Feats that could be good.

[Gharkash]

There are feats that would be excellent as roleplay ideas and would probably flesh out a character, give him flavor and hooks to roleplay.

These feats though seem in most cases non-efficient. As an example, i really like quickdraw on virtually any quick to act, melee character; it seems like a wonderful feat, it makes sense and can be the Nukitsuke of a Samurai/Ronin, the deft, fast hands of a duelist or the intuition of a battle-hardened warrior.

But as a feat, it is weak, it can be replaced by a cheap magic item or can be rendered useless by drawing as part of a move action for some one with more than 1 BaB.

I think that there are probably moar such feats. What feats do you believe fall in that category and how would you "fix" them to actually be usefull?

Side note: i know that there is an opinion that 90% of the feats out there are not worth even considering taking them, i talk about feats that have a good aspect/idea but were desinged poorly from the game developers.

[Morph Bark]

Personally I feel like only a third of feats is not worth even considering to take them and another third to be workable for certain builds, but generally bad choices, with the final third being the good feats. 90% is an overestimation IMO, which happens a lot because doing so is easy. I guess this means this thread is not for me though.

[Gharkash]

I used that so i would not get answers of the like "90% is crap don't bother". If there are feats you consider good ideas with bad mechanics, you can surely post.

[Elric VIII]

Trophy Collector from PHBII. It would be really great if it worked similar to Ancestral Relic by allowing you to enchant the items (with a cap based on the CR of the trophy creature). As it is, it uses up a bunch of body slots for a small bonus to a save.

[Vladislav]

I used that so i would not get answers of the like "90% is crap don't bother". If there are feats you consider good ideas with bad mechanics, you can surely post.

Dodge is the #1 culprit here. Great idea on paper - you are skilled at dodging attacks! Unfortunately, all your get is a situational +1 AC. Bleh. Should have been at the very least +1 AC (constant, not situational!) and +1 Reflex.

[erikun]

Almost all feats are a good basic concept; it's just that a lot of them have poor execution. Compare 3e Toughness (one of the worst feats) with 4e Toughness. Or, heck, one of the 3e Toughness variants.

Or compare Improved Trip, which not only allow tripping without a retaliation-AoO but also a followup attack, with every other combat maneuver feat, which doesn't. I'd assume that something like Improved Disarm would be a lot more attractive if you got a free attack afterwards if successful, or Improved Sunder if you could automatically cleave through a destroyed object.

[deuxhero]

They still run into the problem that things that stand without legs or fly without wings are less common (And even then still enough to be annoying) than things without weapons or equipment (which is really limited to humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and a few outsiders, undead and fey)

[eggs]

Seriously, if you're just looking for weak feats with cool concepts, the answer is "most of them." It's not flippant, it's just easier than paging through 3.5's entirety and listing all but 2-3 feats per book. Even things like Stealthy or Acrobatic could be a lot of fun if they took the concepts further than a couple +2 bonuses - for instance, if Stealthy could beat blindsense or blindsight and made searchers roll twice and take the worse result, it would be powerful enough to take and still random enough to be tense, or if acrobatic worked in something like nonlinear running/charging and counted every start as running, it would be seriously interesting choice.

But the ones I most wish were made better/more usable are the tactical feats (there are a few good ones, but most are very weak), the weapon style feats (again, there are gems, but they're exceptions) and the weapon focus->Slashing Flurry/Crushing Strike/Driving Attack line. This is a part of wishing that there were more differentiation between specialists in different styles and weapons, but the feats that distinguish them are generally just too bad to be worth investing in.

Also, I'm always jazzed when I can make Combat Focus feats work without sacrificing too much power (usually with really niche Ranger and Psychic Warrior builds), but it's hard to deny that they're really crappy, despite a cool concept.

[erikun]

They still run into the problem that things that stand without legs or fly without wings are less common (And even then still enough to be annoying) than things without weapons or equipment (which is really limited to humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and a few outsiders, undead and fey)
True, but Improved Disarm would be a lot more useful if it was a single feat that allowed you to snatch away a weapon and attack anyways, as opposed to a pair of feats with INT 13+ requirements that require you to stop attacking an opponent to get a single item.

The same thing with Improved Sunder. Attacking weapons, saddles, and spell component belts would be a lot more practical if you could damage the wielder after successfully doing so.

[Slipperychicken]

I think the paradigm of "You want to do something cool? Take a Feat for it" requires characters focus their resources (including feats) on a particular fighting style, determined almost at character creation, without much ability to try other styles and be effective. This will often result in a boring autoattack maneuver, without much variation.


Many concepts represented by feats (like climbing on top of big creatures to fight them better, hitting creatures so hard they fly backward) would be better implemented as combat options open to anyone, perhaps needing to take an appropriate attack roll or skill/ability check (maybe at -4 if you still want people to take the appropriate feat to do it normally or at a bonus). One of the many things Legend did right was giving Power Attack (a feat tax in 3.5) to everyone, in the form of a combat maneuver.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

House rule fixes

A) feat points:
You get 1 feat point per level (3 at first level)
Useful feats cost 3 points. Example: Power Attack, Improved Initiative
Bad feats cost 2 point
Horribly underpowered feats cost 1 point
Very powerful feats cost 4 points
Overpowered feats cost 5 points
Fighter gives you 2 "fighter feat points" per level (and this is also a fighter fix)

B) merge feats:
Quick Draw and Dodge are now a single feat called battle quickness (or whatever you see fit)

[MrLemon]

The whole weapon focus line comes to my mind.
If it just scaled with level that would be neat. 1/4 or something. Same for Weapon Specialization: 1/2 level to damage on 1H weapons, 3/4 for 2H weapons.
Also same for Dodge (also remove 1 enemy restriction)

As does the Two-Weapon Fighting line.

Have TWF grant everything from TWF, ITWF and GTWF (is there a 4th one?) as soon as the BAB is high enough.
Improved TWF could be used to negate the penalty to attack completely (for light weapons, -4/0 else), and grant full strength bonus on the offhand damage.

[Slipperychicken]

If it just scaled with level that would be neat.

This is very important; having feats either scale with level (especially if they're numeric bonuses!) or whose effects stay useful.


Another thing is items (and spells) which grant the same effect a feat does, or better. Why would I want to climb or run a bit faster when I could Fly, or pull out my Rod of Ropes? If you only have 7-10 feats over 20 levels, they better be damn hard to replicate or overshadow.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm firmly in the Sturgeon's Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Revelation) camp. Very few feats give better benefits with more levels. (Counterexamples: Power Attack, Craven, Savvy Rogue.)

I believe one way that would let us make more feats good, but not just crank up the power level uniformly, would be more class exclusivity. We've already got Fighter-only feats; those are generally quite weak, and we could use more and better. How about Hide in Plain Sight as a feat, with Rogue level 6 as a prerequisite? Or have Darkstalker work as specified, but also have a chance to protect against Mindsight and Lifesense with 5 levels of Scout or Rogue? Spring Attack could allow a full attack with 6 levels of Monk or Samurai, essentially granting them a bonus move action. Basically add extra capabilities if you've got enough levels in Tier 4 or weaker classes.

[Morph Bark]

I'm firmly in the Sturgeon's Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Revelation) camp. Very few feats give better benefits with more levels. (Counterexamples: Power Attack, Craven, Savvy Rogue.)

I believe one way that would let us make more feats good, but not just crank up the power level uniformly, would be more class exclusivity. We've already got Fighter-only feats; those are generally quite weak, and we could use more and better. How about Hide in Plain Sight as a feat, with Rogue level 6 as a prerequisite? Or have Darkstalker work as specified, but also have a chance to protect against Mindsight and Lifesense with 5 levels of Scout or Rogue? Spring Attack could allow a full attack with 6 levels of Monk or Samurai, essentially granting them a bonus move action. Basically add extra capabilities if you've got enough levels in Tier 4 or weaker classes.

I am in complete and utter support of this motion.

Scaling feats (and racial abilities too for that matter) are the best ones to have.

[Eldebryn]

House rule fixes

A) feat points:
You get 1 feat point per level (3 at first level)
Useful feats cost 3 points. Example: Power Attack, Improved Initiative
Bad feats cost 2 point
Horribly underpowered feats cost 1 point
Very powerful feats cost 4 points
Overpowered feats cost 5 points
Fighter gives you 2 "fighter feat points" per level (and this is also a fighter fix)

B) merge feats:
Quick Draw and Dodge are now a single feat called battle quickness (or whatever you see fit)

I honestly love the idea of a point value system for feats. It is exactly what the feat system of 3.5 needs right now, since feats are simply *that* unbalanced, even if you take pre-reqs into account.
The only downside of this notion is actually implementing it. It would take an inhuman amount of effort to look through all the officially published feats and give them a point cost, while deciding the cost 'on-the-fly' when a player wants to take the feat, based on somewhat abstract criteria to judge the feat... Well it's quite that isn't really solid and complaints can easily arise from the group, especially if DM and player's haven't already planned out and shared their builds along with determining the feat costs involved.

But seriously, if anyone knows of an actual list with point values floating anywhere on the internet feel free to share :smallbiggrin:

[sonofzeal]

I honestly love the idea of a point value system for feats. It is exactly what the feat system of 3.5 needs right now, since feats are simply *that* unbalanced, even if you take pre-reqs into account.
The only downside of this notion is actually implementing it. It would take an inhuman amount of effort to look through all the officially published feats and give them a point cost, while deciding the cost 'on-the-fly' when a player wants to take the feat, based on somewhat abstract criteria to judge the feat... Well it's quite that isn't really solid and complaints can easily arise from the group, especially if DM and player's haven't already planned out and shared their builds along with determining the feat costs involved.

But seriously, if anyone knows of an actual list with point values floating anywhere on the internet feel free to share :smallbiggrin:
Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!

[Cwymbran-San]

I know this is slightly off-topic, but to get rid of useless feats, we employ the "retraining" rules from PHB II. Works quite well. I guess no lv12 character in his right mind would pick Lightning Reflexes (unless he needs it for a PrC), but at 1st level it seemed ok. Now he can drop it and select a different feat. Works for us, so far.
Anybody else with some experience with these rules?

[sonofzeal]

I know this is slightly off-topic, but to get rid of useless feats, we employ the "retraining" rules from PHB II. Works quite well. I guess no lv12 character in his right mind would pick Lightning Reflexes (unless he needs it for a PrC), but at 1st level it seemed ok. Now he can drop it and select a different feat. Works for us, so far.
Anybody else with some experience with these rules?
Retraining is always good.

However, I'd question your example. Lightning Reflexes is hardly an awesome feat, but it scales just fine. A +2 to Reflex is just as valuable at low level as it is at high level, if you're seeing a roughly equal percentage of Ref-targetting effects. Short of high-OP, you can usually count on monster DCs being both potentially beatable, and potentially failable, by most PCs. And, given that you're likely hovering somewhere in the viable range anyway, and the range is always a 20-point spread, a +2 is going to have roughly equal effect regardless of level.

Whether that +2 is worth a feat or not depends on a number of factions, and the answer will likely be "no" regardless of level. But I'd deny that it gets worse as you level.



Rule of thumb - anything that modifies a d20 roll, or is opposed by a d20 roll, remains of roughly even value regardless of level. Anything that directly modifies damage dealt or received needs to scale with level.

Weapon Focus, while poor, doesn't need to scale - it just needs to be worth it in the first place (perhaps if it actually modified BAB?). Weapon Spec, which is also poor, does need to scale.

[Gharkash]

I asked my DM to allow the retrain rules, i want to take my Swordsage on another route than what i had planned. Unfortunately he modified the cost, and i don't think i will be using it.

There are some really good ideas on here, the point thingy seems good if some one had the time and will to go down that road.

Edit: Tsiou sovara?

[Gwendol]

Scaling with BAB is the way to go and/or class levels for certain feats to be fully realized. Take the example of relic magic items that confer a certain magic bonus, but to take full advantage of the item you need to be a believer and whatnot.

[Morph Bark]

Scaling with BAB is the way to go and/or class levels for certain feats to be fully realized. Take the example of relic magic items that confer a certain magic bonus, but to take full advantage of the item you need to be a believer and whatnot.

That's actually both a good and a bad example at the same time. Good for the reason you listed, bad because if you aren't a divine caster you need a feat to use Relics.

[Eldebryn]

Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!

You made me momentarily fall in love with you right there... :smallredface:

That's exactly what I am talking about, an excellent way for someone to revamp the feat system and remove it's greatest flaws. (plus retraining, even though I would go for much different rules/limitations than those the PHB2 provides).

Of course, the problem with this one, and other homebrew revamps, is that it only covers core material, and various supplementals have *a lot* more feat balance issues than the core. However it should be noted that thanks to the explanations and logic behind the ranking that is provided by the author, one could expand these guidelines to almost any feat around. Awesome. :wink:

[sonofzeal]

You made me momentarily fall in love with you right there... :smallredface:

That's exactly what I am talking about, an excellent way for someone to revamp the feat system and remove it's greatest flaws. (plus retraining, even though I would go for much different rules/limitations than those the PHB2 provides).

Of course, the problem with this one, and other homebrew revamps, is that it only covers core material, and various supplementals have *a lot* more feat balance issues than the core. However it should be noted that thanks to the explanations and logic behind the ranking that is provided by the author, one could expand these guidelines to almost any feat around. Awesome. :wink:
Err... blue is sarcasm.

You might want to look at the rankings a little more. He thinks Two-Weapon Fighting is more than twice as good as Natural Spell. Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, and Combat Casting are at or near the top of the list, while Quicken Spell, Augment Summoning, and Improved Trip are lower. You could hook up a random number generator and get more reliable and useful results.

That said, the system itself would have been a great idea, if it had been anyone but Sean K Reynolds applying the rankings.

[deuxhero]

Yeah, SKR has a reputation for being unable to optimize his way out of a paper bag, yet hating "power gamers", leading to VERY bad results.

I think the BG folk did one though.

[sonofzeal]

Yeah, SKR has a reputation for being unable to optimize his way out of a paper bag, yet hating "power gamers", leading to VERY bad results.
"I'm good at this game, so anyone who's better than me must be abusing the rules". Gah. Can't stand people like that. How do you get so self-righteous and self-ignorant at the same time? :smallconfused:

[Gwendol]

You could hook up a random number generator and get more reliable and useful results.


:smallbiggrin: Very funny!

Here's a gem from that article:

Some feats suck so much that they're used as "payment" to get into cool prestige classes, like Endurance for the Dwarven Defender

[Eldebryn]

To be honest I didn't pay much attention to the numbers themselves, but now that you mention it, they might be a little off.
I guess this proves what I mentioned earlier the difficulty of actually implementing such rankings properly. Even though the costs maybe wrong, the whole thing a principle (well, sort of) that presents an organized, functional concept with guidelines that can be used to expand the original almost indefinitely.

Ok, I may be a little over-excited but I still this a little admirable :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

Err... blue is sarcasm.

You might want to look at the rankings a little more. He thinks Two-Weapon Fighting is more than twice as good as Natural Spell. Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, and Combat Casting are at or near the top of the list, while Quicken Spell, Augment Summoning, and Improved Trip are lower. You could hook up a random number generator and get more reliable and useful results.

That said, the system itself would have been a great idea, if it had been anyone but Sean K Reynolds applying the rankings.

No, the system is perfectly fine. It just needs a minor modification. The actual "feat cost" would be set at 12-(listed value).

[Saintheart]

I must say, most of the regional feats out of the Forgotten Realms setting are loaded with fluff and tangy flavour, but horrible to stomach in an actual build. Mostly it's because of their non-scaling nature, which is a real pity. One thought I had was to actually just give people a regional feat for free, thus giving them an incentive to build an actual character with a past than just being Generic Incantatrix #2 from Cardboard Cutout Land.

[sonofzeal]

:smallbiggrin: Very funny!

Here's a gem from that article:
What's sad is that his analysis is often so close... and then he gives an example. Sight.

Although I'm almost willing to grant that one. Endurance is indeed terrible, and I think Dwarven Defender is... not good, but underrated. It's actually kind of nice for a Tripper since it gives a stacking bonus to Strength and Con, a stacking bonus to AC, and is a Free Action to start or end. You can Charge someone and institute a Defensive Stance in between the movement and the attack for a bonus on your trip and excellent resilience against counterattack, and then if they break away from you and get around your AoO trip attacks, you can drop the stance without too much penalty. The only thing that sucks about the class is the requirements, and SKR does correctly identify that as a problem.

But yeah, he does have some... odd ideas about balance in general.



I must say, most of the regional feats out of the Forgotten Realms setting are loaded with fluff and tangy flavour, but horrible to stomach in an actual build.
I don't know, I recently used a few and they were actually really nice. Wolf Berserker in particular was an "OMG" find.

[Essence_of_War]

Rule of thumb - anything that modifies a d20 roll, or is opposed by a d20 roll, remains of roughly even value regardless of level. Anything that directly modifies damage dealt or received needs to scale with level.

Weapon Focus, while poor, doesn't need to scale - it just needs to be worth it in the first place (perhaps if it actually modified BAB?). Weapon Spec, which is also poor, does need to scale.

Whoa, whoa, you mean being part of a 4-feat line that nets a total of +2 attack, and +4 damage isn't good enough for you???? :smallamused:

[Eldebryn]

I must say, most of the regional feats out of the Forgotten Realms setting are loaded with fluff and tangy flavour, but horrible to stomach in an actual build. Mostly it's because of their non-scaling nature, which is a real pity. One thought I had was to actually just give people a regional feat for free, thus giving them an incentive to build an actual character with a past than just being Generic Incantatrix #2 from Cardboard Cutout Land.

I can't agree more. If you ask me, even giving out 2-3 regional/background feats at 1st level is perfectly fine considering the average power they offer and how most of them can't be abused much either. The overall flavor they add is pretty sweet, and that cosmopolitan/diverse/multi-cultural feel is one of the reasons I find FR such a great and interesting setting.

[Essence_of_War]

Let me add to your rule of thumb something that I think WotC noticed near the end also. See Knowledge/Law Devotions as specific examples.

Although d20 mods need not scale with level, level based scaling is a useful way to balance them so that they aren't binary AWFUL/AMAZING choices. Moreover, players like it when it feels like they're rewarded for their choices, and level based scaling can trigger this reward feedback.

[ojayaba]

I'm a fan of the scaling idea, but how would one go about scaling something so that it's not over powering or under powering?

[sonofzeal]

Let me add to your rule of thumb something that I think WotC noticed near the end also. See Knowledge/Law Devotions as specific examples.

Although d20 mods need not scale with level, level based scaling is a useful way to balance them so that they aren't binary AWFUL/AMAZING choices. Moreover, players like it when it feels like they're rewarded for their choices, and level based scaling can trigger this reward feedback.
I should mention here that anything from CChamp is a bad idea to quote at me. IMO it's the single worst book WotC published, possibly because it was just about the last one, they all knew 4e was coming, so they stopped caring about quality control in the slightest. I have, in the past, opened it up to completely random pages and found half a dozen serious flaws. I use nothing from that book. Ever. My Healers forgo Touch of Healing, my Truenamers forgo Paragnostic Assembly, and my Barbarians forgo Spirit Lion Totem. Everything from that book just feels... tainted. Purely subjective I know, but I hate that book and it's the only book out of the entire WotC catalogue that I refuse to use. Even BoEF and CPsi are preferably, imo.

Devotion Feats in particular are simply out of whack with what feats do. You can make a good argument that feats in general are undervalued in 3.5, but the fact remains that the things Devotion feats do, on average, are considerably better than most feats in most books. And while I can see what you're pointing out, I think there were better ways to handle it - like not making Clerics kick more arse via feats than Fighters do, they're supposed to have spells for that. So, I think it could have been handled a lot better. Either that, or the new balance point should have been included from the start.

I won't object to taking inspiration there, but I think quoting anything from CChamp as an example of good design is... troublesome, at best.

[nedz]

Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!

Wow, metamagic feats are rubbish. Toughness is rated as 6 points, whereas all metamagics come in at 5 ?

His system does seem to be self-consistent, but that the best you can say for it.

[Essence_of_War]

I won't object to taking inspiration there, but I think quoting anything from CChamp as an example of good design is... troublesome, at best.

I think that's probably a fair.

I think there is a strong case, that as you said, most feats are woefully underpowered given that players only get 7 of them over their careers. Design/Development strongly overvalued small static bonuses compared with expanded options, and I think that independently of whether or not CC was on the whole, good design, Knowledge/Law Devotion, which include scaling, non-trivial bonuses, are what feats that don't provide new options (like weapon focus) SHOULD look like.

Other than the burning turn attempts and having to be a factotum part. :smalltongue:

Basically, I eeped and said "There! That is what Weapon Focus should have been!".

[sonofzeal]

I think that's probably a fair.

I think there is a strong case, that as you said, most feats are woefully underpowered given that players only get 7 of them over their careers. Design/Development strongly overvalued small static bonuses compared with expanded options, and I think that independently of whether or not CC was on the whole, good design, Knowledge/Law Devotion, which include scaling, non-trivial bonuses, are what feats that don't provide new options (like weapon focus) SHOULD look like.

Other than the burning turn attempts and having to be a factotum part. :smalltongue:

Basically, I eeped and said "There! That is what Weapon Focus should have been!".
Actually, I don't really know if there's a solid argument that feats in general are "underpowered", or that it matters how many of them you get. If feats weren't major character-defining things, but were instead small little finishing details, that wouldn't actually be so bad as long as it was handled consistently and the designers were doing it on purpose. The problem is that they seem to have flipflopped between that sort of logic, and your sort of logic, with very little rhyme or reason. The same system should not be offering both Improved Trip and Weapon Focus.

[Venger]

Almost all feats are a good basic concept; it's just that a lot of them have poor execution. Compare 3e Toughness (one of the worst feats) with 4e Toughness. Or, heck, one of the 3e Toughness variants.

Or compare Improved Trip, which not only allow tripping without a retaliation-AoO but also a followup attack, with every other combat maneuver feat, which doesn't. I'd assume that something like Improved Disarm would be a lot more attractive if you got a free attack afterwards if successful, or Improved Sunder if you could automatically cleave through a destroyed object.

yeah, there's a reason you hear about trippers and not disarmers.

but vis a vis automatically cleaving through a destroyed object, check out the tactical feat combat brute. it makes imp sunder suck a lot less if you're rolling blackguard or the like, and gives some other options too

[Essence_of_War]

Actually, I don't really know if there's a solid argument that feats in general are "underpowered", or that it matters how many of them you get. If feats weren't major character-defining things, but were instead small little finishing details, that wouldn't actually be so bad as long as it was handled consistently and the designers were doing it on purpose. The problem is that they seem to have flipflopped between that sort of logic, and your sort of logic, with very little rhyme or reason. The same system should not be offering both Improved Trip and Weapon Focus.

Hmmm...

Let me clarify, I think what I meant to say was something like: "Given the existence of feats like power attack, improved trip, metamagics, etc most other feats are underpowered by comparison".

And that's basically true. Like you said, Imp. Trip and Weapon Focus don't live in the same neighborhood.

[Venger]

I honestly love the idea of a point value system for feats. It is exactly what the feat system of 3.5 needs right now, since feats are simply *that* unbalanced, even if you take pre-reqs into account.
The only downside of this notion is actually implementing it. It would take an inhuman amount of effort to look through all the officially published feats and give them a point cost, while deciding the cost 'on-the-fly' when a player wants to take the feat, based on somewhat abstract criteria to judge the feat... Well it's quite that isn't really solid and complaints can easily arise from the group, especially if DM and player's haven't already planned out and shared their builds along with determining the feat costs involved.

But seriously, if anyone knows of an actual list with point values floating anywhere on the internet feel free to share :smallbiggrin:

your points (pardon the pun) are all wholly valid, and this is the reason that a feat point doesn't exist and why it's so difficult to implement one



Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!

since you are new to the forum, Eldebryn, blue text means that the person is joking/sarcastic. sean k reynolds has a certain amount of notoriety for not being very good at understanding game balance. this feat point thing that he made (this is not official WotC material) is widely regarded by players of 3.5 to be among the stupidest things anyone has ever said (scoring metamagic under TWF) "It grants another attack, so is essentially the best feat"

sorry to "explain the joke" as it were, but I couldn't in good conscience leave the possibility that someone may take reynold's feat point system seriously open. can you imagine a new player actually trying to implement this?

EDIT: ninja'ed. sorry, I had the thread preloaded and open from a while ago

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!But it's completely wrong :vaarsuvius: seriously.
This guy thinks TWF and Rapid Shot are equal. What's wrong with him :smallconfused:

[ThiagoMartell]

I'm firmly in the Sturgeon's Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Revelation) camp. Very few feats give better benefits with more levels. (Counterexamples: Power Attack, Craven, Savvy Rogue.)

I believe one way that would let us make more feats good, but not just crank up the power level uniformly, would be more class exclusivity. We've already got Fighter-only feats; those are generally quite weak, and we could use more and better. How about Hide in Plain Sight as a feat, with Rogue level 6 as a prerequisite? Or have Darkstalker work as specified, but also have a chance to protect against Mindsight and Lifesense with 5 levels of Scout or Rogue? Spring Attack could allow a full attack with 6 levels of Monk or Samurai, essentially granting them a bonus move action. Basically add extra capabilities if you've got enough levels in Tier 4 or weaker classes.

That's actually a very good idea.

[ThiagoMartell]

I don't know, I recently used a few and they were actually really nice. Wolf Berserker in particular was an "OMG" find.

Many of those are actually pretty good, yeah. Bloodline of Fire was recently mentioned in another thread, Foehunter leads to interesting entry shenanigans. I'm also a fan of Luck of Heroes, Blooded and Thug, but that's probably only me.

[Gwendol]

Axe thrower is a favorite of mine.

[paddyfool]

You want good feats? Fun feats, that actually add new abilities to your characters?

If so, D&D 3.5 is generally just not what you want. Instead, well, take a look at my sig :)

[Venger]

But it's completely wrong :vaarsuvius: seriously.
This guy thinks TWF and Rapid Shot are equal. What's wrong with him :smallconfused:

blue text means sarcasm.

[Thurbane]

Trophy Collector from PHBII. It would be really great if it worked similar to Ancestral Relic by allowing you to enchant the items (with a cap based on the CR of the trophy creature). As it is, it uses up a bunch of body slots for a small bonus to a save.
Agreed! I was going to take this feat for a Dragon Shaman I once ran, it it was a perfect thematic fit for his background...then I read the what you get from the feat mechanically, and dismissed it outright.

Here's an excellent Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) all ready to go!
I really do like the concept of a "feat-point-buy", but yeah, that one has some serious flaws.