, since including Ghostwalk in the discussion automatically means we are not playing a core only game. I am aware of the value of a +1 to hit.
Ah but being better than every single core feat means it is not a bad feat, unless you also say that every single core feat is useless too. It's not the +1 to hit, it's the +2 to hit for 2 feats and no significant pre-reqs that's way better than anything else in core.

[nyarlathotep]

Yes, but that's assuming you have unlimited access to magical items at any point in the game. While that is how many game sessions operate, that isn't universal. In many of my games, for example, a player can't just point to any item in a sourcebook they want and expect that to be available for purchase in any given settlement.

So it certainly has uses, even if it's not a practical choice for most players.

It takes about 20% of WBL to replicate everything that the vow can do, and even if you just took 20% of WBL you'd have more flexibility. So the vow is only good in campaigns with next to no treasure, so little in fact that something like vow of poverty is absolutely needed for martial types to do anything at all past level 8 or so. In fact you probably shouldn't be using 3.5 for whatever type of campaign you are running.


VoP is one of the easiest ways to make Monks "good"… or at least better. Helps mitigate the fact that they kinda cant use much in the way of armor, and their best weapon isn't lost to VoP, as it's their own body. It also gives some other things which, when combined with Monk, are utterly broken, meaning that it's been banned in just about every game I've played in.

This is absolutely wrong. Every bonus that vow gives to monk can be replicated by an item they don't have any restrictions wearing. Then after that you still have more items like say using an amulet of mighty fist, ancestral relic, or kensai to enchant your fists, all of which cost gold.

[Steward]

Would you agree that some of these feats wouldn't be quite as bad if most characters got many more feats than they already do? I mean, the Truenamer feat is unsalvagable without a rewrite, but that pretty much goes for 2/3rds of that book; did WOTC fire all of their copy-editors or were they in a hurry or... or what? Sorry for the mild derail but wow!

Anyway, my pick for 'not the worst feat but pretty useless' is Toughness, especially if you're not a 1st level wizard/sorcerer.

It gives you three hit points. Not three per level, or three bonus HP per hit dice, or anything like that. Just. three. hitpoints. It's not as debilitating as that Truenamer feat but it's just an insulting waste of space.

[Grendus]

I think Focused Lexicon is the clear winner here. Most of the other feats have some use (even track could be useful, perhaps in a sandbox game), Focused Lexicon as written is actively detrimental to the character.

Toughness is a terrible feat. It's not, however, useless. Pathetic? Yes. But the line between conscious and unconscious and the line between alive-but-dying and dead is one hit point. I'm sure somewhere, in some game, its saved someone's life.

[Steward]

Yeah, I just dug up Tome of Magic again and... yeah. You win.


Focused Lexicon:
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose a creature type
(such as aberrations or monstrous humanoids). The DCs of
your utterances are increased by 1 whenever you use them
against creatures of the chosen type.

Maybe they meant save DCs, but if that were the case, why didn't word it like this other feat, also in the same chapter?:


Utterance Focus:
[...] Add 1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws
against a specifi c utterance you know (such as the eldritch
attraction utterance).

To make absolutely sure that we weren't being uncharitable, I looked up this section's errata. They fixed the problem where the Truespeak DCs for an entire section were left blank and a self-negating class feature in one of the Prestige Classes, but they didn't fix this one.

Which means it was intentional.

Which means that this feat is the only feat I've seen that intentionally harms every character that takes it, with no upside. Vow of Poverty, you can debate whether or not the benefits are worth the drawbacks. This -- there are no drawbacks. This is just a straight flaw.

Wow.

[Fax Celestis]

It was a reply to me about how hard it is to find feats you can't make useless if you optimize your ineptitude. Improved Initiative was one of those things I thought of that would be really difficult to nullify. Maybe by being a Dire Tortoise or ignoring intitiative by some other way could work, or just having such an obscenely low or high one without the feat that it cannot possibly affect the outcome with its +4.

Take the Unreactive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#unreactive) flaw to take Improved Initiative at first level.

[Daftendirekt]

Take the Unreactive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#unreactive) flaw to take Improved Initiative at first level.

Hurrah for a net -2 to initiative! :smallbiggrin:

[TheFallenOne]

sometimes it depends on the character. Shape Soulmeld(Rageclaws) is usually pretty good, especially at low levels. However, I once made the mistake of taking the feat for a character with mind-affecting immunity. Since I overlooked that the soulmeld in question is mind-affecting, I managed to take a feat that has no discernable effect in any possible situation whatsoever.

[sonofzeal]

VoP is one of the easiest ways to make Monks "good"… or at least better. Helps mitigate the fact that they kinda cant use much in the way of armor, and their best weapon isn't lost to VoP, as it's their own body. It also gives some other things which, when combined with Monk, are utterly broken, meaning that it's been banned in just about every game I've played in.
No. Just... no.

The only characters who can justify VoP are those that actually have restrictions on item usage. Like Wildshape'd Druids in a game without Wildling Clasps. Totemists and Incarnates also have trouble with conventional items too.

But Monk? No. Well, at lvl 1-4, a VoP Monk has a nice static AC boost over a non-VoP Monk. I guess that's something. But as many others have said, you can do the math yourself - VoP is strictly inferior to WBL for most characters, including Monks.

[HMS Invincible]

Archivists have Scribe Scroll, he should have been able to find a Paladin willing to work with him, especially if he was willing to pay all of the costs and make a donation to the order, or poor, etc.

Sorry to go off topic, but how exactly does one person with Scribe Scroll let you scribe another person's spell list? It states scribing YOUR spells.

[Ksheep]

But Monk? No. Well, at lvl 1-4, a VoP Monk has a nice static AC boost over a non-VoP Monk. I guess that's something. But as many others have said, you can do the math yourself - VoP is strictly inferior to WBL for most characters, including Monks.

OK, let me clarify…

In world where there isn't a Magic-Mart in every town and you have to survive on whatever magic items the DM drops for you (determined randomly, of course), VoP gives you a decent leg up in actually knowing what you'll get, instead of trusting entirely on the whims of the dice.

[Morph Bark]

Would you agree that some of these feats wouldn't be quite as bad if most characters got many more feats than they already do? I mean, the Truenamer feat is unsalvagable without a rewrite, but that pretty much goes for 2/3rds of that book; did WOTC fire all of their copy-editors or were they in a hurry or... or what? Sorry for the mild derail but wow!

Major disagreement. Shadowcaster has a quick-n-easy fix made by its creator that makes it a lot more viable.

[gkathellar]

OK, let me clarify…

In world where there isn't a Magic-Mart in every town and you have to survive on whatever magic items the DM drops for you (determined randomly, of course), VoP gives you a decent leg up in actually knowing what you'll get, instead of trusting entirely on the whims of the dice.

Which is entirely different from what you said earlier, when you said VoP + Monk is "utterly broken."

And honestly, your point doesn't really show that that monks in particular benefit hugely from VoP in said situation or any other. Your point shows that if you toss out the core WBL assumptions of the game, VoP can be pretty good. But monks don't really gain any special benefit from VoP that other classes don't.

[Morph Bark]

OK, let me clarify…

In world where there isn't a Magic-Mart in every town and you have to survive on whatever magic items the DM drops for you (determined randomly, of course), VoP gives you a decent leg up in actually knowing what you'll get, instead of trusting entirely on the whims of the dice.

It still highly depends on what level you're at. Most DMs at least follow the WBL guidelines a little, and since from level 11 or so onwards WBL becomes more quadratic rather than linear (as it is from levels 1-10), VoP becomes much more useless much more quickly.

In E6 it is alright, especially if you can still gain acquired templates. :smallamused:

[Venger]

Sorry to go off topic, but how exactly does one person with Scribe Scroll let you scribe another person's spell list? It states scribing YOUR spells.

cooperative item rules. if character A has scribe scroll and character B has the spell, they can work together to make a scroll of it. right there in the SRD.

[Steward]

Major disagreement. Shadowcaster has a quick-n-easy fix made by its creator that makes it a lot more viable.

Wow, I completely forgot about that entire class. You're right -- my bad!

[Draz74]

But monks don't really gain any special benefit from VoP that other classes don't.

Not quite true -- they benefit a lot more from VoP's AC boosts than classes who can actually wear armor.

[gkathellar]

Not quite true -- they benefit a lot more from VoP's AC boosts than classes who can actually wear armor.

I get that this is the general theory, but monks with WBL can get an armor bonus to AC just as easily as anyone else, by using bracers of armor, or by enchanting a shirt.

[ORione]

While we're listing situationally useless feats, I would like to submit Weapon Finesse for characters with higher STR than DEX. The feat description says that you *may* substitute your DEX for STR in melee attack rolls, so it won't necessarily hurt you, but it would still be a waste of a feat.

[Ernir]

Ah but being better than every single core feat means it is not a bad feat, unless you also say that every single core feat is useless too. It's not the +1 to hit, it's the +2 to hit for 2 feats and no significant pre-reqs that's way better than anything else in core.

Yes, in a splatbook game, most of the core Fighter feats are useless. Those feats that didn't become obsolete are the ones that synergize with powerful splatbook feats/abilities, and a gem or two like Improved Initiative. Possibly Improved Trip, that one holds its own rather well.

[Draz74]

I get that this is the general theory, but monks with WBL can get an armor bonus to AC just as easily as anyone else, by using bracers of armor, or by enchanting a shirt.

Bracers of Armor lag many points of AC behind other armor of approximately the same cost, and they only go up to +8. Whereas full plate can go up to +13 (for lower cost), and even a chain shirt can go up to +9.

Enchanting a shirt has the same problem, plus it is a houserule. (A very simple one, but still.)

Unless Monks have like 45-Point Buy, they tend to have lower ACs than other melee characters. Unless they have Vow of Poverty. So the feat does have that one bit of synergy with them.

[Flickerdart]

Unless Monks have like 45-Point Buy, they tend to have lower ACs than other melee characters. Unless they have Vow of Poverty. So the feat does have that one bit of synergy with them.
It's not synergy if it increases one of the game's most useless values at the cost of being able to accomplish anything.

[ORione]

Could someone create a new thread to discuss Vow of Poverty?

It's beginning to take up more space than the subject at hand.

[Steward]

While we're listing situationally useless feats, I would like to submit Weapon Finesse for characters with higher STR than DEX. The feat description says that you *may* substitute your DEX for STR in melee attack rolls, so it won't necessarily hurt you, but it would still be a waste of a feat.

Are there any feats that aren't useless to someone? I mean, Power Attack kind of sucks if you're a first level wizard, right?

[Renegade Paladin]

What do you think the most useless feat in D&D is?

My money is on the "investigate" feat from Eberron Campaign setting. You can use a search check to discover and get information from clues left at crime scenes! Great just what you need to blow a feat on "The DM can railroad us better now".

What do you people think?
The clear answer is Weapon Specialization (net).

:smalltongue:

[gkathellar]

Bracers of Armor lag many points of AC behind other armor of approximately the same cost, and they only go up to +8. Whereas full plate can go up to +13 (for lower cost), and even a chain shirt can go up to +9.

And VoP goes up to a +10 armor bonus by comparison, not to mention the below-par deflection and natural armor bonuses to AC, and the fact that its incredibly weak set of stat bonuses hurt the MAD monk more than they do a fighter or a barbarian.


Could someone create a new thread to discuss Vow of Poverty?

It's beginning to take up more space than the subject at hand.

But VoP is the most useless feat, that's the point. You sacrifice two feats to get penalized.

[Jopustopin]

Vow of peace. If you accidentally step on a bug you lose the feat forever.

Does your immune system have to be peaceful?

[Morph Bark]

Does your immune system have to be peaceful?

If it counts as a part of you, yes. If it doesn't, but does count as one of your allies, there is always Vow of Nonviolence.

[gkathellar]

Does your immune system have to be peaceful?

I don't see rules text for "immune systems" anywhere. Characters fight diseases with Fortitude saves, not some kind of pseudomythical "cellular biology" or whatever you call it. :smalltongue:

[Morph Bark]

I don't see rules text for "immune systems" anywhere. Characters fight diseases with Fortitude saves, not some kind of pseudomythical "cellular biology" or whatever you call it. :smalltongue:

I think in this particular case it matters not what you fight diseases with, but whether the diseases count as creatures. Still only a microscopic problem though. :smalltongue:

[dextercorvia]

I think in this particular case it matters not what you fight diseases with, but whether the diseases count as creatures. Still only a microscopic problem though. :smalltongue:

Lacking creature-like stats, at worst, they probably count as living objects, like most plants.

[TroubleBrewing]

Is RAW at all concerned with "living objects" where Vows are concerned?

[Grendus]

And VoP goes up to a +10 armor bonus by comparison, not to mention the below-par deflection and natural armor bonuses to AC, and the fact that its incredibly weak set of stat bonuses hurt the MAD monk more than they do a fighter or a barbarian.

Not to mention you can get a higher AC by stacking other bonus types with WBL. AC is kind of a crappy defense anyways, you really want things like ethereal, miss chance, concealment, immunities, etc. VoP doesn't give you those things. WBL-mancy can.




But VoP is the most useless feat, that's the point. You sacrifice two feats to get penalized.

I disagree. VoP is useful in two cases. One, if you're already playing a character who has forsworn material goods, it gives you enough bonuses (especially in a low op game, or if you're playing a higher tier class) to remain competitive. Two, if your DM is stingy with the loot or likes to give loot you can't use (tons of scrolls and wands when you're a melee character, with no magic mart), the net bonuses are much better than being naked. It's usually a trap, but it can be an improvement. Focused Lexicon, on the other hand, is actively detrimental to any character capable of taking it, and is thus (imo) the most useless official feat thus far.

[HMS Invincible]

cooperative item rules. if character A has scribe scroll and character B has the spell, they can work together to make a scroll of it. right there in the SRD.

Can I have a book and page number? My DM doesn't appreciate the internet as a reliable source, and I have an archivist I'm trying to help. Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

[olentu]

Can I have a book and page number? My DM doesn't appreciate the internet as a reliable source, and I have an archivist I'm trying to help. Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

DMG p. 215 as I recall.

[Madara]

Can I have a book and page number? My DM doesn't appreciate the internet as a reliable source, and I have an archivist I'm trying to help. Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

That's terrible nerfing. Without those options, you're a poor spin-off of a cleric, without access to all the spells, who doesn't get domains or turning, nor full armor...ect.

Make a gather information check

[ericgrau]

Re: immune system & vow of peace:

Possibly. I focused on stepping on a bug because the feat itself actually spells out that followers of the vow don't even harm insects.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Ok, let me put it this way.

WBL is alone powerful enough to make a Commoner into a credible threat to lower tiers (through cross-class UMD and other nonsense, but nevertheless). The Druid is three "characters": a full spellcaster, a bear on steroids and a shapeshifter. When you take away the potential fourth "character" of WBL, he's still got three left. You don't need to add the benefits that Vow of Poverty gives on top of a naked Druid for the Druid to be powerful.

Any accomplishment in which VoP is involved could likewise have been achieved without VoP, by simply feeding all your magic items into a blender and then continuing on without anything.

Actually, there's at least one build which made a Commoner competitive in the Test of Spite - (in incredibly simplified terms) an arena for working out the biggest abuses of the game - using WBL alone. It wasn't even twentieth level wealth, but thirteenth. It was, IIRC, called the Box. The Cube used a Wizard to supercharge the same build (again, IIRC). WBL is very much more powerful than most things in the game, let alone a set of two feats for set bonuses that don't include basic necessities like flight or relevant immunities. So yeah, not mentioning more on that front because VoP is clogging the discussion, even if it is relevant.

And that Truenamer feat? That's wonderfully screwy. The only possible way it could help is that it might make you take levels of something other than Truenamer to try to keep up in effectiveness. Nice find.

[Thurbane]

Not as useless as some already mentioned, but one of my perennial favorites as "not worth a feat" is Eagle Claw Attack. Has two requisite feats, and allows you to add WIS bonus to damage against objects. Really?

Also, duskblades aren't proficient with any simple weapons, so in a campaign where you have to scavenge weapons where you find them…
FWIW, that was fixed in errata.

[Jack_Simth]

Can I have a book and page number? My DM doesn't appreciate the internet as a reliable source, and I have an archivist I'm trying to help. Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

DMG p. 215 as I recall.
HMS will also need DMG page 238, the note in the upper-right hand corner that who the creator is determines what type of scroll is created.

So yes, a Wizard who collaborates with an Archivist per the section on the requirements of creating magic items on DMG page 215, and if they assign the Archivist to be the one paying the XP, then the Archivist is the creator, and the scroll is Divine... letting you make a Divine scroll of Fireball, which the Archivist can then put into his prayerbook.

[FearlessGnome]

...Epic Skill Focus: Speak Language? It requires 20 ranks in the skill, though, so you'd have to argue that paying skill points for 20 languages qualified you.

[olentu]

HMS will also need DMG page 238, the note in the upper-right hand corner that who the creator is determines what type of scroll is created.

So yes, a Wizard who collaborates with an Archivist per the section on the requirements of creating magic items on DMG page 215, and if they assign the Archivist to be the one paying the XP, then the Archivist is the creator, and the scroll is Divine... letting you make a Divine scroll of Fireball, which the Archivist can then put into his prayerbook.

As I recall the spellcaster in question was a paladin meaning that 238 is probably unnecessary.

[ScionoftheVoid]

...Epic Skill Focus: Speak Language? It requires 20 ranks in the skill, though, so you'd have to argue that paying skill points for 20 languages qualified you.

That goes outside of RAW, though, which misses the point of the thread. You cannot take ranks in Speak Language, but there's nothing that says you can't take Skill Focus for it (despite the fact that you never make Speak Language checks). Similarly, you can take Spell Focus and some Metamagic feats with no spellcasting ability whatsoever. Start changing things and Focused Lexicon might actually be vaguely useful, sometimes, if you can spare the feat for such a small bonus (actually, it'd be pretty high up this list even if it did help).

Relevant quote for Speak Language ranks:
You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.Bolding mine.

[HMS Invincible]

As I recall the spellcaster in question was a paladin meaning that 238 is probably unnecessary.

Oooooh, divine scrolls of arcane goodies. mmmmmmh. I will have to think about that. The best ones I can think of right now are like the orbs of fire, and probably Gemjump. Paranoid DM doesn't want us getting greater teleport earlier than level 13, so when he saw gemjump, (cast greater teleport to location of a Gem as a focus), he limited me to having only 1 gem. =\ It'll be nice to have 2 whole gems/locations to greater teleport to.

[hex0]

Hammer and Piton? Or any other feat in the overly-specific-and-situational-action-that-shouldn't-require-a-feat category. Feign Weakness and others follow.

There is also the wall-of-text-wtf feat category, like Martial Throw.

Clever Wrestling is horrible since it is obvious that you can just max out Escape Artist...and use it in other situations as well. Not just escaping grapples of larger creatures.

[Leon]

Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

I feel your pain on that - My current Cleric used to be a Archivist but the DM kept failing to grasp what the ability of the class was and all bar 2 scrolls we found as loot were arcane and the PC was only once allowed to learn one druid spell (after jumping through a lot of hoops)

[Morph Bark]

Weapon Supremacy: Whip.

Honorable mention, at the very least.

[Venger]

Can I have a book and page number? My DM doesn't appreciate the internet as a reliable source, and I have an archivist I'm trying to help. Our DM apparently has something against divine casters scribing scrolls, he's having a hard time finding things like:
A divine Bard's spells in scroll form,
Another archivist's spellbook
Druid spells in scroll form.

oh dear, those DMs are the worst. my sympathies. as olentu said, it is indeed the DMG p215 (and it's also on the SRD for quicker and easier reference)

what can happen is, for example, your archivist can take scribe scroll and then you find someone with the spell you want, you provide the spell and they provide the spell and then you have a scroll you can put into your prayerbook. this is the only way your class works, so there's no real reason for him to object.

[Rubik]

Body Fuel. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#bodyFuel) It's a feat that allows you to take 1 point of non-healable stat damage to Str, Dex, and Con, and gives you 2 pp? And it lasts for 24 hours and can otherwise not be healed in any way, shape, or form? The hell is that?

The ONLY way I know of that lets you make this work in your favor is through a feat in Hyperconscious that gives you stat reduction 3/-, and since the wording of the feat doesn't make gaining the pp contingent on taking the damage successfully, you CAN make it work for you.

But otherwise it sucks.

[Venger]

Body Fuel. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#bodyFuel) It's a feat that allows you to take 1 point of non-healable stat damage to Str, Dex, and Con, and gives you 2 pp? And it lasts for 24 hours and can otherwise not be healed in any way, shape, or form? The hell is that?

The ONLY way I know of that lets you make this work in your favor is through a feat in Hyperconscious that gives you stat reduction 3/-, and since the wording of the feat doesn't make gaining the pp contingent on taking the damage successfully, you CAN make it work for you.

But otherwise it sucks.

the real slap in the face is that they nullify the only practical application of this whole "burning through your health for power" archetype which is to be a body surfer, flipping from host to host with "mind switch" and the like with that darn line "this only works when you are in your own body"

if you are playing a telepath and you are in your own body for any significant period, you are doing something very wrong.

[Korivan]

Improved Initiative is actually quite good, though. Most initiative scores are going to be rather low, being based off dex bonus only, so a +4 to initiative is absolutely massive. 3.5 can easily become a game of rocket tag, so being able to shoot first makes a world of difference.

unless you go with a high INT with good DEX wiz/factotum with belt of battle (don't think it says what type of bonus it is) AND this feat. i got a +30 initiative score once, i didn't care what i rolled, i always went first.

[HMS Invincible]

oh dear, those DMs are the worst. my sympathies. as olentu said, it is indeed the DMG p215 (and it's also on the SRD for quicker and easier reference)

what can happen is, for example, your archivist can take scribe scroll and then you find someone with the spell you want, you provide the spell and they provide the spell and then you have a scroll you can put into your prayerbook. this is the only way your class works, so there's no real reason for him to object.
Well, it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the riders that the player asked for. Finding an alter self scroll is easy, finding one made by a divine casting bard is a bit harder. Or him asking for a variant of the scroll made by one of the divine casters who get it one level earlier than the other. Even if we did find the scrolls, downtime is really hard to find. If we aren't on an important time consuming quest, someone in our party needs something done, and of course "just scribing scrolls down" hardly registers on the party's priority scale. You get this peer pressure of, either you contribute or you are letting the party down.

[Venger]

Well, it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the riders that the player asked for. Finding an alter self scroll is easy, finding one made by a divine casting bard is a bit harder. Or him asking for a variant of the scroll made by one of the divine casters who get it one level earlier than the other. Even if we did find the scrolls, downtime is really hard to find. If we aren't on an important time consuming quest, someone in our party needs something done, and of course "just scribing scrolls down" hardly registers on the party's priority scale. You get this peer pressure of, either you contribute or you are letting the party down.

yeah, I'm in the exact same boat as a chameleon. best of luck

[Greenish]

Totemists and Incarnates also have trouble with conventional items too."Trouble" is a stronger word than I'd use. At level 20, a totemist or incarnate has only five chakra binds, out of twelve body slots (and countless slotless items such as wands an incarnate would probably like). For totemist, two of said binds will probably go for Totem Chakra, which doesn't even take up a body slot.


FWIW, that was fixed in errata.Aww, I always thought it was funny.

[Thurbane]

Aww, I always thought it was funny.
The only reason I know that is a player brought it to my attention when he took a Duskblade in the EtCR game I ran a while back. I think my mind has always subconsciously filled in the missing "and simple" when I read the entry... :smalltongue:

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Righteous Wrath, from book of exalted deeds.
It does nothing and gives absolutely no benefits to anyone.
You don't need a specific build to make it useless because it already cannot be used in any way.

edit: ops, I forgot about the intimidating effect.

[Greenish]

Righteous Wrath, from book of exalted deeds.
It does nothing and gives absolutely no benefits to anyone.Shaken as long as you'll fight it? Combo Intimidating Rage and Imperious Command, have fun.

The fluffier part should work with a frenzied berserker, as long as you activate both Rage and Frenzy.

[FMArthur]

Isn't that the one that leaves you clear-headed and theoretically able to use your mental stats while Raging? I know for sure I've seen it suggested at least a couple times here for specific builds.

[Morph Bark]

Isn't that the one that leaves you clear-headed and theoretically able to use your mental stats while Raging? I know for sure I've seen it suggested at least a couple times here for specific builds.

Yes, it is.

Though I'm not sure how far it takes the clear-headedness since it's required for Champion of Gwynharwyf, which gets a kind of clear-headed rage ability at level 4, IIRC.

[sonofzeal]

Yes, it is.

Though I'm not sure how far it takes the clear-headedness since it's required for Champion of Gwynharwyf, which gets a kind of clear-headed rage ability at level 4, IIRC.
IIRC the CoG ability specifically allows spellcasting inside rage, which Righteous Wrath makes no mention of. Really, the prime use of RW is either the intimidate (which is actually kind of awesome), or comboing with Frenzied Berserker under a favourable DM.

[Venger]

I would nominate SF(abjuration) if it hasn't been mentioned already and even if it has. all of the spells with a neglible number of exceptions are either buffs or noncombat spells, so saves for your enemies are a nonissue. I believe it's required for abjurant champion and i know it and its cousin GSF are required for the flambouyantly overpowered initiate of the sevenfold veil, which I can't exactly complain about.

[sonofzeal]

I would nominate SF(abjuration) if it hasn't been mentioned already and even if it has. all of the spells with a neglible number of exceptions are either buffs or noncombat spells, so saves for your enemies are a nonissue. I believe it's required for abjurant champion and i know it and its cousin GSF are required for the flambouyantly overpowered initiate of the sevenfold veil, which I can't exactly complain about.
Abolish Shadows
Battle Line
Break Enchantment
Burial Blessing (M) (XP)
Censure Elementals
Cloak of Chaos (F)
Dismissal
Disobedience
Dispel Chaos
Dispel Cold
Dispel Evil
Dispel Fire
Dispel Good
Dispel Law
Dispel Water
Dissonant Chant
Divine Interdiction
Explosive Runes
Eye of the Hurricane
Fang Trap
Fire Trap (M)
Forbiddance (M)
Forceward
Glyph of Warding (M)
Greater Glyph of Warding (M)
Guards and Wards
Hide from Undead
Holy Aura (F)
Icicle
Imprisonment
Magic Miasma
Prismatic Sphere
Prismatic Wall
Psychic Turmoil
Greater Psychic Turmoil
Reaving Dispel
Reciprocal Gyre
Refusal
Repel Vermin
Scry Trap
Shield of Law (F)
Sign of Sealing (M)
Greater Sign of Sealing (M)
Spelltrap (F)
Storm Shield
Unholy Aura (F)
Vanishing Weapon
Vengeance Halo
Minor Ward
That's a fairly large definition for "negligible".

[Venger]

Abolish Shadows
Battle Line
Break Enchantment
Burial Blessing (M) (XP)
Censure Elementals
Cloak of Chaos (F)
Dismissal
Disobedience
Dispel Chaos
Dispel Cold
Dispel Evil
Dispel Fire
Dispel Good
Dispel Law
Dispel Water
Dissonant Chant
Divine Interdiction
Explosive Runes
Eye of the Hurricane
Fang Trap
Fire Trap (M)
Forbiddance (M)
Forceward
Glyph of Warding (M)
Greater Glyph of Warding (M)
Guards and Wards
Hide from Undead
Holy Aura (F)
Icicle
Imprisonment
Magic Miasma
Prismatic Sphere
Prismatic Wall
Psychic Turmoil
Greater Psychic Turmoil
Reaving Dispel
Reciprocal Gyre
Refusal
Repel Vermin
Scry Trap
Shield of Law (F)
Sign of Sealing (M)
Greater Sign of Sealing (M)
Spelltrap (F)
Storm Shield
Unholy Aura (F)
Vanishing Weapon
Vengeance Halo
Minor Ward
That's a fairly large definition for "negligible".

wow, that many? the only ones I could think of were the dispels, banishment and dismissal. I guess you're right. I can't say I'm familiar with about 20% of that list

[Tenebris]

Reinforced Wings & Heavyweight Wings.

Wow, two feats to allow you to fly with a heavy load. Because the armor part is obviously bull****, there's no flight speed out there that wouldn't allow you to fly in a heavy armor. Moreover, MM explicitly states, that whether you can fly or not is resolved purely on your load, mentioning that armor not necessarily means load.

[Kaeso]

It's not topping Skill Focus: Speak Language, but Dancing Blade from Ghostwalk really deserves honorable mention for being a nerfed version of Weapon Focus.

That's a feat I've never heard of, let me look it up.
*does so*
*cries*

It's weapon focus.... which only works for rapiers... and has prequisites. PREQUISITES.

[Socratov]

sadly, naberius does not grant Faster ability healing when bound with Bind Vestige. would need actual effective binder levels for that.

QFT

but that doesn't mean its useless, I once saw an incarnum trick where someone would heal indefinately suing various chakrabinds and stigmata...

That said I second the focused lexicon as beïng absolutely crappiest... there is actuallly no reason whatsoever to take that feat...

Zaq, I tip my hat to you... well played...

[sonofzeal]

That's a feat I've never heard of, let me look it up.
*does so*
*cries*

It's weapon focus.... which only works for rapiers... and has prequisites. PREQUISITES.
And is worse! Worse than weapon focus! That only works on one weapon! And has prereq's!

For additional sanity damage, read the third page of this thread where someone says, and I quote:

...stronger than every single core feat for the cost in fact...
(names removed to protect the innocent)

[Socratov]

And is worse! Worse than weapon focus! That only works on one weapon! And has prereq's!

For additional sanity damage, read the third page of this thread where someone says, and I quote:

(names removed to protect the innocent)

I think the person in question has forgotten the "
{COLOR="RoyalBlue"}{/COLOR}" tags... else, indeed i just took sanity damage...

[sonofzeal]

I think the person in question has forgotten the "
{COLOR="RoyalBlue"}{/COLOR}" tags... else, indeed i just took sanity damage...
Here's the full quote...


You mean greater weapon focus / super-greater weapon focus since you can get both feats. So it's actually pretty good; stronger than every single core feat for the cost in fact (assuming the core feats aren't used to get a better non-core feat).
You tell me if you think that's sarcasm.

[Socratov]

i have seen the quote, i think this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole) might apply, though, yes it is a stretch :smallconfused:

[Telonius]

Mage Slayer would actively harm you, if you're a spellcaster. Get +1 Will save, but the CL of all your spells drops by 4. Oh, but that's okay, since the next time you threaten an enemy spellcaster, they can't cast defensively. Because, you know, spellcasters are always mixing it up in melee with other spellcasters. :smallsigh:

[Cieyrin]

Abolish Shadows
Battle Line
Break Enchantment
Burial Blessing (M) (XP)
Censure Elementals
Cloak of Chaos (F)
Dismissal
Disobedience
Dispel Chaos
Dispel Cold
Dispel Evil
Dispel Fire
Dispel Good
Dispel Law
Dispel Water
Dissonant Chant
Divine Interdiction
Explosive Runes
Eye of the Hurricane
Fang Trap
Fire Trap (M)
Forbiddance (M)
Forceward
Glyph of Warding (M)
Greater Glyph of Warding (M)
Guards and Wards
Hide from Undead
Holy Aura (F)
Icicle
Imprisonment
Magic Miasma
Prismatic Sphere
Prismatic Wall
Psychic Turmoil
Greater Psychic Turmoil
Reaving Dispel
Reciprocal Gyre
Refusal
Repel Vermin
Scry Trap
Shield of Law (F)
Sign of Sealing (M)
Greater Sign of Sealing (M)
Spelltrap (F)
Storm Shield
Unholy Aura (F)
Vanishing Weapon
Vengeance Halo
Minor Ward
That's a fairly large definition for "negligible".

You forgot Maw of Chaos. :smallwink:

EDIT:
Mage Slayer would actively harm you, if you're a spellcaster. Get +1 Will save, but the CL of all your spells drops by 4. Oh, but that's okay, since the next time you threaten an enemy spellcaster, they can't cast defensively. Because, you know, spellcasters are always mixing it up in melee with other spellcasters. :smallsigh:

That just means it's useless to certain builds, not everybody. If you don't have a CL, than you aren't losing anything. It has that clause to keep gishes from using it against other casters without heavy repercussions.

[deuxhero]

Though who it really bones are Paladins/rangers.

[Ernir]

You tell me if you think that's sarcasm.

He isn't being sarcastic, as far as I can tell. His statements are in accordance with his mathematical results, and his mathematical results are in accordance with his assumed combat conditions.

The flaw, as I see it, is that the conditions he assumes do not reflect the modern gaming environment well enough.

[Venger]

Mage Slayer would actively harm you, if you're a spellcaster. Get +1 Will save, but the CL of all your spells drops by 4. Oh, but that's okay, since the next time you threaten an enemy spellcaster, they can't cast defensively. Because, you know, spellcasters are always mixing it up in melee with other spellcasters. :smallsigh:

it's intended for melee fighters (although the ranks in spellcraft are a bit of a pain) who want to lock down casters.

it goes really well on the legendarily terrible Knight from PHB2. combined with its bulwark of defense ability, enemy casters provoke AoOs from you when you're next to them and then treats your threatened squares as difficult terrain so he has to move away from you and provoke an AoO since he can't 5foot step.

mage slayer would allow you to actually make money/xp from crafting stuff at low levels when you have a negative caster level if you took it as a caster.

[Daftendirekt]

it goes really well on the legendarily terrible Knight from PHB2.

legendarily terrible? I thought Knight was thought as being pretty decent for melee due to being the only class that can actually actively tank and do aggro.

[Greenish]

There's some disagreement on whether Knight falls into high T5 or low T4, but that's hardly legendarily terrible.

I'd probably go for Crusader with the Mage Slayer, though, but that's because I'm an incurable ToB fanboy. :smalltongue:

[Venger]

legendarily terrible? I thought Knight was thought as being pretty decent for melee due to being the only class that can actually actively tank and do aggro.


There's some disagreement on whether Knight falls into high T5 or low T4, but that's hardly legendarily terrible.

I'd probably go for Crusader with the Mage Slayer, though, but that's because I'm an incurable ToB fanboy. :smalltongue:

I thought that high T5 was pushing the bounds of usability in a real game, approaching samurai territory for overall difficulty of use.

I only mentioned knight because mage slayer provides a nice bit of synergy with bulwark of defense, it's a pretty nice one-two punch.

[Greenish]

I thought that high T5 was pushing the bounds of usability in a real game, approaching samurai territory for overall difficulty of use.That depends on the game, obviously. Tier 5 means "mediocre on it's own focus or not good enough on several", but in a T4-T5 game they'd obviously work, as they'd do in low-ish OP game with some work.

T5 isn't "unplayable" or "unsalvageable". No tier truly is, even if some aren't appropriate to some games.

[FMArthur]

I would never put them above Tier 5 even if they provide a role that is otherwise only filled by T3s (Crusader and Ardent), because the service they provide has such narrowly focused actual usage (being a support that requires its own support because it can't mitigate/recover from the consequences of using its own class features is ridiculous) and they can do nothing else. Being mediocre at your one job and being unable to do any other is pretty much what being Tier 5 is all about. Knight is the poster child for the tier and the perfect example of what is wrong with its members' design.

[Venger]

That depends on the game, obviously. Tier 5 means "mediocre on it's own focus or not good enough on several", but in a T4-T5 game they'd obviously work, as they'd do in low-ish OP game with some work.

T5 isn't "unplayable" or "unsalvageable". No tier truly is, even if some aren't appropriate to some games.

okay, I suppose that's what I meant then, that makes sense. they are usable in games that are specifically geared towards them and have some difficulty elsewhere. t3s-t4s are the median, so they're the ones I play most frequently and see most often discussed in actual use. I've always wanted to play a knight but have had that problem, not being able to find a game where others wer t5s/t6s, so my guy wouldn't be too much of a liability

[Greenish]

okay, I suppose that's what I meant then, that makes sense. they are usable in games that are specifically geared towards them and have some difficulty elsewhere. t3s-t4s are the median, so they're the ones I play most frequently and see most often discussed in actual use. I've always wanted to play a knight but have had that problem, not being able to find a game where others wer t5s/t6s, so my guy wouldn't be too much of a liabilityTiers assume equal optimization. You want to play a low tier guy in high tier party? Crank it up.

[Venger]

Tiers assume equal optimization. You want to play a low tier guy in high tier party? Crank it up.

yeah, I understand that bit. heh, I do tend to have better luck with optimisation than the other people in my D&D circle (more free time, system mastery, library, etc) I should give it a try sometime

i like your avatar, btw. what is it?

[SpaceBadger]

Railroading is the DM sending you where she wants you to go. Telling someone "you find tracks that lead north" generally sends that person north. Between flight, burrowing, swimming, teleportation, pass without trace, weather control, terrain alteration and more, many enemies can avoid leaving tracks. So if you find some, chances are the DM wants them to be found. It's not blatant or forceful, but it's still the DM feeding you a location to find.

Which is not a bad thing. It's just not what most people want to spend a feat on. The DM has lots of ways to feed you locations that don't require expenditure of a rare resource.

Well, sure, you could have a DM who runs the world so that every time you find a village that has been destroyed by monsters, it turns out that the monsters accidentally dropped a map showing the way to their lair or next planned attack, so you don't have to bother with actually following their tracks. Woohoo, verisimilitude! :smallsigh:

[Greenish]

i like your avatar, btw. what is it?"Sterling" Staph Daergel, "the Feller of bug-ogres, peerless blade bravo, swordsman extraordinaire and master pugilist", at least according to him. A whisper gnome swordsage (mostly), who sadly never got to actually TWF with kusari-gamas (which the DM had agreed were shadow hand weapons).

[avr]

Wasn't there a Sage Advice column which essentially agreed that RAW, there was no way to use Ride-by Attack? Even with that it's a prereq for nicer feats I guess, but a feat which you cannot possibly use seems to qualify as one of the runners-up. Focused Lexicon wins of course.

[pwykersotz]

Well, sure, you could have a DM who runs the world so that every time you find a village that has been destroyed by monsters, it turns out that the monsters accidentally dropped a map showing the way to their lair or next planned attack, so you don't have to bother with actually following their tracks. Woohoo, verisimilitude! :smallsigh:

That's a little harsh, there are a lot of other methods, but I agree with the sentiment. Track opens up an avenue which was previously closed. As with many of these options, it's about the player CHOOSING to use them, not the DM forcing it, if the game is solid. I've never been forced to make a tracking check by my DM, but sometimes it has been easier to track foes across harsh terrain than to spend time/resources scrying.

This is all situationally dependent on the way you game, of course.

[Cieyrin]

Wasn't there a Sage Advice column which essentially agreed that RAW, there was no way to use Ride-by Attack? Even with that it's a prereq for nicer feats I guess, but a feat which you cannot possibly use seems to qualify as one of the runners-up. Focused Lexicon wins of course.

The RAW way to use it does exist, though you may need some setup or having something like Nimble Charge so you can break off. On the other hand, no game is truly RAW, so it's more poor interaction with Charge than anything else.

[dgnslyr]

You're not limited to just hitting the guy right in front of you when charging, right? So if you charged past somebody, with your target to your right, you could hit him and keep on going. Charging seems like it would work better in a gridless game, though, because then you won't have to worry so much about drawing straight lines. 3.5 combat in general seems like it's better played gridless, though I'm by no stretch of the imagination experienced at either kind of game.

[Greenish]

You're not limited to just hitting the guy right in front of you when charging, right?You must charge directly towards your opponent, and "if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge".

If you're aiming to move past someone, you're not moving directly towards them.

[Safety Sword]

You must charge directly towards your opponent, and "if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge".

Does a creature in the square include your mount when it arrives in the square as you charge? :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Does a creature in the square include your mount when it arrives in the square as you charge? :smallamused:

IIRC, eiher you count as your mount for purposes of space and movement or you've just pointed out another way that it is insane and bad and so is generally house-ruled back to a semblance of sanity without realizing it.

[Heatwizard]

IIRC, eiher you count as your mount for purposes of space and movement or you've just pointed out another way that it is insane and bad and so is generally house-ruled back to a semblance of sanity without realizing it.

You're not in any of the squares between the starting square and the target when you're checking to see if a charge is valid. You share the squares your mount occupies and it's your mount doing the moving anyway, so it can't get in the way. Pro tips.

[Crasical]

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm dumb.