What Makes a Good Feat?

[Zale]

Hello!

It's pretty obvious that not all feats are made equal. There are always some that are trap options that provide very little benefit and utility compared to others.

I'm interested in potentially rewriting the core feats to make them all equally viable choices, or merging/eliminating feats until that's a possibility.

However, before I start that I would like to get a base-line for what a "Good Feat" actually is.

So, with that in mind, I thought I'd ask the playground:

What are the top ten most useful feats?

This doesn't have to be core, but I would appreciate being told where the feat is from. If you'd like, I'd also enjoy knowing your reasoning!

Thanks for your time!

[Celestia]

The [Exalted] tag. :smallwink:

[Menzath]

The best top 10 feats...That's a very subjective question, from every class/builds POV? Would you have to first rate it by top builds? And then would top druid feats be in their own niche?
I wholly understand what you are asking, just that the game structure doesn't seem to easily allow for such a straightforward question.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

The best feats scale, and become more powerful as you gain levels or raise your abilities. Bad feats are just flat +1's that never get any better.

Good, scaling feats:
Power Attack (easy damage bonus. Gets better as BAB increases)
Combat Reflexes (opens up trip builds. Gets better as you improve Dexterity)
Psicrystal Affinity (scouting buddy, needed for Vigor/Share pain combos, satisfies prerequisite for Mind Sight, may be able to gain its own feats depending on GM interpretation. Gets better with manifester levels)
Hidden Talent (gain two power points, ability to gain psionic focus, a 1st level psionic power, and a manifester level. Gets better as you gain manifester levels from a class)
Shape Soulmeld (a world of possibilities. Gets better with more essentia, and if you gain the ability to bind chakras)
Nymph's Kiss (more skill points as you gain levels)

Bad, non-scaling effects:
Weapon Focus (flat +1 to attack with one weapon)
Toughness (flat HP increase)
Lightning Reflexes (flat increase to Reflex save)

[Thinker]

The best feats scale, and become more powerful as you gain levels or raise your abilities. Bad feats are just flat +1's that never get any better.

Good, scaling feats:
Power Attack (easy damage bonus. Gets better as BAB increases)
Combat Reflexes (opens up trip builds. Gets better as you improve Dexterity)
Psicrystal Affinity (scouting buddy, needed for Vigor/Share pain combos, satisfies prerequisite for Mind Sight, may be able to gain its own feats depending on GM interpretation. Gets better with manifester levels)
Hidden Talent (gain two power points, ability to gain psionic focus, a 1st level psionic power, and a manifester level. Gets better as you gain manifester levels from a class)
Shape Soulmeld (a world of possibilities. Gets better with more essentia, and if you gain the ability to bind chakras)
Nymph's Kiss (more skill points as you gain levels)

Bad, non-scaling effects:
Weapon Focus (flat +1 to attack with one weapon)
Toughness (flat HP increase)
Lightning Reflexes (flat increase to Reflex save)

I think that I'd argue that the scaling feats are bad for the game and that the flat bonuses are better. There's more space for stacking flat bonuses if your goal is to balance all of the feats with one another.

[Zale]

The best top 10 feats...That's a very subjective question, from every class/builds POV? Would you have to first rate it by top builds? And then would top druid feats be in their own niche?
I wholly understand what you are asking, just that the game structure doesn't seem to easily allow for such a straightforward question.

I understand that the difference in importance from one class to another makes this difficult; I apologize for not foreseeing this issue.

I'm primarily looking for good feats that aren't completely dependent on class features, but those are good to take into account also.

Perhaps they could be shorter lists organized by archetype? Say,Caster, Non-Caster, Skill-Monkey, etc?

Maybe honorable mentions for very class specific feats that never-the-less do well?

I'm mostly looking for base line effectiveness; which feats are Always choices, rather than situational ones. I.E, Of course I'm taking XYZ, because only a blatant fool wouldn't.

If that's at all helpful? Thanks for your response!

[Ursus Spelaeus]

I think that I'd argue that the scaling feats are bad for the game and that the flat bonuses are better. There's more space for stacking flat bonuses if your goal is to balance all of the feats with one another.

Scaling feats help with the LFQW problem. If you're gonna take out scaling feats, then you should take out scaling spells as well.

[A.A.King]

You may want to check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?400603-Best-Feats-of-3-5), it's far from a top 10 list though.

[Ruethgar]

Leadership, Undead Leadership(LM), Undead Leadership(Web), Extra Followers, and Landlord to plant them all in.

Item Familiar is good for anyone, especially if you take Sculpt Self and use yourself as the item.

[daremetoidareyo]

As a self-proclaimed feat lover, A good feat gives a player options. Good options. A good feat transforms a character's abilities significantly.

[rrwoods]

As mentioned previously, feats that give bonuses are bad when they don't scale with level.

The all stars are the ones that open up new options though. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Travel Devotion, that kind of thing.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

Leadership, Undead Leadership(LM), Undead Leadership(Web), Extra Followers, and Landlord to plant them all in.


Oh yeah, in addition to the world of possibilities entailed within Leadership, this one scales too! It scales with level and Charisma, giving you higher level cohorts.

[Zale]

The best feats scale, and become more powerful as you gain levels or raise your abilities. Bad feats are just flat +1's that never get any better.

Good, scaling feats:
Power Attack (easy damage bonus. Gets better as BAB increases)
Combat Reflexes (opens up trip builds. Gets better as you improve Dexterity)
Psicrystal Affinity (scouting buddy, needed for Vigor/Share pain combos, satisfies prerequisite for Mind Sight, may be able to gain its own feats depending on GM interpretation. Gets better with manifester levels)
Hidden Talent (gain two power points, ability to gain psionic focus, a 1st level psionic power, and a manifester level. Gets better as you gain manifester levels from a class)
Shape Soulmeld (a world of possibilities. Gets better with more essentia, and if you gain the ability to bind chakras)
Nymph's Kiss (more skill points as you gain levels)

Bad, non-scaling effects:
Weapon Focus (flat +1 to attack with one weapon)
Toughness (flat HP increase)
Lightning Reflexes (flat increase to Reflex save)

I had thought one of the basic principles to keep in mind would be scaling, as it prevents the feat from becoming completely invalidated later on.

However, from a design perspective I worry that might provide number bloat and end up causing later imbalances if not carefully stress-tested.

Thanks for your thoughts!


You may want to check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?400603-Best-Feats-of-3-5), it's far from a top 10 list though.

Oh, thank you that's almost exactly what I searched for before making this thread. I'll give that a look.

[John Longarrow]

I'll second what others are saying.

Good feat = EITHER you can do something you couldn't before AND/OR scales with your level.

Superior Unarmed Strike (ToB) allows a character with Improved Unarmed Strike to be almost as good as a monk but is based off of character level, not specific class level.

edit: Easiest way to avoid number bloat is to avoid redundant feats. If there are four feats that double charge damage, charge builds will grab all four. If there is only one that avoids the issue.

[Flickerdart]

A feat is precious - a normal character only gets 7, ever, compared to 20 levels and hundreds of thousands of GP. Your 6th level barbarian is already supposed to be a hero of some renown, and the only thing he gets that separates him from all other 6th level barbarians is 3 feats.

There are two kinds of good feats - feats that support a character, and feats that define a character. One of my favourite feats is Gift of the Spider Queen from Drow of the Underdark. It may not be super-powerful, but it's unique and interesting, and easily lends itself to a character that can be built around it. Travel Devotion, on the other hand, mostly lets you do what you were already doing, as does Power Attack. The most important thing about either feat type is that it should do what it says without needing help from any other feats. If I want to be master of the rapier, that ought to be one feat. You shouldn't have rapier master, improved rapier master, greater improved rapier master, improved greater improved rapier master... you get the picture.

There are two kinds of bad feats - feat taxes, and trap options. For example, consider Point-blank Shot and Precise Shot. Every archer needs Point-blank Shot to qualify for all the archery feats, and Precise Shot to get rid of an arbitrary penalty levied against archers for no reason. Neither of these feats needs to exist. Trap options, like Toughness, just don't do enough to be worth taking. Darkstalker may be powerful, but it's also a feat tax for any stealth-based character, simply because WotC printed too many no-sells for stealth.

There are also feats like Natural Spell, which are a feat tax, but a feat tax that unlocks absurd ultimate power and you should probably not have it in the game.

[Menzath]

Hmm I'll agree to the more options. But also feats that greatly improve a class feature or related options

And then in more niche feats that directly relate to build I would say
Beat stick: blood spiked charger, leap attack, power attack.

Skill monkey: dark stalker, craven, knowledge devotion

Mages: persistent spell, chain spell, invisible spell, heck most metamagics.

Edit-


There are two kinds of good feats - feats that support a character, and feats that define a character.


That's also very true, and a large issue in 3.x a ton of feats, but not alot that directly add "flavor" to your character.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

I had thought one of the basic principles to keep in mind would be scaling, as it prevents the feat from becoming completely invalidated later on.

However, from a design perspective I worry that might provide number bloat and end up causing later imbalances if not carefully stress-tested.

Thanks for your thoughts!



Well, it's D&D. The level system has always been a feature of the game, and that's always going to entail a certain amount of number bloat.

*I think the game would be vastly improved if more feats were self-contained. Feats should scale as you gain levels and increase abilities, but for an overall reduction in number bloat and complexity as you don't need feat chains to make you character concept work.*

Two-Weapon Fighting
The penalty to two-weapon fighting should decrease with level without having to invest in burdensome feat-chains.

Improved Initiative
This is already a strong choice, but I think a feat that added BAB to initiative would help to close some of the martial-caster disparity.

Toughness
This would be a lot better the number of hit points gained was equal to your level.

[Flickerdart]

Two-Weapon Fighting
The penalty to two-weapon fighting should decrease with level without having to invest in burdensome feat-chains.
Two-weapon fighting isn't even good, I'm not sure it needs any feat taxes.



Improved Initiative
This is already a strong choice, but I think a feat that added BAB to initiative would help to close some of the martial-caster disparity.
Improved Initiative is not strong for melee. The ideal melee outcome is to act after your casters (so they can buff you/debuff the enemy) and after the enemy moves into your charge range.




Toughness
This would be a lot better the number of hit points gained was equal to your level.
That would still be weak. 20 HP at level 20 is a rounding error.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

Two-weapon fighting isn't even good, I'm not sure it needs any feat taxes.

More attacks is great. You're more likely to hit with at least one attack, you are more likely to score a critical hit, and damage multiplies. Just look at Twin Strike from 4E D&D.
It's just that two-weapon fighting is severely gimped in 3.5 due to the penalties, and the need to give up movement for full-attacks.



Improved Initiative is not strong for melee. The ideal melee outcome is to act after your casters (so they can buff you/debuff the enemy) and after the enemy moves into your charge range.
Going first is strong for melee if you can ready actions to disrupt enemy spellcasters, or deal enough damage to kill them in round 1 before they buff.



That would still be weak. 20 HP at level 20 is a rounding error.
Fair enough.

[OldTrees1]

I had thought one of the basic principles to keep in mind would be scaling, as it prevents the feat from becoming completely invalidated later on.

However, from a design perspective I worry that might provide number bloat and end up causing later imbalances if not carefully stress-tested.

Thanks for your thoughts!

There are 2 approaches to power curves. One is all bonuses are static/additive, the other is all bonuses are scaling/multiplicitive. D&D class attributes & features already put you in the second camp. So for feats to remain worthy of note, they too must scale/be multiplicative.

However not all scaling is vulnerable to number bloat. In fact only scaling numbers (ubercharger power attack) are vulnerable to number bloat.


Whenever I think of feats, I think of classes based on feats (Fighter or Martial Rogue) to give me an idea of how significant a feat should be. With that in mind here are the feats I consider good enough to judge other feats by:

Combat Reflexes: Action Economy is important. Combat Reflexes grants you extra Action Economy which scales with the lower of Dexterity or enemy provocation. Futhermore by increasing your Attacks of Opportunity it synergies with any improvements you make to your basic attack (which is a prime target for improvement).

Knockback[Races of Stone]: Unfortunately Knockback has 2 prerequisite feats that are not as good, but I am judging the feat rather than the feat chain. Knockback gives you a new combat manuever(knock em back, which should be a default option) but also adds it as an effect of your basic attack so you can use it whenever you would attack.

The synergy between these 2 feats is a good example of how scaling can avoid number bloat.

[BWR]

A feat should be good enough on its own that people want to take it for its own sake, not as a prerequisite. Not all feats need to appeal to all characters, not all need to be of equal power or utility, but once taken they should feel useful and/or fun.

The exact details of what this entails are up for debate (though I have little interest in an actual debate at this point).

[Seerow]

I think that I'd argue that the scaling feats are bad for the game and that the flat bonuses are better. There's more space for stacking flat bonuses if your goal is to balance all of the feats with one another.

It depends on what the bonus is for.

Scaling bonuses to damage are fine, and arguably necessary. +2 damage at level 1 is 25% of your average targets hit points. At level 20 it's closer to .5%. Even when you factor in multiple attacks, a flat damage boost isn't keeping pace. Similarly HP boosting feats that don't scale are just worthless. 3 HP at level 1 is awesome. 3 HP at level 20 is white noise. But 40-60 HP at level 20 would be noticable for pretty much everybody.

On the other hands a lot of people then immediately jump to making stuff like weapon focus and the save boosters scale, and that just doesn't work as well, since those are boosts to RNG. A flat +2 on a d20 roll means as much if you have +20 as if you have +0, as long as the DC you're rolling against is appropriate for you. For those types of feats I would actually recommend tuning the base effect to be better rather than trying to make the number scale.

Or to pick a specific example out of the thread someone is recommending a buff to Improved Initiative. Making BAB to Initiative is a cool idea for giving martials an advantage, but bumping improved initiative up from +4 to potentially +10 for Wizards or +18-20 for Gishes when it's already practically an auto-include feat for them is insanity. It also means anyone who doesn't take improved initiative simply can't compete in the initiative game at high levels, it's way too much RNG swing and not the sort of scaling you want to pack into a feat.


So for some examples:
Toughness, something like +2 to 3 HP per level would actually be fine IMO. At level 20 a typical Wizard has somewhere between 100 and 150 HP, 40-60 on top of that is not an insignificant boost. Even a Fighter is only looking at around 200 to 240 HP, a 25-30% increase in HP is totally worthwhile.

For the Save boosting feats, this is one category where instead of a flat bonus I would consider something along the lines of bumping up the save category for a save (so change from a bad progression to good) but that actively becomes worse with multiclassing and potentially way too good if you allow it to apply to all classes. So instead I'd recommend adding in some bonuses related to the save category along with a slightly higher save bonus. Something like +3 to the save and then things like roll twice vs mind affecting abilities for Iron Will, or Evasion for Lightning Reflexes.

For Weapon Focus I changed it in my games to allow you to pick up new weapon properties on the fly (usable with the weapon properties/custom weapons system I use); so you can spontaneously treat a weapon as a throwing weapon, gain bonuses to certain maneuvers, treat it as a double weapon and TWF with it, treat it as a reach weapon and do a far lunge, and so on (and of course basic hit/damage bonuses as something you can fall back on when other options aren't necessarily viable).

[Ursus Spelaeus]

Maybe the BAB to Initiative thing would be better as a simple house rule applied to everybody, rather than a feat?

I agree that while bonuses to damage and HP should absolutely scale, bonuses to d20 rolls should probably stay flat.

Saving throws benefit more from X to Y effects than from bonuses. (By that, I mean feats or class features that change what ability is used for a given roll.) That's another category of good feats; feats that help deal with MAD. Weapon Finesse is the most notable example here. Zen Archery is another popular one.

[Xervous]

... Just look at Twin Strike from 4E D&D...

Twin Strike in 4E was exceptional due to the way damage boosts worked in the system. Any static boost you would have riding on a single hit At-will was effectively doubled and the availability of such boosts dwarfed the loss of main attribute to damage. In 3.5e the main source of static damage is Power Attack with mechanics and supporting feats/classes that place it above TWF in performance.

Even with movement and penalties ignored, a big two hander mixed in with power attack is still the most favorable option on investment return.

[eggynack]

I feel like I can justifiably, if with great bias, claim that about half of a top ten list can be populated with druid feats. Check it: Natural spell, aberration wild shape (LoM), greenbound summoning (LEoF), rashemi elemental summoning (UE), assume supernatural ability (LoM), and dragon wild shape (Draconomicon). Maybe add exalted wild shape (BoED) too, if you're stretching. Toss in craft contingent spell (CArc), DMM (CD), maybe arcane thesis (PHB II), and I think it makes sense to have persistent spell, and I think you've got a reasonable list of the most useful feats in the game. It's weird how much of a rich get richer proposition feats are sometimes.

[sonofzeal]

I'd recommend looking over the Feat Point system in my signature. You may want to modify it a bit, but it might be right up your alley.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Psicrystal Affinity (scouting buddy, needed for Vigor/Share pain combos, satisfies prerequisite for Mind Sight, may be able to gain its own feats depending on GM interpretation. Gets better with manifester levels)Actually, there's no argument that can be made against a psicrystal having feats. That doesn't stop houserules, but that's what they are: houserules.

Psicrystals A.) have an Int score (and so are not mindless), B.) gain actual, bona fide Hit Dice, and C.) gain a non-bonus feat in their monster entry. All non-mindless creatures that do not have a monster write-up that says otherwise gain HD-related feats.

I expect people to argue against this, but since the psicrystal entry itself has Alertness as their 1st level feat, and everything I said above is ironclad RAW, there's really no room to make an actual justified argument against it.

Just for everyone's edification on the subject.

[Telok]

Track is a good feat that shouldn't exist.

Let me explain. The Track feat takes a skill and expands the options for it. The character gets a new ability that is useful, logical, and works. It scales along side with the skills it uses too. These are good things in a feat. Tracking as an activity shouldn't be a feat. It should be part of the default survival skill set.

Cleave is half of a good feat. It allows the character a new option that synergises with that character's main ability. However it also never improves or scales with the character's abilities, which is a bad thing.

Arcane Strike or Double Wand Wielder are good feats, well designed and useful. Invisible Spell and Sanctum Spell are bad mainly through bad editing and wording. Dodge is a very very bad feat and should be taken out and shot. Natural Spell is just a bad idea.

Martial Study is a good feat due to the way initator level increases and the wide open selection of options that it offers.

[Sayt]

In my opinion, a good feats allow you to:

effectively do something new or,
meaningfully improves an existing capacity,

and which remains relevant.

I don't know what i'd call my personal top ten, but those are the criteria I'd judge them against.

[Vizzerdrix]

Hmm... Very tough question.

Firstly, must be able to carry your weight. Fragile feat are useless feat.

A sturdy ankle joint with a large range of movement is a must.

Supple yet tough skin. We must be able to tell what we step on, but not be harmed by it.

Alterative, secondary functions would be nice, but are not needed. Webbing, or being able to grab things.

Maybe spikes or claws for defending, if shoes wont be an option.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As a self-proclaimed feat lover, A good feat gives a player options. Good options. A good feat transforms a character's abilities significantly.
This. A feat (skill trick, class ability) should unlock something that is:

New to that character.
Not something everybody can do.

For example, Power Attack.

[stanprollyright]

What are the top ten most useful feats?

In no particular order (useful is not necessarily good):
Power Attack: good feat, but I actually like PF's version better. (heresy, I know)
Improved Initiative: useful for everyone. This feat is perfect as is.
Point Blank Shot: ranged attackers need this. Bad feat; only useful because it's a prereq.
Quicken Spell: crazy good. I dislike how the cost is structured because it is less useful for partial casters, but maybe that's the point.
Armor proficiency (light): Prereq for the others; many characters stop here.
Martial Weapon Proficiency: Most of the best weapons are here
Craft Wondrous Item: many many possibilities
Leadership: broken.
Combat Reflexes: Crowd control for martials. Scales off Dex. Good feat.
Weapon Focus: awful feat, but it is almost always taken by multiple party members, and not just because of prereqs.

[Ashtagon]

1) It should not be so powerful that it becomes a must-have for the class (I'm looking at you, Natural Spell).
2) It should not be something that should be a basic function of a skill (hello Track).
3) It should not be so lame that people laugh at the feat (yo Toughness!).

4) Scaling feat bonuses are nice, but where the feat bonus is based on a d20 roll, such scaling should be avoided or minimised severely, in order to avoid breaking the rng even more than it already is. (Yes, I get that it's broken anyway. But we're supposed to be fixing stuff, not wallowing in the brokenness). Scaling hit point damage or durations or ranges? Much better (though watch out for unintended borkiness there too).
5) More important than anythinjg else, the feat should give the player new choices to make as a result of having the feat.

For example:

Great Fortitude:

Benefit: +2 on Fort saves.

Special: You can re-roll a Fort save 1/day. For each full five character levels, you get an additional re-roll.

Toughness

Benefit: +3 hp per character level. Additionally, your maximum limit for negative hit points increases by +1 hp per character level.

(hard to find any "active" uses for this feat that thematically make sense)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Toughness
Benefit: +3 hp per character level. Additionally, your maximum limit for negative hit points increases by +1 hp per character level.
(hard to find any "active" uses for this feat that thematically make sense)It'd be a good way for non-casters to buff themselves: spend an action, gain temp hp. Say...

Immediate action: 3 temp hp +1/3 levels
Swift action: 5 temp hp +1/2 levels
Move action: 5 temp hp +1 per level
Standard action: 5 temp hp +3 per level
Full round action: 10 temp hp +5 per level

Each of these uses lasts for 2 rounds, they can be used at will, and the temp hp from this feat do not stack with each other.

Action economy is king, but sometimes you have an extra action to use for something, and there's no sense in wasting it. Plus, it gives noncasters something to do with immediate and swift actions.

[OldTrees1]

It'd be a good way for non-casters to buff themselves: spend an action, gain temp hp. Say...

Immediate action: 3 temp hp +1/3 levels
Swift action: 5 temp hp +1/2 levels
Move action: 5 temp hp +1 per level
Standard action: 5 temp hp +3 per level
Full round action: 10 temp hp +5 per level

Each of these uses lasts for 2 rounds, they can be used at will, and the temp hp from this feat do not stack with each other.

Action economy is king, but sometimes you have an extra action to use for something, and there's no sense in wasting it. Plus, it gives noncasters something to do with immediate and swift actions.

Neat hp shield. That would be enough for me to consider it on a warrior.

[Ashtagon]

It's a cool idea to spend actions for temp hp, but I'm not sure it makes sense logically. What is the character "doing" with that action that buffs their hp?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It's a cool idea to spend actions for temp hp, but I'm not sure it makes sense logically. What is the character "doing" with that action that buffs their hp?Focusing ki, channeling positive energy to reinforce the body, focusing the soul (like in RWBY), casting a spell one has mastered to create a tangible shield of force around oneself, or any number of other things. Fluff it how you like, in a way that fits with the tone of the campaign.

Warriors in mythology throughout the world do fantastic feats like this all the time, and fantastic feats ought to mirror them.

[OldTrees1]

It's a cool idea to spend actions for temp hp, but I'm not sure it makes sense logically. What is the character "doing" with that action that buffs their hp?

Depends on what theme of temp hp they are looking for.
Maybe they are pausing to rest their body for a moment. Reinvigorated they have renewed strength to block and take blows.
Maybe they are into motivational speeches and they are pyching themselves up.
Maybe they are preparing to best react to incoming blows. The extra inch from being ready might downgrade a vicious wound into merely a costly one.


Edit: Ninja'd by even more examples

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You could use action economy and the fact that you spent a feat on an effect to justify giving far more poignant and potent effects than most feats currently do, like in my Toughness (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21547644&postcount=34) and Dodge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21542139&postcount=34) addendums found elsewhere. Though a number of feat trees really ought to be folded together.

The following are in addition to the feats' current effects:

Mobility: Can use a swift action to move half your speed.

Spring Attack: The attack from the Spring Attack feat becomes a swift action, instead of a standard, performed at some point while moving. You take no AoOs on any enemy you attack while using the Spring Attack feat.

Two-Weapon Fighting: There are no Dex requirements for this feat. The penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced as normal; you gain an extra off-hand attack for every attack you gain via BAB, and you gain one attack with each hand. This essentially gives you the effects of Multiweapon Fighting and Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, and it counts as Improved/Greater/Perfect TWF and Multiweapon Fighting and Improved Multiweapon Fighting for all purposes.

Improved Unarmed Strike: Automatically grants proficiency with unarmed strikes, and counts as Weapon Proficiency. Your unarmed strikes gain full Str bonuses to damage and increase in potency like a monk's does, though at a slower rate.

Weapon Focus: Fold in WF, GWF, Weapon Specialization, Greater WS, and so on, depending on your level.

And so on.

[OldTrees1]

Mobility: Can use a swift action to move half your speed.

Spring Attack: The attack from the Spring Attack feat becomes a swift action, instead of a standard, performed at some point while moving. You take no AoOs on any enemy you attack while using the Spring Attack feat.

Good examples. However I notice 2 things.
1) Since Spring Attack already requires Mobility. They could already use Swift+Standard to Spring Attack or Swift+Move+Standard to move and Spring attack. So while your addition to Spring Attack increases their range, it does not do so by much. Although it does allow for Spring Attack(Swift+Move) + Standard Action(Buff/Debuff?).

2) It might be wise to allow the attacker to choose between Swift and Standard actions.

Obviously these were quick examples so if anything they would represent the lower bound for the quality of the feats they suggest.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Good examples. However I notice 2 things.
1) Since Spring Attack already requires Mobility. They could already use Swift+Standard to Spring Attack or Swift+Move+Standard to move and Spring attack. So while your addition to Spring Attack increases their range, it does not do so by much. Although it does allow for Spring Attack(Swift+Move) + Standard Action(Buff/Debuff?).That's what I was going for. You spend one feat to gain extra movement options, and if you feel that you're getting enough benefit out of the extra feat, you can spend two for even more action economy and a distinct lack of AoOs. After all, you still provoke when you move (which is terrible when creatures have much larger reach than you, higher Str, higher size, and something like Stand Still), and yes, Spring Attack allows you to make one attack AND still have a standard action left, for whatever you want it for. Mobility, meanwhile, would help set up avenues for charging, or whatever, but all you can use it for is a move, as opposed to a move AND the equivalent of a standard action (even if all it is is an attack).

Perhaps the swift action used in Dodge could double-up as the swift you use in Spring Attack if you choose? It'd cut your movement in half, but you'd only spend a swift on it. Otherwise, you could simply use it as part of your normal move to make an attack somewhere in the middle.


2) It might be wise to allow the attacker to choose between Swift and Standard actions.True. I'm just tossing ideas out; refining them isn't out of the question.


Obviously these were quick examples so if anything they would represent the lower bound for the quality of the feats they suggest.Right.

[nyjastul69]

A good feat is a feat that helps your character more than any other given feat, at that time. Feats don't exist in isolation, they can only be compared in context. As an example, I played a Factotum that retrained a 3rd FoI for a +2/+2 feat. On the surface that would seem absurd. In context, however, it made great sense and was an improvement to my character. There is no such thing as universally good or bad feat.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There is no such thing as universally good or bad feat.Tell that to Monkey Lunge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/monkey-lunge-combat).

[ExLibrisMortis]

Tell that to Monkey Lunge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/monkey-lunge-combat).
That's hilarious. It's straight-up worse than Total Defense with regular Lunge (assuming PF has the same Total Defense mechanic as 3.5), and it costs a feat, to boot.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's hilarious. It's straight-up worse than Total Defense with regular Lunge (assuming PF has the same Total Defense mechanic as 3.5), and it costs a feat, to boot.Oh, it's much, much worse than that. Tell me, what kind of action does it take to make an attack or full attack action? Now tell me, what kind of action does it take to initiate Monkey Lunge before actually making said attack?

[Ruethgar]

Plenty of discussion of Good feats, but what about Evil? Like Vow of Poverty. Initially people are like "OMG look at all those free bonuses" then they are screwed out of all their WBL and their fancy bonuses vanish the first time they use anything not on their list of approved materials... like a door, and they don't even have WBL to replace it with.

[nyjastul69]

Tell that to Monkey Lunge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/monkey-lunge-combat).

I'm not at all familiar with PF. It could be a universally bad feat. I suspect that it can work in certain builds. I certainly could be wrong. But, again, it's PF so I have no interest.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm not at all familiar with PF. It could be a universally bad feat. I suspect that it can work in certain builds. I certainly could be wrong. But, again, it's PF so I have no interest.Lunge works because it's a non-action, and you can use a standard action or whatever to make an actual attack.

Monkey Lunge requires a standard action to activate, leaving you with a move action to make attacks with for the rest of the round.

How often can you attack using a move action?

ie, Monkey Lunge makes it impossible to actually attack during the round because it uses up the action you would be using to attack, leaving you with no actions to actually attack with. If it worked until the beginning of your next turn, you could use it for AoOs, at least, but it ends when your turn is finished.

Basically, you're burning a feat for no benefit whatsoever, and you completely waste your turn whenever you use it.

[nyjastul69]

Lunge works because it's a non-action, and you can use a standard action or whatever to make an actual attack.

Monkey Lunge requires a standard action to activate, leaving you with a move action to make attacks with for the rest of the round.

How often can you attack using a move action?

ie, Monkey Lunge makes it impossible to actually attack during the round because it uses up the action you would be using to attack, leaving you with no actions to actually attack with. If it worked until the beginning of your next turn, you could use it for AoOs, at least, but it ends when your turn is finished.

Basically, you're burning a feat for no benefit whatsoever, and you completely waste your turn whenever you use it.

Ok, that sounds universally bad.

ETA: I just read the feat. It's not useless. Monkey Lunge's standard action incorporates a Lunge attack. A single attack that obviates the penalty for lunge. Yes it takes a standard action, but you are attacking nonetheless. Is it worth a feat to obviate the penalty and not allow a full attack? I don't think so. It does in fact do something however.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Ok, that sounds universally bad.

ETA: I just read the feat. It's not useless. Monkey Lunge's standard action incorporates a Lunge attack. A single attack that obviates the penalty for lunge. Yes it takes a standard action, but you are attacking nonetheless. Is it worth a feat to obviate the penalty and not allow a full attack? I don't think so. It does in fact do something however.Lunge allows you to apply the +5' reach to the remainder of your attacks until the rest of your turn as a free action or non-action.

Monkey Lunge forces that to become a standard action. So if you use it, you just burned a standard action to grant +5' reach for your attacks for the remainder of your turn.

It's not a standard action Lunge attack; it's a standard action to use the free action Lunge with no penalties (except for the fact that you can no longer actually make attacks, which is far worse than the -2 to AC).

[nyjastul69]

Lunge allows you to apply the +5' reach to the remainder of your attacks until the rest of your turn as a free action or non-action.

Monkey Lunge forces that to become a standard action. So if you use it, you just burned a standard action to grant +5' reach for your attacks for the remainder of your turn.

It's not a standard action Lunge attack; it's a standard action to use the free action Lunge with no penalties (except for the fact that you can no longer actually make attacks, which is far worse than the -2 to AC).

I'm honestly not following you. Lunge allows extended reach with a penalty. Monkey Lunge allows one to use Lunge without penalties as a standard action. Am I missing something?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm honestly not following you. Lunge allows extended reach with a penalty. Monkey Lunge allows one to use Lunge without penalties as a standard action. Am I missing something?I'm afraid so: Lunge grants the remainder of the attacks for the round 5' of reach as a free action, with a -2 penalty to AC.

Monkey Lunge grants the remainder of the attacks for the round 5' of reach as a standard action but does not, itself, give you an attack. It merely takes away the -2 penalty.

So...

A round where you use Lunge:
Free action: activate feat, gain 5' to reach for the rest of your turn, take -2 penalty to AC
Move + Standard: move and/or attack

A round where you use Monkey Lunge:
Standard action: activate feat, gain 5' to reach for the rest of your turn
Move: can't attack, because an attack action is a standard and a full attack is a full-round action, neither of which can be done when Monkey Lunge is in play

[ExLibrisMortis]

Oh, it's much, much worse than that. Tell me, what kind of action does it take to make an attack or full attack action? Now tell me, what kind of action does it take to initiate Monkey Lunge before actually making said attack?
Total Defense also takes a standard action, preventing melee attacks much like Monkey Lunge. That's why I made the comparison.

[nyjastul69]

I'm afraid so: Lunge grants the remainder of the attacks for the round 5' of reach as a free action, with a -2 penalty to AC.

Monkey Lunge grants the remainder of the attacks for the round 5' of reach as a standard action but does not, itself, give you an attack. It merely takes away the -2 penalty.

So...

A round where you use Lunge:
Free action: activate feat, gain 5' to reach for the rest of your turn, take -2 penalty to AC
Move + Standard: move and/or attack

A round where you use Monkey Lunge:
Standard action: activate feat, gain 5' to reach for the rest of your turn
Move: can't attack, because an attack action is a standard and a full attack is a full-round action, neither of which can be done when Monkey Lunge is in play

That's not how it reads to me. Monkey Lunge's standard action incorporates a single Lunge attack, without penalty. I can't see what you are saying.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's not how it reads to me. Monkey Lunge's standard action incorporates a single Lunge attack, without penalty. I can't see what you are saying.Lunge doesn't grant an extra attack, and Monkey Lunge doesn't say it grants an extra attack. Where is this extra attack coming from?

[nyjastul69]

Lunge doesn't grant an extra attack, and Monkey Lunge doesn't say it grants an extra attack. Where is this extra attack coming from?

Sorry, I see what your saying now. I'm much more RAI guy than RAW guy. Sure it's written poorly, the intention is crystal clear however.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Sorry, I see what your saying now. I'm much more RAI guy than RAW guy. Sure it's written poorly, the intention is crystal clear however.Even accounting for the gross oversight, it's not worth burning a feat for. -2 to AC isn't exactly crippling, and the ability to take a full attack action is always better than a single standard action attack.

Assuming that it is houseruled to grant a standard action attack, it's only good for when you move + attack, and even then, it's generally better to charge.

It's a piss poor feat all the way around.

[nyjastul69]

Even accounting for the gross oversight, it's not worth burning a feat for. -2 to AC isn't exactly crippling, and the ability to take a full attack action is always better than a single standard action attack.

Assuming that it is houseruled to grant a standard action attack, it's only good for when you move + attack, and even then, it's generally better to charge.

It's a piss poor feat all the way around.

I agree 100%. It is piss poor written and totally underwhelming as a feat. Again though, with a little bit of common sense one can see the intent if one chooses to look. But yeah, it's a really bad feat even if you assume it works.