PDA

View Full Version : Worst feat in D&D?



Saph
2007-09-16, 02:30 PM
This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56972) reminded me of something I wanted to ask a while ago: what do you think is the worst feat in 3.5 D&D? Either submit your picks for worst, or make a list of top 3.

For ease of use, divide it between core and non-core. Noncore is obviously much more difficult, since there are so many feats to choose between.

Even in core, it's more difficult than you'd think. At first sight you might just pick a feat like Toughness. But Toughness, especially at low levels, is actually quite likely to make the difference between being conscious and dying, and between dying and dead. And since HP damage is so common, that's a real chance of it saving your character's life, which would disqualify it from the 'worst feat' title. Again, Skill Focus can be utterly useless, but it can be very effective, with a class like the Truenamer.

What we're looking for here is feats that not only can be bad, but are so utterly, awfully sucktastic that they're always bad in just about every conceivable situation. Ideally, it ought to be so bad that it makes actually makes your character worse, either by being totally useless or by encouraging you to use a bad option.

For Core, I'm thinking maybe Diligent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#diligent) - it gives +2 on Appraise and Decipher Script, two of the least useful skills in the game.

For non-core, it's way harder. Off the top of my head the worst I can think of is Touch Spell Specialisation from Complete Arcane - incredibly specialised, has a harsh prerequisite, encourages you to get into melee as a caster, and is useless with most of the best touch spells as they don't do HP damage anyway.

Suggestions?

- Saph

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-16, 02:34 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language is usually the winner of this contest.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-09-16, 02:36 PM
I nominate Dual Strike from Complete Adventurer. Completely useless as the penalties are too great just to get two attacks as a standard action. It's a crappy two-weapon fighting answer to Manyshot.

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 02:41 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language is usually the winner of this contest.

Does that even exist?

kpenguin
2007-09-16, 02:43 PM
Does that even exist?

Well, Speak Language is technically is a skill, so...

Scorpina
2007-09-16, 02:43 PM
Skill Focus and Spell Focus both have nigh limitless potential for wastefulness. Spell Focus (Divination) is a favourite complete waste of time.

Morty
2007-09-16, 02:48 PM
Spell Focus (Divination) is a favourite complete waste of time.

In core-only, maybe. But with splatbooks there are some Divinations with saving throws, so while still not very good feat, it's not a total waste of time. And even in core, scrying allows saving throw.
I'm surprising noone mentioned Monkey Grip yet; I'm not going to nominate it, but it's commonly considered as completely worthless.

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 02:50 PM
Well, Speak Language is technically is a skill, so...

In that case, Greater Skill Focus (Speak Language) is even worse.

SurlySeraph
2007-09-16, 02:55 PM
In core-only, maybe. But with splatbooks there are some Divinations with saving throws, so while still not very good feat, it's not a total waste of time. And even in core, scrying allows saving throw.
I'm surprising noone mentioned Monkey Grip yet; I'm not going to nominate it, but it's commonly considered as completely worthless.

Monkey Grip is half-decent is you use the variant that it lets you treat one-handed weapons as light weapons and two-handed weapons as one-handed weapons. There's a build a friend of mine made using that variant that dual-wielded scythes. Basically, it wouldn't hit on anything but a twenty, ever, but when it did hit nothing could survive. As written, though, it's craptastic.

I have to second Skill Focus: Speak Language, though.

goat
2007-09-16, 03:00 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language is usually the winner of this contest.

You know how it is, you're suddenly needed to mediate a negotiation between 3 different species, nobody speaks more than one of the languages, for some reason nobody can cast tongues or telepathic bond, no interpreters are available, and yet SOMEHOW, you've just gained a level & can learn those languages as racial or class features...

Oh, and you only get one skill point, because of your hideously low class features, so that's not an option.

Peregrine
2007-09-16, 03:06 PM
Hmm... I think Skill Focus (Speak Language) might step over the line from "stupidly useless" to "genuinely pointless, therefore shouldn't exist". The rules don't explicitly bar its existence, but I think it's obvious from context that the Skill Focus feat should not be allowed to be taken with Speak Language. "The Speak Language skill doesn't work like other skills", and all that. It's the sort of thing that would probably pop up in the FAQ if Wizards thought there was any need to spell this out. (A possible house rule would let that +3 translate to 3 ranks in Speak Language... that would be useful.)

In other words, I reckon that this contest should only be between feats that work exactly as intended, yet are still weak or useless. Otherwise, you could also put up Ride-by Attack... which, as written, is almost unusable. You can't keep moving in a straight line after using a charge action, because that would mean entering the opponent's space. Unless you dropped the opponent or otherwise rendered it helpless, you can't move through its space. I think the FAQ says something on this...

goat
2007-09-16, 03:11 PM
(A possible house rule would let that +3 translate to 3 ranks in Speak Language... that would be useful.)


Hmm, good point. I just instantly assumed it would give three extra languages, but it only boosts skill checks, not skill levels...

Leon
2007-09-16, 03:11 PM
In other words, I reckon that this contest should only be between feats that work exactly as intended, yet are still weak or useless. Otherwise, you could also put up Ride-by Attack... which, as written, is almost unusable. You can't keep moving in a straight line after using a charge action, because that would mean entering the opponent's space. Unless you dropped the opponent or otherwise rendered it helpless, you can't move through its space. I think the FAQ says something on this...

Only if your not using a non reach weapon, a Lance on the other hand is a reach weapon

then mix in Spirited Charge for x3 DAM

Dullyanna
2007-09-16, 03:23 PM
Weapon Focus: Gauntlet. You're better off with pretty much any other weapon.

PlatinumJester
2007-09-16, 04:10 PM
Exotic Weapon Proficiency Shruiken/bolas.

Combat Casting :smalltongue:.

Spell Mastery.

Run.

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-16, 04:24 PM
Spell Mastery has its uses. And its not like there are a lot of good feat choices for wizards in the first place.

Rad
2007-09-16, 04:28 PM
Exotic weapon proficiency(any double weapon). 2WF is disadvantageous already and does not leave space for an extra feat.
Ride by attack gets nominated, but I regard its non-functionality more as a bug, while other feats suck while still working as planned.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-16, 04:59 PM
Armor proficiency (medium). Simply because nearly all medium armors suck, and those that don't aren't a significant enough improvement over light armors to spend a feat on.

Simple Weapon Proficiency. Because if you're in one of the few classes that doesn't have it, either you really don't need it, or Martial Weapon Proficiency is a better option.

Enlarge spell. Because, as Logicninja says, if you're losing only because the enemy is outside your friggin' range, you're doing something wrong.

Dodge. Because it is such a slowdown in combat for a relatively minor effect, and people keep forgetting it, and so forth. Yes, it's a useful prerequisite and not a bad effect, but it is terribly written.

I'm curious if people ever take such things as Diehard, Endurance, Tower Shield Prof, or Run. I'm also wondering if Improved Turning is ever worth it, considering most clerics spend their Turns on other things than undead removal.

Also, the list of Epic feats has quite a number that are not exactly spectacular, like the ones that give you +1 to a single ability score, or Improved Sneak Attack (why is that even epic?), or Improved Darkvision (which would be underwhelming even as a regular feat).

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 05:01 PM
Spell Mastery has its uses. And its not like there are a lot of good feat choices for wizards in the first place.

*cough*metamagic*cough* *hack*item creation*hack* *wheeze*trap your spellbook*wheeze*

Spiryt
2007-09-16, 05:06 PM
Run.

Hey, my players had already about 4-5 situations were it could be really handy.( And they'r 4th level, so it counts as "quite often")
Also great for approaching archers really quickly not worring about losing Dex bonus to AC.

Surely, from purely optimization point of view, it's bad but certainly not worst feat ever.

Quellian-dyrae
2007-09-16, 05:20 PM
Hmm...I'm not 100% sure I'd call this the worst non-core feat, but it can't be too far off. Nonlethal Substitution. I suppose it can be useful if you really want to capture an enemy alive (since Hold spells aren't intended for that sort of thing any more, apparently) or protect the scenery...but in all normal combat scenarios you're increasing the spell level by 1 to make the spell weaker. And you've wasted a feat.

Stone Power strikes me as another credible contestant. I guess it could be useful at the low levels maybe...if you're fighting one on one...or something...

Core...even with the low-level thing considered, I'd still vote for Toughness. Not only does it become a wasted feat after a couple of levels, it tries to trick you in wasting even more feats on it.

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-16, 05:21 PM
*cough*metamagic*cough* *hack*item creation*hack* *wheeze*trap your spellbook*wheeze*

Honestly most metamagic isn't worth the level increase. Same with item creation. It's not like gold is hard to find and so long as you can plane shift to Sigil/Union its easy to find what you want.

Is Spell Mastery a good feat? No. But it isn't a bad feat either, mediocre yes.

puppyavenger
2007-09-16, 05:25 PM
skill focus (Knowledge (local:(Your settings biggest, most stable most peacful agricultual area.)
or combat casting.

Dhavaer
2007-09-16, 05:28 PM
Incidentally, Spell Mastery is win if you get your DM to houserule Magelord into usefulness. Or possibly even if you don't, 10th level only gives you the metamagic thing.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-16, 05:32 PM
skill focus (Knowledge (local:(Your settings biggest, most stable most peacful agricultual area.)
or combat casting.

Skill focus: Speak Language. It doesn't do anything!

But for other feats, toughness. 3 HP is half a level gain in HP! Yes!! :smallcool: And that's at low levels too, for a d6 HP and a decent CON. At high levels, not even the d4 will accept toughness. By the time you reach mid levels, it is, to the non-raging barbarian, 1/4 or a level's gain.

Shades of Gray
2007-09-16, 05:32 PM
Skill focus: Jump, climb, swim etc.. who is going to waste a feat on that?

Also I have invented a sub-skill. Perform (evil deeds) :smallconfused: morale boosts for stabbing puppies!:smallconfused:

Kaelik
2007-09-16, 05:35 PM
Three things.

1)Are we considering all the crappy feats that are pre-reqs?

2)Dodge, the most useless thing in existence.

3)Ride by Attack-Wrong. A charge involves you moving to the closest square to you that you can attack from. There are a very few situations in which continuing on in a straight line would not make you pass through the opponents square. Those situations are made even more likely when wielding a reach weapon.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-16, 05:37 PM
Hmm, good point. I just instantly assumed it would give three extra languages, but it only boosts skill checks, not skill levels...If you want extra languages, pick Open Minded (CAdv, XPH). It gives you 5 skill points immediately, which translates to either 2.5 or 5 languages, depending on your class. (HOORJ for bards!)

And I've seen Diehard come up a few times. A cleric took it in a campaign I was in, and was able to use it to turn around a few battles after playing dead. (We consider that a pretty easy thing to do once you hit -5 HP.)

Jack Mann
2007-09-16, 05:56 PM
Armor proficiency (medium). Simply because nearly all medium armors suck, and those that don't aren't a significant enough improvement over light armors to spend a feat on.

To be fair, mithral full plate's pretty nice. But then, most classes that have only light armor proficiency encourage high dexterity, so its usefulness is limited.


*cough*metamagic*cough* *hack*item creation*hack* *wheeze*trap your spellbook*wheeze*

Trapping your spellbook doesn't require a feat.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-16, 06:05 PM
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Kama (see sickle if you don't get it)

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 06:05 PM
But if you still have your spellbook, Spell Mastery's useless (at least in core. There're so many things outside of core that I'm not even going to attempt to judge on that.)

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-16, 06:11 PM
Spell mastery has its uses. I think.:smallfrown:

Ashtar
2007-09-16, 06:16 PM
I wouldn't nominate toughness as a bad feat, it enabled me to have my dwarf wizard (L1) to have 13 hp, equal to the fighter. (d4 + 3 (con 16) + 3 Toughness + 3 Toad)

I would nominate Shield Proficiency, because no one who doesn't get it free will ever pick it up.

BRC
2007-09-16, 06:17 PM
Exotic weapon proficiency: Dwarf

skywalker
2007-09-16, 06:24 PM
Skill Focus(Profession: Pick One)?

Other than that, I'll go with diligent, as well.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-16, 06:27 PM
Skill Focus(Profession: Pick One)?

Indeed. Because I'm pretty sure there are no classes that might use music as a class feature. It could run on the use of Perform.

Somebody should make this class! Call it a musician, or a BARD
or something similar.

Machete
2007-09-16, 06:32 PM
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Kama (see sickle if you don't get it)

Unless you are playing or creating a nonmonk unarmed combat character trying to get Ghayrn's array.



Now THAT is specialized.

skywalker
2007-09-16, 06:36 PM
Indeed. Because I'm pretty sure there are no classes that might use music as a class feature. It could run on the use of Perform.

Somebody should make this class! Call it a musician, or a BARD
or something similar.

What does that have to do with the profession skill?

Collin152
2007-09-16, 07:00 PM
What does that have to do with the profession skill?

Ahem.
"Ha-ha!"

Sha-zam!
Now thatt'll learn ya to read comprehensively, eh?

BCOVertigo
2007-09-16, 07:01 PM
Indeed. Because I'm pretty sure there are no classes that might use music as a class feature. It could run on the use of Perform.

Somebody should make this class! Call it a musician, or a BARD
or something similar.

I think you misread. You must have thought the title said class when in reality it says feat.

....

:smalltongue:

KIDS
2007-09-16, 07:05 PM
I vote for the Sunlight Eyes reserve feat from Complete Mage. Hear this:

As long as you have a [light] descriptor spell prepared, you can gain a darkvision with a range of 10 ft. per spell level held back.

I'm gonna hold back on dominate person sunbeam to have a permament 70 ft. darkvision? Crazy or what? That was one really appalling feat.

Dementrius
2007-09-16, 07:14 PM
I'm gonna have to go with the "Servant of the Fallen" feat in the Lost Empires of Faerun. It lets clerics worship dead gods and actually get spells, just like a normal cleric. It let's you be raised and resurrected, just like everyone else.

It's a feat that let's you be normal. Awesome.:smallannoyed:

BCOVertigo
2007-09-16, 07:15 PM
I'm gonna have to go with the "Servant of the Fallen" feat in the Lost Empires of Faerun. It lets clerics worship dead gods and actually get spells, just like a normal cleric. It let's you be raised and resurrected, just like everyone else.

It's a feat that let's you be normal. Awesome.:smallannoyed:

Wait....can undead and outsiders take that?:smallconfused:

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-16, 07:17 PM
3)Ride by Attack-Wrong. A charge involves you moving to the closest square to you that you can attack from. There are a very few situations in which continuing on in a straight line would not make you pass through the opponents square. Those situations are made even more likely when wielding a reach weapon.
First, go ahead and move through your opponent's square. It's not like a Large horse can't Overrun a Medium opponent.

Second, consider this setup:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/al0013/quickmap-1.png
Charge at the square diagonal from an enemy, attack, and continue moving.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-09-16, 07:32 PM
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: (Gnome Hooked Hammer)

In a long line of sub-par weapons to choose from, you had to choose the silliest of the silly weapons, made by a silly race. How silly.

Roland St. Jude
2007-09-16, 07:40 PM
Skill Focus: Jump. (+2 to Jump Checks)

Because it's completely outclassed by Leap of the Heavens from PHB2 (+5 on Jump checks where you get a running start; DC doesn't double when you don't get a running start).

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-16, 07:40 PM
*Is soundly embarrassed for misreading skywalkers post about 10 posts up*

Wouldn't servant of the fallen just allow you to choose a perfect deity? Think. If there have been thousands, at least one has the exact favored weaopon, alignment, domains and granted power that you need.

ocato
2007-09-16, 07:42 PM
*Is soundly embarrassed for misreading skywalkers post about 10 posts up*

Wouldn't servant of the fallen just allow you to choose a perfect deity? Think. If there have been thousands, at least one has the exact favored weaopon, alignment, domains and granted power that you need.

I think most DMs will work with you to homebrew a pantheon if you're that worked up about it. If your DM demands a feat for you to worship your own customized deity, then there might be trouble. Either that or you want a really over the top god.

Dementrius
2007-09-16, 07:46 PM
Wait....can undead and outsiders take that?:smallconfused:

I don't think RAW say you can't, but that's a 'long-term' strategy! - "I'll take this feat so that when I'm dead, I won't be permanently dead. If I can convince someone to raise me, despite my years of dedicated, unending evil."

...and then Kelemvor and the Inevitables* pay a visit. Unless it's one of my BBEG's that pulls that off to make a reappearance - in which case, it's perfectly fine.:smallbiggrin:

*If I was in a rock band, I would name it this.

Tengu
2007-09-16, 07:48 PM
This will be controversial:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/Vc8c0zrN3b8C17BVveU.html

Vicious Spell. Hoo boy. 1/4 more damage with a spell at the cost of your own HP and a spell slot one level higher? Who'd ever use that?

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 07:52 PM
*Is soundly embarrassed for misreading skywalkers post about 10 posts up*

Wouldn't servant of the fallen just allow you to choose a perfect deity? Think. If there have been thousands, at least one has the exact favored weaopon, alignment, domains and granted power that you need.

If you go dietyless, and just worship concepts, then you get to choose your own domains and alignment. Favored weapons don't matter (unless you chose the War domain. If you really want profiency with that weapon, use the feat on that). Granted powers are given by domain.

Wow, that feat really does suck. It sucks even harder than Greater Skill Focus (Speak Language). This one can screw you over without you even having to take it.


This will be controversial:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/Vc8c0zrN3b8C17BVveU.html

Vicious Spell. Hoo boy. 1/4 more damage with a spell at the cost of your own HP and a spell slot one level higher? Who'd ever use that?

Sometimes you really just gotta kill the BBEG this round. Plus, you get to make a heroic sacrifice for free occasionally!

Bassetking
2007-09-16, 07:54 PM
Weapon Focus: Gauntlet. You're better off with pretty much any other weapon.

I've got a Crusader (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=855878) who says you're wrong.

Dementrius
2007-09-16, 07:54 PM
*Is soundly embarrassed for misreading skywalkers post about 10 posts up*

Wouldn't servant of the fallen just allow you to choose a perfect deity? Think. If there have been thousands, at least one has the exact favored weaopon, alignment, domains and granted power that you need.

Point taken, but considering there's about a billion* living gods in FR, you are spoilt for choice anyway. There's not a lot of turnover, and most of the old ones are recycled into the new forms anyway - e.g. Mystra's had three forms in 10,000 years, Lathander/Amaunator has had two.

* Seriously, I love the FRs, but I'm sure there's gods of Crunchy Breakfast Cereals or Lost Car Keys in there somewhere. The latter has the Divination domain.

Leon
2007-09-16, 07:57 PM
I'm curious if people ever take such things as Endurance.

Yep, very useful it has been in Dark Sun thus far


2 Bad feats:
Natural Spell
Stunning Fist

Dementrius
2007-09-16, 08:01 PM
If you go dietyless, and just worship concepts, then you get to choose your own domains and alignment. Favored weapons don't matter (unless you chose the War domain. If you really want profiency with that weapon, use the feat on that). Granted powers are given by domain.

Wow, that feat really does suck. It sucks even harder than Greater Skill Focus (Speak Language). This one can screw you over without you even having to take it.

Exactly! Before this feat existed:

Player "I want to be a cleric of Bhaal"
DM "No problems - you can choose from the Evil, Destruction, Hate or 'Having Children for Plot Purposes' domains"

After the feat existed:

Player "I want to be a cleric of Bhaal"
DM "You'd better spend your only feat at first level on SOTF, otherwise no spells for you!"
Player "I can see why no-one worships him anymore. Who's the next most murdery god?"

Machete
2007-09-16, 08:01 PM
The Lichloved feat. What were the designers THINKING!? I suppose that is why Zykons new hire was flirting so much...

Tengu
2007-09-16, 08:04 PM
Sometimes you really just gotta kill the BBEG this round. Plus, you get to make a heroic sacrifice for free occasionally!

A damage-dealing spell of one level higher will usually do more than 125% damage of a spell one level lower - and you don't hurt yourself casting it.

Kaelik
2007-09-16, 08:04 PM
First, go ahead and move through your opponent's square. It's not like a Large horse can't Overrun a Medium opponent.

Second, consider this setup:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/al0013/quickmap-1.png
Charge at the square diagonal from an enemy, attack, and continue moving.

Ummm... That was my point? I was correcting the other people on this thread who said that Ride By Attack could not be used without moving into your opponents square.

TheLogman
2007-09-16, 08:04 PM
Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving)? Its only useful for making 1 golem thats terrible, and even that requires a stretch, since it really requires a Weaving check, instead of a Basketweaving check. Skill Focus: Craft (Waterclocks) is extremely useless, since it involves the creation of an item that's useless, and nobody wants. Diligent is pretty useless, since very very very few people use Decipher Script or Appraise.

Kaelik
2007-09-16, 08:06 PM
Natural Spell

You know this is about useless feats right? Not "really good at making three dump stats" feats.

Hurlbut
2007-09-16, 08:07 PM
The Lichloved feat. What were the designers THINKING!? I suppose that is why Zykons new hire was flirting so much...What's the word I'm looking for? *rummage through his sources* Aha, necrophilia!

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 08:12 PM
A damage-dealing spell of one level higher will usually do more than 125% damage of a spell one level lower - and you don't hurt yourself casting it.

Acane Thesis/Easy Metamagic/ Practiced Metamagic, and it's the highest level slot that you have available. Admittedly, you'd only use this one if you could apply metamagic on the fly.

Leon
2007-09-16, 08:15 PM
You know this is about useless feats right? Not "really good at making three dump stats" feats.

Yes, i rate it as a Useless Feat - its the root of a lot of druid hate and leads crazyness

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 08:17 PM
Yes, i rate it as a Useless Feat - its the root of a lot of druid hate and leads crazyness
But it does that because it's so useful. What definition are you using for 'useless' that it's capable of overlapping with 'so good not taking it is a voluntary self-nerf'?

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 08:24 PM
But it does that because it's so useful. What definition are you using for 'useless' that it's capable of overlapping with 'so good not taking it is a voluntary self-nerf'?

Maybe the part where the DM punches you in the face for taking it?

Drider
2007-09-16, 08:31 PM
improvised weapon prof (own poop)
The only PCs who would bother are Hadozee, and Monkeysor rangers and druids

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-16, 08:34 PM
There are so many. Pretty bad core feats "usually" only picked in order to qualify for a PRC:

Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Combat Casting (Usually only taken to qualify for a PRC instead of the more useful Skill Focus Concentration), Diligent, Deceitful, Great Fortitude, Greater Spell Focus Divination, Investigator, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Persuasive, Skill Focus: Appraise, Balance, Bluff, CLIMB, Craft, DECIPHER SCRIPT, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Gather Information, HANDLE ANIMAL, HEAL, Intimidate, JUMP, Listen, KNOWLEGE, Open Lock, Perform, Prefession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Spot, Survival, SWIM, Snatch Arrows, Stealthy, Tumble and USE ROPE.


IMO what would these feats useful is if they made entering into a PRC earlier than normal by fulfilling some of those skill rank requirements. Instead of needing a rank of 8 in a skill a rank of 5 with the Skill Focus would also meet the requirements.

Leon
2007-09-16, 08:35 PM
But it does that because it's so useful. What definition are you using for 'useless' that it's capable of overlapping with 'so good not taking it is a voluntary self-nerf'?

what im using is that i think its a bad feat, as per listed in the OP.
My View is: A Druid does not need this feat, its a crutch that many seem to rely on too much, the class has worked just fine without it in the past and hopefully it will disapear into the mist with a new incarnation of D&D (particiuly if Shapeshift is a inclination of whats to come)

Leicontis
2007-09-16, 08:51 PM
Combat Casting has its virtues. First among these is the fact that Skill Focus: Concentration is not on the Wizard or Psion lists of bonus feats. It's not like defensive casting is rare for some characters, and some of us need our general feats for stuff like PrC requirements.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-09-16, 09:07 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language is usually the winner of this contest.

I've actually been in a game where that's actually been of use. It ended up being more or less for roleplay/humor value, but it was used nevertheless. We had a character who was too dumb to speak, so he basically used his few skill points on that so he could speak a few syllables. Quite frankly it was hilarious.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-16, 09:39 PM
Don't Diss Endurance.


Also, you may sleep in light or medium armor without becoming fatigued.

Mythral fullplate that you don't have to take off at night.

Kaelik
2007-09-16, 09:44 PM
I've actually been in a game where that's actually been of use. It ended up being more or less for roleplay/humor value, but it was used nevertheless. We had a character who was too dumb to speak, so he basically used his few skill points on that so he could speak a few syllables. Quite frankly it was hilarious.

Note that this is the Skill Focus feat we are talking about, not the skill itself. Since speaking languages can be quite useful.

Cogwheel
2007-09-16, 09:47 PM
Skill focus: Perform (jumping into a giant bowl of custard)/ (one man band)

There, top that:smalltongue:.

Talya
2007-09-16, 09:50 PM
Armor proficiency (medium). Simply because nearly all medium armors suck, and those that don't aren't a significant enough improvement over light armors to spend a feat on.


Armor Proficiency (medium) lets you wear Mithral Full Plate.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-09-16, 09:56 PM
Note that this is the Skill Focus feat we are talking about, not the skill itself. Since speaking languages can be quite useful.

granted, but I believe he still had to take the feat since he couldn't speak otherwise. His intelligence score was too low.

SadisticFishing
2007-09-16, 09:58 PM
Ride-by-charge. Quite literally does not do anything. Yay.

Orzel
2007-09-16, 10:02 PM
One DM of mine added fluency to the Speak Language skill and we got scammed by a NPC with Skill Focus: Speak Language: Dwarf. We were very angry and shocked.

Peregrine
2007-09-16, 10:23 PM
Ride-by Attack does work, you can do it with a reach weapon, etc.

That depends. The charge rules are a little bit inconsistent with themselves. They say first, "You must move ... directly toward the designated opponent." Then they say, "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." Now in the pretty PHB pictures of a diagonal charge, these are one and the same. But in any situation such as that illustrated by Nerd-o-rama, the closest square is not on your direct path towards the opponent.

Again, I'm simply saying the Ride-by Attack feat, as written, is buggy. My point is that I don't think bugged feats, like RBA or Skill Focus (Speak Language), should be in the running for "worst". :smallsmile:

And speaking of Nerd-o-rama's post...

First, go ahead and move through your opponent's square. It's not like a Large horse can't Overrun a Medium opponent.

I'm pretty sure you can't do that. An overrun is a standard action, and I'm pretty sure the charge counts as your full-round action for the mount as well as the rider. I could, of course, be thoroughly wrong there: I'm often left wondering whose action counts for what when you're mounted.


Trapping your spellbook doesn't require a feat.

A misconception, one notably stated in Logic Ninja's famed thread. Crafting "magic device traps" requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat (DMG, p.67, or Designing Traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps#designingMagicTraps) in the SRD). A magic device trap is any magic trap that isn't itself the effect of a single spell, like fire trap.


Exotic Weapon Proficiency: (Gnome Hooked Hammer)

In a long line of sub-par weapons to choose from, you had to choose the silliest of the silly weapons, made by a silly race. How silly.

But it's actually one of the best double weapons... for a start, it does two damage types, which is a slight edge over every other double weapon except the urgrosh. Its damage is on par with those weapons too, with 1d8/x3 at the hammer end, and its piercing end does 1d6/x4 (strictly better than 1d6/x3 for the urgrosh. And it's a tripping weapon. In the "weapon points" school of design, a gnome hooked hammer outclasses every other double weapon.

Of course, it's still an Exotic Weapon Proficiency, thus a poor choice, thus you'd probably never use a hooked hammer unless you were a gnome, in which case you're doing Small damage rather than Medium as used for the above comparisons. But every other double-weapon EWP is worse. :smalltongue:

vrellum
2007-09-16, 10:24 PM
Yep, very useful it has been in Dark Sun thus far


2 Bad feats:
Natural Spell
Stunning Fist

Are you using the more recent definition of "bad" where it means "really, really good"? Especially natural spell.

Hmm, must have taken a break. I read some of your replies above, so... nevermind.

I do agree though, I hope natural spell doesn't make it into 4th edition (unless there are some major changes).

Leon
2007-09-16, 10:30 PM
Are you using the more recent definition of "bad" where it means "really, really good"? Especially natural spell.

No the definition as set down in the dictionary

See above posts for why i regard it as a "worst feat"

tannish2
2007-09-16, 11:12 PM
improved initiative. i cant tell you the number of times a high initiative has ****ed me up, and why is this bad. why someone would take a feat to make this HIGHER i have no idea. barring the use of mind altering substances.

Collin152
2007-09-16, 11:16 PM
Umm... you are aware higher initiative goes first, right?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-16, 11:22 PM
Y'know Collin, tannish's post isn't even reading on my sarcasm-detectors. Not even a little bit. Nope.

Ted_Stryker
2007-09-16, 11:23 PM
Enlarge spell. Because, as Logicninja says, if you're losing only because the enemy is outside your friggin' range, you're doing something wrong.
Ooh, and then there's Sudden Enlarge, which has Enlarge Spell as a prerequisite, from Complete Mage. It's a core/non-core set of bookends of craptacularity.

Thoughtbot360
2007-09-16, 11:30 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language is usually the winner of this contest.

Nailed it!

I seriously posted as soon as I read that, screw the other posts!

Paragon Badger
2007-09-16, 11:32 PM
You CAN also delay iniative, tannish... if you want to react to an enemy's attack or something... (though I always preffered to make them react to me. ...stabbing them in the face. :smallamused: )

Edit: SARCASM DOES NOT COMPUTE. CANNOT PROCESS TEXT LADEN WITH TONE AND/OR EMPHASIS.

Leon
2007-09-17, 01:02 AM
improved initiative. i cant tell you the number of times a high initiative has ****ed me up, and why is this bad. why someone would take a feat to make this HIGHER i have no idea. barring the use of mind altering substances.

generaly its good to go 1st to get the drop on something but there are times when you need to see what they do first, Holding a action or reading to counter are the most common ways of changing the count
ToB brings in a couple of new ways i think with White Raven manuveres

Different type of Initiaive, but gee i'd love it if my Miner could be higher than last on the count (the down side to a Agility of 16 and wearing mail)

Zavia/GenX
2007-09-17, 01:43 AM
Skill Focus: Craft (TrapMaking)

Have u guys every seen the time needed to make one of em buggers?

ocato
2007-09-17, 01:48 AM
Skill Focus: Craft (TrapMaking)

Have you guys ever seen the time needed to make one of them buggers?

Tucker's Kobolds would disagree.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 01:51 AM
Hey, I'm getting big into the stronghold building scene. I'm gonna have to hire a brilliant rogue to build me some good traps every here and there. Especially since at the moment it would only take a stiff breeze from an invasion force to completely level everything I have.

Yeril
2007-09-17, 02:21 AM
Im just saying but shouldn't a ride-BY-attack be what is says? a attack that involves riding BY not riding AT

like this..

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q70/Yerileikre/ride-by.png

I mean a charge has to be in a straight line and it has to be a melee attack, so whats wrong with this?

edit: as for worst feat Ill go with combat casting.

seriosly +4 on concentration checks when casting defensivly or +3 on ALL concentration checks with skill focus?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 02:44 AM
To be fair, mithral full plate's pretty nice.
That would be heavy armor. Classes that aren't even allowed medium armor normally are not going to burn two feats for heavy armor.


Trapping your spellbook doesn't require a feat.
No, but it provides a reason for not needing Spell Mastery.

Oh, speaking of more exotic feats, I found the BoVD vile feats to be extremely crappy. Yes, they do have flavor, but they encourage gimping yourself for the flavor. Stormwind fallacy, anyone?

No, wait, I just thought of the absolute worst feat :smallbiggrin: in most campaigns, for most characters, you really do not want the "Sleeps with the DM" feat from the Munchkin handbook. Guess what the prerequisites are :smalltongue:

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-17, 03:01 AM
That would be heavy armor. Classes that aren't even allowed medium armor normally are not going to burn two feats for heavy armor.


:


Mithril Full Plate is treated as a Medium Armor DMG page 284.

Leon
2007-09-17, 04:41 AM
Skill Focus: Craft (TrapMaking)

Have u guys every seen the time needed to make one of em buggers?

Combat Trapsmith gets that as a Bonus feat at lvl 2



Mithril Full Plate is treated as a Medium Armor DMG page 284.

Also Races of the Wild p168

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-17, 08:46 AM
Track. Unless you get it as a Ranger.

Endurance is another Ranger Bonus Feat. It's crappy, but I think it's a pre-requisite for Lasting Life, along with Enduring Life. Both from Libris Mortis. The latter lets you delay the effects of Negative Levels until after Con mod rounds. The former lets you remove 1 Negative Level per round. Infinite retries(at least, until the 24 hour period has passed).

Telonius
2007-09-17, 09:47 AM
Worst feat ever? It really depends on the character class. Any Metamagic feat for a non-caster is up there.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 10:26 AM
Winner for me -- Skill Focus: Speak Language.

Honorable Mentions -- Most Exotic Weapon Proficiencies. The double weapons just add another feat to the Feat Sink of two-weapon fighting. The majority of the remainder of the Exotic Weapons are useless or annoying.

Worst Feat that Doesn't Exist -- Minimize Spell

Larrin
2007-09-17, 10:29 AM
Dirty Fighting, full-attack action, one attack, +1d4 damge.

you can move, you can't swing more than once, and all you get is 1-4 more damage. Maybe worth it at lvl 1 or 3 but after that, no one will find this of any use.....

http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Dirty_Fighting,all

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-17, 10:31 AM
Worst feat evah, published on dragon:

Weapon Bond: you exchange levels, Permanently, to boost a wep. 1 level per +2 enhancement, to be expended anyway you like, and you can change the abilities of the weap every time you take the feat. If that ain't the worst feat ever, it's joint first. Who wants to make a character WEAKER? at least skill focus language doesn't give bad thing, it's just useless.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-17, 11:14 AM
Dirty Fighting, full-attack action, one attack, +1d4 damge.

you can move, you can't swing more than once, and all you get is 1-4 more damage. Maybe worth it at lvl 1 or 3 but after that, no one will find this of any use.....

The way I heard it explained it was for low BAB characters. I guess it might be useful if you wanted to add another 1-4 damage after you cast your Quickened Shocking Grasp or something, but WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS ALIGNED WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT AS A CASTER?:smallfurious:

Duke of URL
2007-09-17, 11:32 AM
Yes, i rate it as a Useless Feat - its the root of a lot of druid hate and leads crazyness

There's a simple nerf for Natural Spell -- instead of automatically applying to any spell, treat it as a +1 spell level metamagic feat, i.e., you have to prepare it to be used in alternate forms (though you could still use it in your natural form) by using a higher-level slot. It fulfills the original purpose of the feat without it being overpowering.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 03:12 PM
Track. Unless you get it as a Ranger.
I disagree. This gives you the ability to perform an action that would be otherwise impossible (namely, tracking someone/something) and it scales as you gain levels (you track better as you get Survival ranks). These two things seem to be the defining characteristics of "Good" feats.

Of course, your DM probably won't require your party to track anything if nobody can, but that really isn't the point.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-17, 03:17 PM
Well then Improved Bull Rush would be a bad choice as well. Bull rushing doesn't scale with level, only strength, size and stability.

Chronos
2007-09-17, 06:23 PM
I think there's a distinction which needs to be made, here. Skill Focus: Speak Language isn't a feat, it's a specific application of a feat. The feat is just Skill Focus, and there are other skills which it might be useful to get Skill Focus in. Likewise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kama) isn't a feat, and there are a few exotic weapons it might be worth gaining proficiency in (Bastard Sword, maybe, or Whip, for a few specialized builds). So you can't really say that Skill Focus (useless skill) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency is the most useless feat. You could, however, still say that Diligent or Combat Casting is the most useless, since those both have the skill(s) they enhance hardwired into the feat.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 09:04 PM
What about Psithief (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Psithief,CS) from the Complete Scoundrel? It's not a bad feat on its own, though multiclassing causes quite a few problems for it. What makes it bad is the Magic/Psionics comment in the Spellthief, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050107a) which appears to make the feat obscelete.

Collin152
2007-09-17, 09:30 PM
Y'know Collin, tannish's post isn't even reading on my sarcasm-detectors. Not even a little bit. Nope.

Nice work Dan, but keep those scanner pointed dead ahead, I have a hunch there's someone with even less noticeable sarcasm up there. I mean, smiley sarcasm? What were those poor martians thinking.
Woah, woah, woah! Divert scanner power to shields! Divert energy from the lights into the weapons grid, excluding the control room! Full thrust ahead!
For reasonably understandable posts! Kyaaaaaaaaah!

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 09:35 PM
Egads! My sarcasm detectors have dropped the proverbial ball once again.

Collin152
2007-09-17, 09:37 PM
I don't follow. What's that phrase even mean anyways?
I'll call suicide hotline and see what they think.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 09:46 PM
"Egads!" is a euphomism for "Oh Gods!" which has dropped out of use in recent times since it packs so little of a punch*.

"Dropping the ball" is, I believe, a sports-based term for fumbling or otherwise screwing up. The "ball" could be said to be proverbial by the pretentious since the "dropping the ball" phrase sees so much use.

"Sarcasm detectors" are fairly straight-forward.

*"Packing a punch" is a term derived from boxing, I believe, referring to having the capacity to shock or startle.

And Sarcasm-Detectors are still down so I'll act like that was a genuine question whether it was or not.

Collin152
2007-09-17, 09:52 PM
Eh? people don't say Egads anymore? Consarnit, I need to get with the times, eh wot?

Oh, yes, worst feat. Toughness. Those who grub HP have bigger feats to fry, and those who don't need it do too, come to think of it.

Yeygresh
2007-09-17, 11:44 PM
Improved Toughness(Comp.War) is not bad, actually; gives you +1hp per level, and scales with you.

For the most horrible Core feat ever.. I say Improved Sunder. "Oh noes! He has a +6 [AWESOMEWEAPON]! Lets Sunder it!". Great.

Non-Core? I say Exotic Armor Mastery: Chainmail Bikini (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4686).

Collin152
2007-09-18, 12:10 AM
Yes, what better way to win an encounter then removing a key piece of loot?

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-18, 12:46 AM
Track is an important part of the 1)Kill Monster 2)??? 3)Profit! Scenario.
Without track, you get the above, instead of 2)Follow monster's tracks back to lair full of loot.

Krursk
2007-09-18, 06:00 AM
I'm not sure about other people, but Toughness? woot. 3 hp. Or I could take a feat that makes me killy.

Ranis
2007-09-18, 07:11 AM
No the definition as set down in the dictionary

See above posts for why i regard it as a "worst feat"

Okay, I don't do this very often, but dude, you're just wrong. Natural Spell is basically Druid-standard, and you saying it's bad because it makes a class good is like saying that the fighter sucks because all he gets is bonus feats.

Seriously, no. Moving on.

Jack Mann
2007-09-18, 09:13 AM
Okay, I don't do this very often, but dude, you're just wrong. Natural Spell is basically Druid-standard, and you saying it's bad because it makes a class good is like saying that the fighter sucks because all he gets is bonus feats.

Seriously, no. Moving on.

It's bad because it makes the druid too good. It shouldn't be allowed because of that reason. However, it doesn't really belong in this thread, as this is more for ineffectual feats than poorly thought-out feats.

Thrawn183
2007-09-18, 09:22 AM
Brachiation always seemed like a waste to me.

Though I would have to put Item Familiar up there with Natural Spell.

Leon
2007-09-18, 09:58 AM
Okay, I don't do this very often, but dude, you're just wrong. Natural Spell is basically Druid-standard, and you saying it's bad because it makes a class good is like saying that the fighter sucks because all he gets is bonus feats.

Seriously, no. Moving on.

No, im right.

This thread is a discussion of those feats that are worst, ergo this is my contribution to what i belive should rate highly

Ranis
2007-09-18, 10:30 AM
It's bad because it makes the druid too good.

That's really, really dumb. Natural Spell is an insanely good feat.

Moving on.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-18, 10:41 AM
No, im right.

This thread is a discussion of those feats that are worst, ergo this is my contribution to what i belive should rate highly

I believe most people on the this board are interpreting the "Worst" feats differently along the lines of being a very "Ineffective" feat mechanically.

OP Saph used the Diligent feat as a standard for "Worst" feat.

It appears you are interpreting Natural Spell as the Worst feat because it is a "Very Strong" feat mechanically for the Druid class which is already a strong class.

Jack Mann
2007-09-18, 10:44 AM
That's really, really dumb. Natural Spell is an insanely good feat.

Moving on.

Exactly. It's overpowered, much like divine metamagic. The druid is already a stronger melee presence than the fighter or barbarian without it. Natural spell just increases the abuse, since it means the druid now doesn't even have to choose whether to throw spells around or be a giant bear.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 10:47 AM
Worst means different things:
Worst for a character?
Worst for game balance?
Worst for game play?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-18, 11:05 AM
Worst means different things:
Worst for a character?
Worst for game balance?
Worst for game play?

Actually, the OP mentioned "What we're looking for here is feats that not only can be bad, but are so utterly, awfully sucktastic that they're always bad in just about every conceivable situation."

kjones
2007-09-18, 05:06 PM
I can think of several situations right off the top of my head where Natural Spell would be useful, so it does not fall under the category of "most useless".

Oh, and Brachiation gets my vote. I had a player who thought it was the awesomest idea ever, until I pointed out to them that the nearest forest was hundreds of miles away and across an ocean. (Island game.)

Scorpina
2007-09-18, 06:30 PM
Well yeah, but that's situational. In a game that takes place entirely in a forest that'd be hella cool.

Chronos
2007-09-18, 08:00 PM
For the most horrible Core feat ever.. I say Improved Sunder. "Oh noes! He has a +6 [AWESOMEWEAPON]! Lets Sunder it!". Great.Sunder doesn't have to be used against a valuable piece of loot. You can (attempt to) sunder anything that your target is wearing or carrying, other than body armor. Consider, for instance, sundering an enemy cleric's holy symbol. Even a fancy holy symbol like a reliquary or a Destruction one is still pretty cheap, for most adventurers, and it's not like you'd be using your enemy's symbol, anyway... But sundering it shuts down a great many of the cleric's spells.

Or go after the wizard's spell component pouch. Any valuable components like gems won't be lost, but they'll be scattered all over the floor, costing the wizard time to pick them up. And again, it seriously hampers the wizard's spellcasting abilities.

And, of course, you can also use it on valuable loot which you can't use anyway. If your opponent has an Unholy Angelbane sword, and everyone in your party is good, well, good riddance to it.

TO_Incognito
2007-09-18, 08:55 PM
For non-core, Celestial Summoning Specialist from Planar Handbook. It literally does nothing at all but remove a penalty that has almost certainly never penalized any D&D character, ever. It simply doesn't have any actual mechanical effect, so it beats any feat that doesn't actually weaken a character.

bingo_bob
2007-09-18, 08:58 PM
No, no, there's worse. That still removes a penalty, insignificant though it may seem.

There's one feat, I don't remember what, that I've heard of, that grants monks the ability to treat their unarmed strike as a light weapon for sunder purposes.

Their unarmed strikes were already light weapons.

Ranis
2007-09-18, 10:50 PM
Exactly. It's overpowered, much like divine metamagic. The druid is already a stronger melee presence than the fighter or barbarian without it. Natural spell just increases the abuse, since it means the druid now doesn't even have to choose whether to throw spells around or be a giant bear.

You're only supporting my case here, Mann. Natural Spell is a fantastic feat, and this is the worst feat thread. Problem.

Collin152
2007-09-18, 11:22 PM
You're only supporting my case here, Mann. Natural Spell is a fantastic feat, and this is the worst feat thread. Problem.

Clearly, as long as you do not agree on what consitutes a canidate for being "worst" in this particuler thread, you can not come to a victor in this debate. Therefore, I propose a battle of wits. You shall play a card game of my own invention, without knowing all the rules. I shall reveal each rule one at a time every time you make a move, until you can formulate a strategy and emerge the victor.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-19, 12:21 AM
No, no, there's worse. That still removes a penalty, insignificant though it may seem.

There's one feat, I don't remember what, that I've heard of, that grants monks the ability to treat their unarmed strike as a light weapon for sunder purposes.

Their unarmed strikes were already light weapons.
And why would a monk want his unarmed strike to count as a light weapon, instead of one-handed? Maybe you read it wrong, or the company that wrote it was not paying attention to the rules.

Leon
2007-09-19, 05:46 AM
You're only supporting my case here, Mann. Natural Spell is a fantastic feat, and this is the worst feat thread. Problem.

Only for you.


Actually, the OP mentioned "What we're looking for here is feats that not only can be bad, but are so utterly, awfully sucktastic that they're always bad in just about every conceivable situation."

and this is one of those


I believe most people on the this board are interpreting the "Worst" feats differently along the lines of being a very "Ineffective" feat mechanically.

OP Saph used the Diligent feat as a standard for "Worst" feat.

It appears you are interpreting Natural Spell as the Worst feat because it is a "Very Strong" feat mechanically for the Druid class which is already a strong class.

Covered by Jack Mann, furthered by me here

The class feature Wildshape is a useful and powerul tool in the right situations - it is something that you should have to consider using at the best times rather than sitting around as a bear all day getting the overbalancing aspects of Raw Primal power and Full casting together.


That's really, really dumb. Natural Spell is an insanely good feat.

Moving on.

Thats just your thoughts on it - you seem unable to accpet others views and why they belive its not good

Ranis
2007-09-19, 06:48 AM
Exactly. It's overpowered, much like divine metamagic. The druid is already a stronger melee presence than the fighter or barbarian without it. Natural spell just increases the abuse, since it means the druid now doesn't even have to choose whether to throw spells around or be a giant bear.

So what's a good feat supposed to do, make classes suck more?

leperkhaun
2007-09-19, 06:52 AM
Mounted is fun.

halfling rider Clawfoot mount from ebberon. advance it a couple HD, have it take fleet of foot. Makes for fun.

Anyway i have to say either the skill focus feats or the feats such as agile.

Jack Mann
2007-09-19, 07:47 AM
So what's a good feat supposed to do, make classes suck more?

No, a good feat makes a character better. Just not to that degree. To use an extreme example, a feat that made a character invulnerable to all forms of damage ever would not be a good feat. It would be an incredibly powerful feat, and a character would be much stronger with it, but it would not be a good feat, because it unbalances the game. Same with natural spell. It's just plain too strong. It's a bad feat from a game design standpoint. No, it's not a useless feat. But the problem is that it goes too far in the other direction.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-19, 07:55 AM
Can we just drop it already? Natural Spell does not fall under the OP's definition of "Worst Feat". Is it unbalanced? Probably(IMO, I'd make it a spontaneous metamagic, so that you'd burn a higher slot if you wanted to cast a spell you'd prepared. Or maybe make Druid's spontaneous casters, with the commensurate limited spells known). Is it so bad that you'd never want to take it? Hell no. Ergo, not qualified to run for "Worst Feat in D&D".

Leon
2007-09-19, 09:54 AM
S'Funny all the song and dance over one of my choices and nary a wispher on the other one

Tehnar
2007-09-19, 12:37 PM
I disagree with some choices, while they might not be powergaming feats they are a good choice:

Track: Taken by any class that has survival as a class skill makes it worth its while if you spend at least a part of the time out in the wild. I took it as a first lvl feat for my druid and never regretted it.

Improved initiative is good, very good. Being first or at least on top will give you time to depending on your class: sneak attack, buff, CC, move to a better position, etc. You can always delay if needed.

Stunning fist is good if you are a monk, so so if you are not (but still some type of melee). Bad things happen to stunned people.

WorthingSon
2007-09-19, 01:27 PM
I'm surprising noone mentioned Monkey Grip yet; I'm not going to nominate it, but it's commonly considered as completely worthless.

Are you kidding? Monkey Grip is a key to the MOST Broke Melee Path EVER! 2 feats (Monkey Grip and Exotic Weapon Prof (Heavy Bastard Sword) yields a weapon that deals damage as Colossal weapon for a large creature! You can have a 4d8 weapon damage with 2 feats as a MEDIUM CREATURE!!!

For those of you who want to see how:

Bastard Sword - 2 handed w/o prof.
Monkey Grip - +1 size catagorey (thus large for a medium creature)
Heavy Bastard Sword - Heavy weapons require exotic prof. but yield damage as 1 size larger
Exotic Weapon Prof. (Bastard Sword) - allows one to wield Bastard Sword 1 handed, or a bastard sword one size larger two handed

Thus EWP(Heavy Bastard Sword) yields 2 size cat's and Monkey grip yet another! You now have a 5 foot tall player with a 10 foot long solid gold sword that does 4d8 damage + Str * 1.5. throw some power attack in there and maybe a cleave or two...

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 01:37 PM
Are you kidding? Monkey Grip is a key to the MOST Broke Melee Path EVER! 2 feats (Monkey Grip and Exotic Weapon Prof (Heavy Bastard Sword) yields a weapon that deals damage as Colossal weapon for a large creature! You can have a 4d8 weapon damage with 2 feats as a MEDIUM CREATURE!!!

For those of you who want to see how:

Bastard Sword - 2 handed w/o prof.
Monkey Grip - +1 size catagorey (thus large for a medium creature)
Heavy Bastard Sword - Heavy weapons require exotic prof. but yield damage as 1 size larger
Exotic Weapon Prof. (Bastard Sword) - allows one to wield Bastard Sword 1 handed, or a bastard sword one size larger two handed

Thus EWP(Heavy Bastard Sword) yields 2 size cat's and Monkey grip yet another! You now have a 5 foot tall player with a 10 foot long solid gold sword that does 4d8 damage + Str * 1.5. throw some power attack in there and maybe a cleave or two...

First off...point out exactly where you're getting this 'heavy' property from. I'll eat my hat (or at least chew on it a bit) if it isn't either homebrewed or from a third party source.

Second, monkey grip will only allow you (as a medium creature) to wield weapons sized for a large creature without an 'increase in effort'. Heavy property or no, if it isn't sized for a large creature, monkey grip simply does not apply. So you can use a large bastard sword in one hand (with proficiency) you may not use a huge bastard sword at all. That's how the rules work.

Thirdly, if monkey grip did let you wield a huge bastard sword in two hands, you'd be taking a -4 penalty to attack. That's worth 8 points of power attack damage, or more, just on it's own. And you cannot get rid of this penalty even if you'd really, really like to without switching weapons entirely.

Your average damage with a 4d8 weapon is 18. Your average damage for 3d6 (two handed sword with 'heavy') is 10.5, plus 8 from power attacking for 4 totals to 18.5.

And you've saved a feat. Also, you can up or down the damage/to hit tradeoff from power attack, you can multiply it greatly with leap attack or frenzied berserker, you can take the penalty completely away with shock trooper, and you're not stuck with one weapon.

Spiryt
2007-09-19, 01:54 PM
Speaking shortly, Monkey grip should be released in Complete Crap splatbook along with Samurai and some other stuff.

But what's more, it is idiotic not only mechanicaly - probably few things in fantasy annoy more than 7foot sword in hands of some Cloud.

I would say that this is worst feat in D&D

WorthingSon
2007-09-19, 07:31 PM
First off...point out exactly where you're getting this 'heavy' property from. I'll eat my hat (or at least chew on it a bit) if it isn't either homebrewed or from a third party source.


In MoF, increased damage dice is for heavy material (like gold, platinum, or, why not uranium), and heavy weapons are exotic weapons; thus requiring a specific feat for each heavy weapon.

Taking the feat to become proficient with a bastard sword allows you to wield it one hand. Meaning that you could use a larger one with no problem. 1d10 becomes 2d8. If it's of a special material then that goes to 3d8. A large character can wield a weapon one size category heavier - meaning 4d8. If you feel like taking the penalty then you can use 6d8 at a -2 or 8d8 at -4. You cant go any further than that because you can only wield the weapon 2 categories beyond your normal grip. If you can find other ways to raise the size it goes up as such: 12d8, 16d8, 24d8, 32d8 so on and so forth.

Hot sauce for your hat?

horseboy
2007-09-19, 07:43 PM
Speaking shortly, Monkey grip should be released in Complete Crap splatbook along with Samurai and some other stuff.

But what's more, it is idiotic not only mechanicaly - probably few things in fantasy annoy more than 7foot sword in hands of some Cloud.

I would say that this is worst feat in D&D

Think that was bad, I saw a fighter take monkey grip AND troll blooded. Good thing I had a druid or else we'd all have been dead. :smallamused:

kjones
2007-09-19, 08:58 PM
Clearly, as long as you do not agree on what consitutes a canidate for being "worst" in this particuler thread, you can not come to a victor in this debate. Therefore, I propose a battle of wits. You shall play a card game of my own invention, without knowing all the rules. I shall reveal each rule one at a time every time you make a move, until you can formulate a strategy and emerge the victor.

Can this battle of the wits involve iocane powder in some way?

martyboy74
2007-09-19, 09:01 PM
Can this battle of the wits involve iocane powder in some way?

Shh! That rule hasn't been revealed yet!

No. Sorry.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-19, 10:58 PM
I'd just like to point out how utterly ridiculous it is to have a sword made out of solid gold.

Kaelik
2007-09-19, 11:05 PM
I'd just like to point out how utterly ridiculous it is to have a sword made out of solid gold.

I have no idea where this "Heavy material" is coming from, but if it did work it would only help with bludgeoning weapons. Since Gold swords are soft and don't cut. Plus, I'm pretty sure that he is making an adding mistake by saying that EWP (Bastard Sword) allows you to wield a Medium Bastard sword in one hand and therefore grants the ability to wield a Large Bastard Sword to a Medium creature in two hands (Something it does not allow.)

Dhavaer
2007-09-19, 11:16 PM
I have no idea where this "Heavy material" is coming from, but if it did work it would only help with bludgeoning weapons. Since Gold swords are soft and don't cut. Plus, I'm pretty sure that he is making an adding mistake by saying that EWP (Bastard Sword) allows you to wield a Medium Bastard sword in one hand and therefore grants the ability to wield a Large Bastard Sword to a Medium creature in two hands (Something it does not allow.)

Heavy weapons are in Magic of Faerun. A large gold bastard sword deals 4d6 damage, and can be wielded in one hand. +7 damage and -2 attack isn't an awful way to spend two feats, but it's not really great.

Helgraf
2007-09-19, 11:19 PM
Hmm... I think Skill Focus (Speak Language) might step over the line from "stupidly useless" to "genuinely pointless, therefore shouldn't exist". The rules don't explicitly bar its existence, but I think it's obvious from context that the Skill Focus feat should not be allowed to be taken with Speak Language. "The Speak Language skill doesn't work like other skills", and all that. It's the sort of thing that would probably pop up in the FAQ if Wizards thought there was any need to spell this out. (A possible house rule would let that +3 translate to 3 ranks in Speak Language... that would be useful.)

In other words, I reckon that this contest should only be between feats that work exactly as intended, yet are still weak or useless. Otherwise, you could also put up Ride-by Attack... which, as written, is almost unusable. You can't keep moving in a straight line after using a charge action, because that would mean entering the opponent's space. Unless you dropped the opponent or otherwise rendered it helpless, you can't move through its space. I think the FAQ says something on this...

Actually, Ride By Attack is two things - A charge _Followed_ by a single move. The single move doesn't have to be in a straight line.

Collin152
2007-09-19, 11:53 PM
Can this battle of the wits involve iocane powder in some way?

i can't tell you that. Even so... I wouldst verily dvise against licking the cards. You know, just to be on the safe side. *shifty eyes*

TranquilRage
2007-09-20, 06:42 AM
Improvised Weapon Prof (Plot Hook)
or
Bonus Feat (Spend a feat to get a feat, and yes i made it up)

Kurald Galain
2007-09-20, 07:19 AM
Bonus Feat (Spend a feat to get a feat, and yes i made it up)

Yes, but Improved Bonus Feat lets you pick two...

WorthingSon
2007-09-20, 07:31 AM
I have no idea where this "Heavy material" is coming from, but if it did work it would only help with bludgeoning weapons. Since Gold swords are soft and don't cut. Plus, I'm pretty sure that he is making an adding mistake by saying that EWP (Bastard Sword) allows you to wield a Medium Bastard sword in one hand and therefore grants the ability to wield a Large Bastard Sword to a Medium creature in two hands (Something it does not allow.)

As I said already Heavy Weapons are from MoF.

EWP (Bastard Sword) grants the ability to wield a bastard sword one-handed for your size. PHB pg. 113 gives the details for wielding a weapon of larger sizes; which states that you can two hand a weapon one size larger if it was a one hander in your size.

As far as the gold being too soft for a blade... I simply used gold for the example. PlaT also works and besides, a second level cleric spell is all you really need (see below).


Some magic items (especially magic weapons and shields) take
damage over the course of an adventure. It costs no more to repair
a magic item with the Craft skill than it does to repair its nonmagical
counterpart. The make whole spell also repairs a damaged—but
not completely broken—magic item.

For those of you who are debating the worth of this, have you considered the reach increase?

Dhavaer
2007-09-20, 07:37 AM
For those of you who are debating the worth of this, have you considered the reach increase?

What reach increase?

WorthingSon
2007-09-20, 07:44 AM
What reach increase?

... did you think a Huge Bastard sword would be only 5 feet long? Table 9-10 on pg. 166 of the PHB states that a Huge object is the size of a wagon. And pg. 113 of the PHB states that a two handed weapon is the size cat. of a creature that normaly wields it two handed. As a Bastard sword is usually a two handed weapon for those who don't take a feat it is the same size category as is in it's name.

Dhavaer
2007-09-20, 07:46 AM
... did you think a Huge Bastard sword would be only 5 feet long? Table 9-10 on pg. 166 of the PHB states that a Huge object is the size of a wagon. And pg. 113 of the PHB states that a two handed weapon is the size cat. of a creature that normaly wields it two handed.

Nonetheless, reach is dependant on the weilder, not the weapon. And a bastard sword is not a reach weapon.

WorthingSon
2007-09-20, 08:06 AM
Nonetheless, reach is dependant on the weilder, not the weapon. And a bastard sword is not a reach weapon.

While I am unable to find a source that explicitly says the reach is increase, I will point out that the PHB lists a wagon as a four-wheeled, open vehicle for transporting heavy loads. In general, two horses (or other beasts of burden) draw it. A weapon equal size to that would logicaly have a larger area of threat than 5 feet.

Dhavaer
2007-09-20, 08:08 AM
A weapon equal size to that would logicaly have a larger area of threat than 5 feet.

I think that's a dead catgirl there. Logic and D&D are like water and francium: not to be mixed.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-20, 08:18 AM
... did you think a Huge Bastard sword would be only 5 feet long? Table 9-10 on pg. 166 of the PHB states that a Huge object is the size of a wagon. And pg. 113 of the PHB states that a two handed weapon is the size cat. of a creature that normaly wields it two handed. As a Bastard sword is usually a two handed weapon for those who don't take a feat it is the same size category as is in it's name.

If I'm reading right, it's not actually Huge. It's a Large weapon that's dense enough to hurt as much as a Huge one.

Charity
2007-09-20, 08:21 AM
Dhav is right, there is no reach increase with weapon size increase, regardless of how 'logical' the case might be.

I reckon snatch arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#snatchArrows) is a pretty pointless feat.

WorthingSon
2007-09-20, 08:40 AM
If I'm reading right, it's not actually Huge. It's a Large weapon that's dense enough to hurt as much as a Huge one.

Actually we are talking, in the case I was refering to with a medium creature, a huge weapon that deals gargantuan damage.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-20, 08:55 AM
I reckon snatch arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#snatchArrows) is a pretty pointless feat.

It's a misnomer; it also allows you to snatch other ranged weapons (e.g. throwing axes), and throw them back as a free action. Of course, the most common ranged weapon is an arrow, spell, or crossbow bolt, so this feat isn't very effective, but it does have a certain coolness factor.

Funkyodor
2007-09-20, 09:05 AM
Has Exotic Weapon Proficency (Siangham) or (Shuriken) been mentioned? Those seem pretty crappy to purchase for a feat...

Charity
2007-09-20, 09:29 AM
It's a misnomer; it also allows you to snatch other ranged weapons (e.g. throwing axes), and throw them back as a free action. Of course, the most common ranged weapon is an arrow, spell, or crossbow bolt, so this feat isn't very effective, but it does have a certain coolness factor.

Yeah but if you have snatch arrow, you are most likely a class that can't use throwing axes and the like, or wouldn't want to... it's just shabby and pointless.

Telonius
2007-09-20, 09:50 AM
Yeah but if you have snatch arrow, you are most likely a class that can't use throwing axes and the like, or wouldn't want to... it's just shabby and pointless.

Maybe, maybe if the person shooting at you was shooting with +5 Adamantine arrows, this feat might be worth it. The monk could snatch them and give them to the ranger to shoot back.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-09-20, 10:39 AM
I'd say Extra Essentia is a pretty bad feat, since it's weaker than every other feat in the book it's in.

Okay, it doubles if you're in the right kind of class, but then you have plenty of Essentia anyway.

tannish2
2007-09-20, 11:28 AM
ide say the feat that lets any character acquire a familiar. WHOO EXP PENALYT PWN U!!!!!!?!!!!! and you can lose the effects for an ENTIRE YEAR as well....


i think that fits the first post's definition of "bad feat"(not only nearly completely useless, but encourages an action that makes your character WORSE)

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-20, 12:43 PM
ide say the feat that lets any character acquire a familiar. WHOO EXP PENALYT PWN U!!!!!!?!!!!! and you can lose the effects for an ENTIRE YEAR as well....
This does good things for Clerics, Druids and Duskblades (get your familiar to hold some touch spell's charge pre-battle) and it lets your wizard cheat by using the PHB2 Conjurer variant at no cost beyond a single feat.

Kaelik
2007-09-20, 01:38 PM
EWP (Bastard Sword) grants the ability to wield a bastard sword one-handed for your size. PHB pg. 113 gives the details for wielding a weapon of larger sizes; which states that you can two hand a weapon one size larger if it was a one hander in your size.

That is a very poorly written section. However, the thing I find funniest about that section is that depending on the interpretation used, those rules actually make Monkey Grip completely useless. Since apparently you can wield a larger then average weapon with just -2 penalty, even without the feat. However, no matter how it is interpreted, the fact remains that you are trying to wield a larger then average weapon, making it a large weapon before applying Monkey grip. And since Monkey grip overlaps. You can only get, even with a "Heavy Weapon" a Large weapon that deals damage as a huge weapon.


As far as the gold being too soft for a blade... I simply used gold for the example. PlaT also works and besides, a second level cleric spell is all you really need (see below).

It doesn't matter if you can repair it. The fact is that Gold is too soft to cut things steel can. It won't do more damage as a sword, but instead, less. There is a historical precedent here. Make a gold sword, it will not cut as well.


For those of you who are debating the worth of this, have you considered the reach increase?

No reach increase. Secondly, you are confused A huge weapon is not the same as a huge object. A huge weapon is a weapon that would be wielded by a huge character. A huge character is the size of a Wagon. As such, huge characters get reach, medium characters wielding huge weapons do not.

Chronos
2007-09-20, 02:31 PM
ide say the feat that lets any character acquire a familiar. WHOO EXP PENALYT PWN U!!!!!!?!!!!! and you can lose the effects for an ENTIRE YEAR as well....It's a heck of a lot better than Alertness or a Skill Focus feat, since having a familiar gives you both of those benefits at once. And that's even if you just keep your familiar hidden safely in your backpack all the time: As discussed in a recent thread, familiars have plenty of other uses as well.

Dhavaer
2007-09-20, 05:55 PM
It doesn't matter if you can repair it. The fact is that Gold is too soft to cut things steel can. It won't do more damage as a sword, but instead, less. There is a historical precedent here. Make a gold sword, it will not cut as well.

The gold in question is described as being treated somehow. In any case, it doesn't suffer any penalties other than being an exotic weapon.

goat
2007-09-20, 06:38 PM
How about, you use a thin gold core, and then fold an iron sheath around it.

Or even better, depleted uranium.

Draz74
2007-09-20, 07:17 PM
That is a very poorly written section. However, the thing I find funniest about that section is that depending on the interpretation used, those rules actually make Monkey Grip completely useless. Since apparently you can wield a larger then average weapon with just -2 penalty, even without the feat.

Not quite. You can indeed wield a Large weapon with a -2 penalty without Monkey Grip, but this doesn't make MG completely useless. Without the MG feat, using a larger weapon like this makes the weapon go up one category (light -> 1H -> 2H). The ONLY thing MG does is let you use the weapon using the same number of hands you would use if the weapon was smaller.

So without MG, you can use a Large Longsword, but only two-handed; and you can't use a Large Greatsword. With MG, you can use a Large Longsword and still use a shield, or use a Large Greatsword.

None of this changes the fact that MG is a horrible feat, because it's almost always worse than just Power Attacking for an additional -2 attack, and will actually lower your damage output against high AC monsters.

Leon
2007-09-20, 07:32 PM
How about, you use a thin gold core, and then fold an iron sheath around it.

Or even better, depleted uranium.

DU Daggers on a Master Thrower

Fax Celestis
2007-09-20, 07:41 PM
Not quite. You can indeed wield a Large weapon with a -2 penalty without Monkey Grip, but this doesn't make MG completely useless. Without the MG feat, using a larger weapon like this makes the weapon go up one category (light -> 1H -> 2H). The ONLY thing MG does is let you use the weapon using the same number of hands you would use if the weapon was smaller.

So without MG, you can use a Large Longsword, but only two-handed; and you can't use a Large Greatsword. With MG, you can use a Large Longsword and still use a shield, or use a Large Greatsword.

None of this changes the fact that MG is a horrible feat, because it's almost always worse than just Power Attacking for an additional -2 attack, and will actually lower your damage output against high AC monsters.

Right. The only time Monkey Grip is remotely useful is when you are consistently getting a large multiplier. For instance, a mounted charger wielding a Large lance will deal a greater average amount of damage than one wielding a Medium one, and comparable damage to one who is using a medium lance and Power Attacking for an equal penalty. The following, for example:

Premise feats: Monkey Grip, Power Attack, Spirited Charge.
{table=head]Weapon | Size | Penalty | Damage | Multiplier | Damage Range | Average
Lance | Medium | PA for 2 | 1d8+Str+PA | *3 | 9-22 + 3*Str | 15.5 + 3*Str
Lance | Large | MG (-2) | 2d6+Str+PA | *3 | 6-32 + 3*Str | 19 + 3*Str[/table]

...which is a significant increase. Couple this with Power Attack, a Cavalier's increased lance charges, or a diving charge and it gets better. You can also add in a size increase (enlarge person is the simplest way).

{table=head]Weapon | Size | Penalty | Damage | Multiplier | Damage Range | Average
Lance | Medium | PA for 2 | 1d8+Str+PA | *5 | 15-50 + 5*Str | 32.5 + 5*Str
Lance | Large | MG (-2) | 2d6+Str+PA | *5 | 10-60 + 5*Str | 35 + 5*Str
Lance | Huge | MG (-2) | 3d6+Str+PA | *5 | 15-90 + 5*Str | 60 + 5*Str
Lance | Medium | PA for 7 | 1d8+Str+PA | *5 | 40-75 + 5*Str | 57.5 + 5*Str
Lance | Large | MG + PA for 5 | 2d6+Str+PA | *5 | 35-85 + 5*Str | 60 + 5*Str
Lance | Huge | MG + PA for 5 | 3d6+Str+PA | *5 | 40-115 + 5*Str | 77.5 + 5*Str[/table]

Chronos
2007-09-20, 10:26 PM
Or even better, depleted uranium.Uranium is actually slightly less dense than gold. Its main advantage over gold, as weapons go, is that it's a lot cheaper, and the Department of Defense has to find something to do with the stuff, anyway. Well, it's probably harder, too, but we're probably comparing to Alchemical Gold here (by analogy with Alchemical Silver).

IIRC, platinum, iridium, and osmium are all a little denser than gold, with osmium being highest, and they're also all pretty hard. But they're also all more expensive than gold, too.

reorith
2007-09-20, 10:34 PM
most heritage feats seem like they aren't really worth it.

skywalker
2007-09-20, 11:37 PM
Or even better, depleted uranium.

But then the goblins call the UN and say you're committing war crimes(and you thought slaughtering the women and children was bad... just wait till they've found out you used depleted uranium.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-21, 12:13 AM
most heritage feats seem like they aren't really worth it.

If you mean the stuff for Sorcerors(Celestial/Draconic/Infernal), then yeah, they're pretty crap(basically "burn a spell so you can replicate a dragon in a single aspect for a single round." I can do better with my spell slots, thanks). Abyssal Heritor(FC1) and Aberrant(LoM) Feats are better. At least the latter 2 give cumulative benefits, the more of them you take. The same can't really be said for the other 3(if they do stack with more Feats of the same type, it's generally too small to be of much use).

Dhavaer
2007-09-21, 12:17 AM
If you mean the stuff for Sorcerors(Celestial/Draconic/Infernal), then yeah, they're pretty crap(basically "burn a spell so you can replicate a dragon in a single aspect for a single round." I can do better with my spell slots, thanks). Abyssal Heritor(FC1) and Aberrant(LoM) Feats are better. At least the latter 2 give cumulative benefits, the more of them you take. The same can't really be said for the other 3(if they do stack with more Feats of the same type, it's generally too small to be of much use).

The fiendish and fey heritage feats from Complete Mage are also pretty good, mostly because they stack, but also because some of them give quite powerful abilities (confusion 1/day is pretty handy).

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-21, 03:24 AM
The fiendish and fey heritage feats from Complete Mage are also pretty good, mostly because they stack, but also because some of them give quite powerful abilities (confusion 1/day is pretty handy).

Yeah. The ones in Complete Arcane/Races of the Dragon(I think?) are fairly lackluster.

WorthingSon
2007-09-21, 08:13 AM
That is a very poorly written section. However, the thing I find funniest about that section is that depending on the interpretation used, those rules actually make Monkey Grip completely useless. Since apparently you can wield a larger then average weapon with just -2 penalty, even without the feat. However, no matter how it is interpreted, the fact remains that you are trying to wield a larger then average weapon, making it a large weapon before applying Monkey grip. And since Monkey grip overlaps. You can only get, even with a "Heavy Weapon" a Large weapon that deals damage as a huge weapon.

Actually Monkey grip allows you to wield a weapon one size larger w/o changing the handing required. The limit to how many sizes you go up is the handing. Monkey grips allows you to one-hand a large one-handed weapon as a medium creature. Then, you increase another size and two hand it; thus making it two sizes larger (with a -4 to hit). Add in the heavy property and you have 3 damage inceases and 2 size increases. Here is the exact PHB text to support what I am saying:


The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or twohanded
weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for
each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the
size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For
instance, a Small greatsword (a two-handed weapon for a Small
creature) is considered a one-handed weapon for a Medium creature,
or a light weapon for a Large creature. Conversely, a Large dagger (a
light weapon for a Large creature) is considered a one-handed
weapon for a Medium creature, or a two-handed weapon for a Small
creature. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something
other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the
creature can’t wield the weapon at all.



It doesn't matter if you can repair it. The fact is that Gold is too soft to cut things steel can. It won't do more damage as a sword, but instead, less. There is a historical precedent here. Make a gold sword, it will not cut as well.

... So logic applys now but not when in comes to increasing reach? There is no part of the text on heavy weapons that requires it be a blug weapon. As was pointed out in a previous post, the only penalty is requiring EWP.




No reach increase. Secondly, you are confused A huge weapon is not the same as a huge object. A huge weapon is a weapon that would be wielded by a huge character. A huge character is the size of a Wagon. As such, huge characters get reach, medium characters wielding huge weapons do not.

A huge weapon is not necessarily a huge object, however if you look at PHB pg. 113 it states:

A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. A Medium dagger (one sized for a Medium character), for instance, is a Tiny object (see Table 9–10: Size and Armor Class of Objects, page 166). Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon (such as a dagger) is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon (such as a longsword) is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon (such as a greatsword) is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
As a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon (requiring EWP to become one-handed) it is an object of the same size as it's name states. And PHB pg. 166 states that an example of a Huge object is a wagon.

Zincorium
2007-09-21, 04:49 PM
Actually Monkey grip allows you to wield a weapon one size larger w/o changing the handing required. The limit to how many sizes you go up is the handing. Monkey grips allows you to one-hand a large one-handed weapon as a medium creature. Then, you increase another size and two hand it; thus making it two sizes larger (with a -4 to hit). Add in the heavy property and you have 3 damage inceases and 2 size increases. Here is the exact PHB text to support what I am saying:


Please, please, please read monkey grip again before continuing. It is not as vague as you're saying.

You can wield weapons of one size larger than you are with the same effort. It does not increase your effective size for wielding weapons, or reduce the effective size of weapons for the purpose of wielding them.

If you are not wielding a large, and only that size, weapon, then it does not apply.



... So logic applys now but not when in comes to increasing reach? There is no part of the text on heavy weapons that requires it be a blug weapon. As was pointed out in a previous post, the only penalty is requiring EWP.


As a DM, I would definitely require two separate EWPs for this, given that even a regular martial weapon becomes exotic, saying you get the benefits for both feats for the cost of one would not fly with me.



A huge weapon is not necessarily a huge object, however if you look at PHB pg. 113 it states:

As a bastard sword is a two-handed weapon (requiring EWP to become one-handed) it is an object of the same size as it's name states. And PHB pg. 166 states that an example of a Huge object is a wagon.

You're stretching this mightily. And you know what your argument really points out as obvious? That you couldn't possibly wield this thing, game effects or no.

Something the size of a wagon, made of one of the heaviest metals. DM points out rule 0 and says you can't do it like that. The fact that you are using highly questionable rules interpretations means the rules don't even support you too well.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-21, 07:21 PM
The fiendish and fey heritage feats from Complete Mage are also pretty good, mostly because they stack, but also because some of them give quite powerful abilities (confusion 1/day is pretty handy).

FRCS Player's Guide to Faerun has the Magic in the Blood feat which bumps up ALL daily spellcasting abilities from once a day to 3/day each so it is pretty nice with some of those Complete Magus feats and some templates.

vivi
2007-09-21, 09:48 PM
Also I have invented a sub-skill. Perform (evil deeds) :smallconfused: morale boosts for stabbing puppies!:smallconfused:

now thats just mean!

WorthingSon
2007-09-23, 12:58 PM
Zincorium: With the exception of you argument on the reading on Monkey Grip, which I cannot debat, as I am traveling and have no access to the text, all your arguments fall in the relm of a DM call. Which is not really debatable. You may feel that it is rediculous, and it is, and you may not allow it as a DM; however that is not the rules. That is your ruling as a DM. This feat progression is generally used in my group on over powered or abnormal situations. My argument was not that this was a perfectly logical and awesome set of powers, it was that Monkey Grip is not a useless feat.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-23, 01:32 PM
Zincorium: With the exception of you argument on the reading on Monkey Grip, which I cannot debat, as I am traveling and have no access to the text, all your arguments fall in the relm of a DM call. Which is not really debatable. You may feel that it is rediculous, and it is, and you may not allow it as a DM; however that is not the rules. That is your ruling as a DM. This feat progression is generally used in my group on over powered or abnormal situations. My argument was not that this was a perfectly logical and awesome set of powers, it was that Monkey Grip is not a useless feat.
Your entire argument stems from the concept that Monkey Grip says: "You count as a creature one size category larger for the purpose of determining weapon size." The feat quite simply does not say this.

Zincorium
2007-09-23, 03:20 PM
Zincorium: With the exception of you argument on the reading on Monkey Grip, which I cannot debat, as I am traveling and have no access to the text, all your arguments fall in the relm of a DM call. Which is not really debatable. You may feel that it is rediculous, and it is, and you may not allow it as a DM; however that is not the rules. That is your ruling as a DM. This feat progression is generally used in my group on over powered or abnormal situations. My argument was not that this was a perfectly logical and awesome set of powers, it was that Monkey Grip is not a useless feat.

Monkey grip is the least useful part of the combo you give, especially if you use it right as it doesn't apply at all (and is thus not part of it). In fact it would be completely outclassed by either the enlarge weapon spell from complete scoundrel or mighty wallop from races of the dragon.

Generally, under conditions where the size of the weapons is not already in the huge or larger range, monkey grip is inferior to power attack in a vast number of categories, and power attack is a core feat. Power attack also gives stupidly large returns when used with frenzied berserker, leap attack, or shock trooper. You can also increase the number of power attack to whatever your base attack bonus is, which will generally be much higher than what you can actually hit with.

If a feat is less useful than the one it should replace, then it's a bad feat. Monkey grip is very close to the worst if only because so many misinterpretations and so many horrible attempts at munchkin-ing result from it.

Kompera
2007-09-24, 08:05 PM
My vote for worst Feat goes to Whirlwind Attack. Yes, it is situationally potent. But to get there requires four prerequisite Feats, and a BAB of 4 (we'll count as trivial the stat prerequisites). To achieve the situational potency requires a reach weapon, and the best one for this is the Spiked Chain, requiring yet another Feat.

ocato
2007-09-24, 08:23 PM
My vote for worst Feat goes to Whirlwind Attack. Yes, it is situationally potent. But to get there requires four prerequisite Feats, and a BAB of 4 (we'll count as trivial the stat prerequisites). To achieve the situational potency requires a reach weapon, and the best one for this is the Spiked Chain, requiring yet another Feat.

what is that, 5 feats? Dodge, Mobility, EWP Spike chain, Spring attack, and whirlwind? Boy, I wish there was a class that got dozens of feats. I'm not saying its a great feat, it's just a fighter feat, since they can invest in chains like that and still afford to pick up the essentials. Again, not fantastic, but very fighteriffic.

Cruiser1
2007-09-24, 08:38 PM
Improvised Weapon Prof (Plot Hook)
or
Bonus Feat (Spend a feat to get a feat, and yes i made it up)

Bonus Feat would actually be a great feat, especially if it means you can spend the feat you get at a later level. Take it at level 1, and save the free feat you get for a few levels until you can take the feat you really want (which has some level or BAB prerequisites). The Bonus Feat feat would enable some builds that wouldn't be possible otherwise, since you wouldn't be "wasting" your early level feats.

Improvised Weapon Prof (Plot Hook) is of course the most powerful feats ever! It's like a "suck up to the DM" feat, or something that gives you metagame knowledge in-game, or at least is equivalent to a very powerful divination. :smallwink:

F.L.
2007-09-24, 10:07 PM
Uranium is actually slightly less dense than gold. Its main advantage over gold, as weapons go, is that it's a lot cheaper, and the Department of Defense has to find something to do with the stuff, anyway. Well, it's probably harder, too, but we're probably comparing to Alchemical Gold here (by analogy with Alchemical Silver).

IIRC, platinum, iridium, and osmium are all a little denser than gold, with osmium being highest, and they're also all pretty hard. But they're also all more expensive than gold, too.

IIRC, there are several reasons to use DU rounds.
It's heavy.
It's extremely electropositive (like sodium, only it can burn itself in air)
It's toxic.
When moving at high velocity, when it impacts a barrier (like a steel box) the residual mass of the metal is self-sharpening.

And not in the slightest because it's mildly radioactive. Radiation takes way too long to kill you to be tactically effective, even neutron bombs are estimated in taking days-weeks to kill you. Most tac-nukes rely on heat and concussion, naturally.

Kompera
2007-09-25, 12:16 AM
what is that, 5 feats? Dodge, Mobility, EWP Spike chain, Spring attack, and whirlwind? Boy, I wish there was a class that got dozens of feats. I'm not saying its a great feat, it's just a fighter feat, since they can invest in chains like that and still afford to pick up the essentials. Again, not fantastic, but very fighteriffic.Sure, Fighters get piles of Feats. But the (most direct) path to Whirlwind Attack makes your early levels look kinda lame. No Power Attack, no Cleave, no Combat Reflexes, etc, etc. Instead, as a 1st level Human Fighter you've selected, what? EWP: Spiked Chain and Dodge? Dodge and Mobility? Not exactly GM-chilling metagaming combos. Until you manage to buy that final Feat, be it Whirlwind Attack or EWP: Spiked Chain, you're just not a combat monster. And now, at the culmination of your carefully chosen 5 Feat path, any fight against less than 3 foes and you may as well be using a standard full attack and doing concentrated damage against a single opponent. Add Cleave, Combat Reflexes, and Hold the Line and you've got a lot more chances of doing decent damage using Whirlwind Attack.

But hey, if it's a campaign with a lot of swarms you'll be a true hero! :smallcool:

Has anyone actually leveled a character to obtain Whirlwind Attack? I could see it being taken a lot more in a campaign with a higher starting level, but hardly at all if people are playing from 1st level.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-25, 01:14 AM
What Kompera said
Whirlwind Attack does grant you a significant ability that you wouldn't otherwise have so I don't think it's at all the worst feat in D&D. I'm not saying it's that good because it isn't. But it will impact your strategies and you will probably get considerable use from it if your DM throws a bunch of Mooks at you. It is definitely better than Dodge. I'm not sure how that would impact my rating of the feat itself though, especially if some classes can get around its prerequisites.*





*One of my friends invited me to a game with a DM trying out the ToM for the first time. None of the players were really familiar with the rules (the DM vaporized my Druid for wielding a longsword once his staff broke- no save) and the player in question is known to lie about his attack rolls.
Anyway, he had a Binder with Whirlwind Attack at second level. Nobody knew if he was cheating or not so they just accepted it. Everybody kept checking the book for their respective characters' abilities so I never got to see if it was legitimate or not.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-25, 01:29 AM
But hey, if it's a campaign with a lot of true swarms you'll be a useless loser!:smallcool:

Fixed for you. :smallwink:

Xaros
2007-09-25, 01:29 AM
*One of my friends invited me to a game with a DM trying out the ToM for the first time. None of the players were really familiar with the rules (the DM vaporized my Druid for wielding a longsword once his staff broke- no save) and the player in question is known to lie about his attack rolls.
Anyway, he had a Binder with Whirlwind Attack at second level. Nobody knew if he was cheating or not so they just accepted it. Everybody kept checking the book for thier respective characters' abilities so I never got to see if it was legitimate or not.

Earliest legitimate use of Whirlwind Attack from the Binder class would be at level 3, and it requires the use of the Improved Binding feat. The vestige Paimon grants this feat without prerequisites, but he's third level, and not available normally until Binder level 5. Improved Binding adds two levels to your effective Binder level. I had great fun with this particular vestige in my recent Binder build.

Tokiko Mima
2007-09-25, 02:33 AM
Skill Focus: Perform (keyboard instruments) Because where are you going to find that type of instrument while out adventuring?

Quick Draw is also kinda disappointing, considering that you usually take a move action at the start of combat anyway, so drawing your weapon is usually a non-issue.

Any Craft feat for a non-spellcaster. Could make good masterwork stuff I suppose.

Great Cleave. It's too unlikely you'd see much of a benefit from this feat.

Whirlwind Attack... WAAAAAY too many feats invested for such a small benefit.

Mobility after you have a Tumble bonus of +15 or more.

Leon
2007-09-25, 04:50 AM
Skill Focus: Perform (keyboard instruments) Because where are you going to find that type of instrument while out adventuring?.

in Ye Olde Dungeon Music Shoppe

WorthingSon
2007-09-25, 08:05 AM
Monkey grip is the least useful part of the combo you give, especially if you use it right as it doesn't apply at all (and is thus not part of it).

Here is the text from CW for Monkey Grip:


MONKEY GRIP [GENERAL]
You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your
size.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category
larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but
the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does
not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed
weapon for a large crearure) is considered a two-handed
weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat.
For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered
a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as
a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands.
You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you
cannor use this feat with a double weapon.
Normal: You can use a melee weapon one size category
larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and the
amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger
light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed
weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you
cannot use a larger two-handed weapon at all.

Yes, at a quick glance it appears to only apply to weapons one size larger, however if you look at the text for normal, it uses the exact same phrasing. We have already established that you can use a weapon two sizes larger. Therefore, as it never actually says that Monkey Grip applies ONLY to one size larger, one can read it to say that you are able to wield weapons as one size larger with only a -2.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-25, 08:18 AM
Yes, at a quick glance it appears to only apply to weapons one size larger, however if you look at the text for normal, it uses the exact same phrasing. We have already established that you can use a weapon two sizes larger. Therefore, as it never actually says that Monkey Grip applies ONLY to one size larger, one can read it to say that you are able to wield weapons as one size larger with only a -2.

What exactly are you seeing that 99% of the people both on these boards and the WotC Community Optimisation boards not seeing?

Normal: Wield any weapon sized for you without penalty, with more effort(and -4 penalty) if it's one size larger, never wield if it's more than that.
With Monkey Grip: Wield any weapon sized for you without penalty. Wield any weapon sized for a character one size larger(at -2 penalty).
Powerful Build: As above, without the -2 penalty.

Note that it still does not change the fact that you cannot wield a weapon sized for a creature larger than one size category above you. This also applies to Powerful Build. No, they do not stack because of their wording.

WorthingSon
2007-09-25, 08:38 AM
What exactly are you seeing that 99% of the people both on these boards and the WotC Community Optimisation boards not seeing?

Normal: Wield any weapon sized for you without penalty, with more effort(and -4 penalty) if it's one size larger, never wield if it's more than that.
With Monkey Grip: Wield any weapon sized for you without penalty. Wield any weapon sized for a character one size larger(at -2 penalty).
Powerful Build: As above, without the -2 penalty.

Note that it still does not change the fact that you cannot wield a weapon sized for a creature larger than one size category above you. This also applies to Powerful Build. No, they do not stack because of their wording.

I appologize for the long quote, but here is the entire entry from the PHB on Weapon Sizes and Inappropriately Sized Weapons. I have bolded the parts that I think are important to me argument.


Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category, such as Small,
Medium, or Large. This designation indicates the size of the creature
for which the weapon was designed. A Small greatsword is a
greatsword designed for a Small creature, such as a halfling. A
Medium longsword is a longsword designed for a Medium creature,
such as an elf. A Large shortbow is a shortbow designed for a Large
creature, such as an ogre.
A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. A
Medium dagger (one sized for a Medium character), for instance, is a
Tiny object (see Table 9–10: Size and Armor Class of Objects, page
166). Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the
intended wielder in general, a light weapon (such as a dagger) is an
object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed
weapon (such as a longsword) is an object one size category smaller
than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon (such as a greatsword) is
an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make optimum use
of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty
applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between
the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder.
Thus, a human wielding a Small dagger takes a –2 penalty on attack
rolls (one size category different), and an ogre wielding a Small
longsword takes a –4 penalty (two size categories different). If the
creature isn’t proficient with the weapon (a wizard attempting to
wield a Small battleaxe, for instance), a –4 nonproficiency penalty
also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or twohanded
weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for
each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the
size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For
instance, a Small greatsword (a two-handed weapon for a Small
creature) is considered a one-handed weapon for a Medium creature,
or a light weapon for a Large creature. Conversely, a Large dagger (a
light weapon for a Large creature) is considered a one-handed
weapon for a Medium creature, or a two-handed weapon for a Small
creature. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something
other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the
creature can’t wield the weapon at all

So one size larger is a -2, not a -4, and no you are NOT limited to one size larger. As the PHB even lists examples, as in more than one, of two size differences.

Also, I already gave you the text on Monkey grip, strait out of Complete Warrior, so you own re-write of it is not only incorrect but irrelevant.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-25, 09:08 AM
Ugh. This is giving me a headache. I'm going to let someone else with better rules-fu handle this. Suffice to say that you are using very sketchy Rules-As-Interpreted, combined with a variant rule, and a weapon option that most of us have never even heard of.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-25, 11:10 AM
I appologize for the long quote, but here is the entire entry from the PHB on Weapon Sizes and Inappropriately Sized Weapons. I have bolded the parts that I think are important to me argument.



So one size larger is a -2, not a -4, and no you are NOT limited to one size larger. As the PHB even lists examples, as in more than one, of two size differences.

Also, I already gave you the text on Monkey grip, strait out of Complete Warrior, so you own re-write of it is not only incorrect but irrelevant.

Correct.

Think of this:
*Monkey Grip allows you to treat yourself as one size larger for the purposes of wielding weaponry.
**A valid use of Monkey Grip is to wield a Large longsword as a Medium creature in one hand. It does not alter the penalty.
**However, since Monkey Grip does not specifically delineate what happens with weaponry larger than "one size greater", it does not affect them.
*Powerful Build allows you to treat yourself as one size larger whenever it would be beneficial.
**A valid use of Powerful Build is to wield a Large longsword as a Medium creature in one hand. It removes the penalty.
**Powerful Build, due to its phraseology, does account for weapons larger than "one size greater", and therefore is applicable in their case.
*Extrapolating from this and from the premise presented in your quote from the SRD, a Half-Giant (a Medium creature with Powerful Build) can wield a Huge weapon with a -2 penalty and an increase in effort. A human (a Medium creature) with Monkey Grip cannot wield a Huge weapon with a -2 penalty and an increase in effort; he can only wield light Huge weapons in two hands, and this is at a -4 penalty.


As for Whirlwind Attack? I take it to get into Psychic Weaponmaster. :smallbiggrin:

WorthingSon
2007-09-25, 02:14 PM
Correct.
**However, since Monkey Grip does not specifically delineate what happens with weaponry larger than "one size greater", it does not affect them.


It also does not specifically delineate that is NOT applicable to greater than one size increase. This is a case of vauge wording. I choose to look to the general description to decide how to clarify this. It reads "You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size." That does not imply any special limit to the amount larger.

In every case I can think of in D&D such special cases are specificaly noted. If wizards wants something to read you can do this EXCEPT for blah blah blah, they make sure to say EXCEPT blah blah blah. So Monkey Grip, by your interpretation, SHOULD say (changes in bold)


You can use melee weapons only one size category
larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but
the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does
not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed
weapon for a large crearure) is considered a two-handed
weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat.
For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered
a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as
a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands.
You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you
cannot use this feat with a double weapon, and you can
only use this feat for weapons up to one size larger.

I find it hard to believe that they would go throught he trouble of speficialy noting all the exceptions to monkey grip and leave out something as major as only for one size larger.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-25, 02:16 PM
It also does not specifically delineate that is NOT applicable to greater than one size increase. This is a case of vauge wording. I choose to look to the general description to decide how to clarify this. It reads "You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size." That does not imply any special limit to the amount larger.

In every case I can think of in D&D such special cases are specificaly noted. If wizards wants something to read you can do this EXCEPT for blah blah blah, they make sure to say EXCEPT blah blah blah. So Monkey Grip, by your interpretation, SHOULD say (changes in bold)



I find it hard to believe that they would go throught he trouble of speficialy noting all the exceptions to monkey grip and leave out something as major as only for one size larger.

Under that logic, elves shoot laser beams from their eyes because their rules block doesn't say they don't.

Zincorium
2007-09-25, 02:29 PM
It also does not specifically delineate that is NOT applicable to greater than one size increase. This is a case of vauge wording. I choose to look to the general description to decide how to clarify this. It reads "You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size." That does not imply any special limit to the amount larger.

In every case I can think of in D&D such special cases are specificaly noted. If wizards wants something to read you can do this EXCEPT for blah blah blah, they make sure to say EXCEPT blah blah blah. So Monkey Grip, by your interpretation, SHOULD say (changes in bold)



I find it hard to believe that they would go throught he trouble of speficialy noting all the exceptions to monkey grip and leave out something as major as only for one size larger.

Alright, in D&D the rules are that if nothing says you can, it is generally assumed you cannot.

If monkey grip says you can wield a weapon specifically one size larger than you are, then you can. If monkey grip does not say that you can wield a weapon two sizes larger, you cannot.

That's it.

WorthingSon
2007-09-25, 02:31 PM
Under that logic, elves shoot laser beams from their eyes because their rules block doesn't say they don't.

I would agree if elves had a power that allowed them to shoot lasers but did not specify where they cam from.
If you would actually argue this reasonably, you would realize I was saying it talks about using oversized weapons and you cannot apply a special limit to it becasue it never says there is one. NOT you can kill people with bananas cause it has monkey in the name.

jameswilliamogle
2007-09-25, 02:31 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Languages?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-25, 02:38 PM
I would agree if elves had a power that allowed them to shoot lasers but did not specify where they cam from.
If you would actually argue this reasonably, you would realize I was saying it talks about using oversized weapons and you cannot apply a special limit to it becasue it never says there is one. NOT you can kill people with bananas cause it has monkey in the name.

Let's take this statement you just made:


[I]t talks about using oversized weapons and you cannot apply a special limit to it becasue it never says there is one...

...and the feat itself:


MONKEY GRIP [GENERAL]
You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a large crearure) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you
cannor use this feat with a double weapon.
Normal: You can use a melee weapon one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and the amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you cannot use a larger two-handed weapon at all.

Specifically, this line here:

You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll...

Now, the statement "one size category larger than you are" seems to be pretty explicit as to what the feat applies to, which makes your statement earlier (the "it talks about using oversized weapons and you cannot apply a special limit to it becasue it never says there is one..." one) patently false. It does specify a specific limit: one size category larger than you are.

Doug Lampert
2007-09-25, 05:32 PM
I'm curious if people ever take such things as Diehard, Endurance, Tower Shield Prof, or Run. I'm also wondering if Improved Turning is ever worth it, considering most clerics spend their Turns on other things than undead removal.

Also, the list of Epic feats has quite a number that are not exactly spectacular, like the ones that give you +1 to a single ability score, or Improved Sneak Attack (why is that even epic?), or Improved Darkvision (which would be underwhelming even as a regular feat).
Diehard I've seen taken, it wasn't really useful, but was useful. Run is not useless, ANYTHING that increases mobility can be quite nice. Endurance I've never seen taken, Tower Shield Prof is a good canditate for most useless.

On Epic feats: +1 to a single ability score is GOLDEN for a feat, it stacks with everything else. You take it when other increases have left an ability odd and give yourself an extra +1 to an ability modifier. That's something like +1 to all to all melee attacks and +1 or +2 to damage rolls, or +1 to all save DCs and +3 or so spells/day, or +1 to AC and all reflex saves and to all Dex skills.

That means the feat is worth taking about once every four levels, there aren't really all that many epic feats that are that good.

Extra darkvision range would be useful at lower levels if your GM keeps track of spotting ranges and lighted areas (I gather that many GMs don't, or don't have their monsters take advantage of superior vision and darkness). But epic characters don't have trouble seeing the battlefield due to lack of mundane light. So as an Epic feat it totally sucks. I'll go with that as the most useless Epic feat.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-25, 10:03 PM
Endurance is a "gateway". Being able to remove 1 negative level per Standard Action is good. Costing 3 Feats(1 of which must be Endurance)? Not so good. Still, if you have 2 Feats floating around, and you've already taken Ranger 1(2? Whichever gives Endurance for free) for whatever reason, it's an option.

LemonSkye
2007-09-26, 12:08 AM
Dodge is terrible. No one I know has taken it unless it was to get Spring Attack or required for a prestige class. Just about everyone forgets they have it--I had to actually write "dodge" on the top of my character sheet so I wouldn't keep forgetting to figure it into my AC.

I'm not fond of the Monkey Grip/Wield Oversized Weapon chain. While definitely a better fit for creatures of Small size or smaller (who the feat was probably designed for), a better option exists for creatures of Medium size.

For a Medium creature, a strict reading of Monkey Grip reveals that the only benefit you get from the feat is the ability to wield a Large-size two handed weapon (that isn't a double weapon) at a -2 penalty. That's it. The feat does not give you the ability to wield one-handed or larger weapons of Huge size at all. You may still wield light Huge weapons two-handed, but the penalty for doing so (-4) is unchanged. The only exception to this (according to the D&D FAQ on the WOtC site) are races that get Powerful Build as a racial ability. Wield Oversized Weapon opens up Large-size double weapons, allows you to wield a light Large-size weapon in your off hand, and takes away the -2 penalty. Since ranged weapons are best served with the archery feats, double weapons (and two-weapon fighting in general) require the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain to be of any real use, and a Large reach weapon doesn't grant a bigger reach area to a Medium creature (also from the FAQ), the only weapons that you're really getting access to (assuming you don't have the archery or Two-Weapon Fighting feat chains) are the swords.

If you really feel the need as a Medium creature to wield a Large greatsword, just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fullblade). Not only do you not have to wait around until you're epic level to use it without penalty, you don't have to try and interpret Monkey Grip and Wield Oversized Weapon. It's just more straightforward all around :smallsmile:

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-26, 01:00 AM
If you really feel the need as a Medium creature to wield a Large greatsword, just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fullblade). Not only do you not have to wait around until you're epic level to use it without penalty, you don't have to try and interpret Monkey Grip and Wield Oversized Weapon. It's just more straightforward all around :smallsmile:

I might be wrong about this, but isn't a Fullblade only usable with EWP if you are Large? As in, it's a Bastard Sword for a Large creature. Or maybe EWP+Medium will let you wield it two-handed(only).

LemonSkye
2007-09-26, 01:41 AM
The "Huge" category for the fullblade was a 3.0 category--in 3.5 it's considered a Large two-handed weapon. Thus, with EWP (fullblade), a Medium creature could wield it two-handed without penalty. A Large character who has the feat can wield it one-handed without penalty.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-26, 06:08 AM
To recap, not counting feats needed as prerequisites for anything, feats considered bad because they're too good, and feats that have a bug in their writing, we end up with the following list of worthless feats:

Celestial Summoning Specialist
Combat Casting
Diligent
Dirty Fighting
Dodge
Draconic Heritage
Dual Strike
Enlarge Spell
Great Cleave
Improved Darkvision
Improved Sneak Attack
Improved Turning
Infernal Heritage
Lichloved
Non-lethal Substitution
Servant of the Fallen
Shield proficiency
Simple Weapon proficiency
Sleeps with the DM
Sudden Enlarge
Sunlight Eyes
Touch Spell Specialization
Toughness
Tower Shield proficiency
Vicious Spell


This also leaves out picking a useless "target" for skill focus, weapon focus, exotic WP, or spell focus, as well as any feat that simply doesn't work for your particular class.

martyboy74
2007-09-26, 06:54 AM
How is Lichloved useless? Flavorwise, it may be disgusting, but mechanically it gives quite the benefit. Massive zombie attack? Whatever.

Leon
2007-09-26, 07:02 AM
Non-lethal Substitution


Its all right for a Vow of Peace Combatant, turn your big AoEs into area knockouts

having just reread the Vow, im not 100% what im thinking of would work
yes it does, doesnt normaly apply to Evocation Spells but once they are under the effects of the Non Lethal Metamagic they would gain the effect

Kurald Galain
2007-09-26, 07:12 AM
(the above list is simply based on what people have said in this thread, and should not be taken as The Literal Truth :smalltongue: )

Chronos
2007-09-26, 11:49 AM
not counting feats needed as prerequisites for anything,...
DodgeDodge is a prerequisite for more useful feats. Granted, they're still not overwhelmingly useful, but they're better than Dodge.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-26, 02:07 PM
Dodge is a prerequisite for more useful feats. Granted, they're still not overwhelmingly useful, but they're better than Dodge.

Yes, that's my point. Dodge would be a worthless feat, except for the fact that you might need it as a prerequisite. If you didn't, it'd be pretty much entirely useless.

Chronos
2007-09-26, 05:34 PM
Yes, but you said you were not counting feats that were prereqs for other things.

And didn't you use to be a squished beholder?

Scorpina
2007-09-26, 06:00 PM
Servant of the Fallen is a flavour feat, nothing more. Yeah, totally useless mechanically, but damn good for fluff (potentially).

cody.burton
2007-09-26, 06:24 PM
Servant of the Fallen is a flavour feat, nothing more. Yeah, totally useless mechanically, but damn good for fluff (potentially).

The problem most people have with it is that it ties the fluff too much to the mechanics. Now that it's a published feat, some DMs rule that you "have" to have the feat to worship a dead god, as opposed to leaving it purely in fluff, where it should be.

Chronos
2007-09-26, 07:41 PM
The real problem with Servant of the Fallen is that it's nothing but fluff. Sure, feats can be used for fluff. I might decide that, given his backstory, it makes a lot of sense for my character to have Diligence. But if a situation ever comes up where I need to decipher some script, I'm darned well going to get that +2 bonus on my check. The feat does still offer an advantage, even if it's only a minuscule one. But Servant of the Fallen doesn't offer any advantage at all. It does nothing but feed the Stormwind Fallacy: To take it is to say that you can't make a character interesting without weakening him.

Scorpina
2007-09-26, 07:48 PM
I disagree. Servant of the Fallen represents the difficulty of drawing divine power from a dead diety in Faerun....

Leon
2007-09-26, 07:53 PM
What does it do or where can i find out what it does?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-26, 08:00 PM
I disagree. Servant of the Fallen represents the difficulty of drawing divine power from a dead diety in Faerun....

You shouldn't need to take a feat to represent difficulty. You should just be able to say, "Damn, it sure is hard gaining power through the worship of this dead dude." Difficulty can be just as well conveyed by an absence of other worshippers.

Idea Man
2007-09-27, 01:11 AM
Dodge is my little pet peeve of near-uselessness also, but I think I have one better, and I'm kinda surprised no one has mentioned it yet.

Eschew Materials.

It allows a caster to ignore material components of less than one gold piece in value (or, in other words, anything that isn't listed with a price value). Sounds nice, right? Problem is, the only time you don't have those components is when you get taken prisoner (something PCs avoid with MAXIMUM force), when your components get ruined (I have never seen this happen), when grappelling (very rare event for any spellcaster), or when you run out (I've never seen this happen either).

The only reason I can see to take this feat is if you get stuck somewhere long enough to gain a level and any of those conditions still apply! Mind you, that's going to make for one very annoyed spellcaster-player. :smallamused:

As a side note, the monkey grip feat seems to have a lot of advocates and detracters. I say that anything that can be such a good source of threadstuff can't be the worst feat: it's too much fun! :smallwink:

Leon
2007-09-27, 01:52 AM
Eschew Materials.


removes the silly fiddlyness of magic for those who have inborn power and shouldnt have to rely on a bit of bat poo to fry some monsters

Fawsto
2007-09-27, 11:23 AM
Has someone already sayed Monkey Grip? Or someone finaly found a good use to theis feat rather tahn stile?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-27, 11:40 AM
Has someone already sayed Monkey Grip? Or someone finaly found a good use to theis feat rather tahn stile?

Been said. Check this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3223718&postcount=175)

Bardbarian
2007-09-27, 12:29 PM
Weapon Specialization: Net

Not only does it do nothing (it would give +2 damage if nets did damage,) but you've spent 4 levels in Fighter just to get it.

Chronos
2007-09-27, 04:01 PM
I've found one that's absolutely worse than Dodge:

Psionic Dodge.
It has the same benefit as Dodge, except it stacks with it. Plus, it has Dodge itself as a prerequisite, and you need to be mental (er, rather, psionic) to take it. And it doesn't lead to anything else at all.

Cruiser1
2007-09-27, 04:58 PM
Dodge is terrible. No one I know has taken it unless it was to get Spring Attack or required for a prestige class. Just about everyone forgets they have it--I had to actually write "dodge" on the top of my character sheet so I wouldn't keep forgetting to figure it into my AC.
I agree the Dodge feat is poorly designed. It causes situations like this comic from "Goblins" (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20060204.html). :smallwink: I like the way the game "Temple of Elemental Evil" handles the Dodge feat: You simply automatically get +1 AC against the first attack against you each round.

Spiryt
2007-09-27, 05:19 PM
I like the way the game "Temple of Elemental Evil" handles the Dodge feat: You simply automatically get +1 AC against the first attack against you each round.

Ehhh... But it actualy makes Dodge even worse... You can't even choose which enemy's attacks you want to avoid.

cattoy
2007-09-27, 06:12 PM
Eschew Materials.


I view this as a necessary evil if I want to play a standard wizard who doesn't want to smell like bat poo.

Idea Man
2007-09-27, 08:14 PM
I view this as a necessary evil if I want to play a standard wizard who doesn't want to smell like bat poo.

Has your character ever meen ostricized for smelling of bat poo? I don't recall the scent of a spellcaster ever beeing a major descriptor. It would be nice flavor text, though.

Besides, haven't you ever wanted to smell of rose petals and death? :smallbiggrin: (Dragonlance, I believe)

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-27, 08:49 PM
Eh, I always take Eschew Materials. It lets you dodge DM rules-jerkery ("You on't have that many hands" "You never stole the eyelash from a Rakshasa and the shopkeep sure didn't either"). It also plays a key role in Polymorph abuse.

I suppose I wouldn't take it if the concept of a bottomless component pouch and a rules-obsessed DM didn't push me to it, though.

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 09:21 PM
I view this as a necessary evil if I want to play a standard wizard who doesn't want to smell like bat poo.

I solve this problem by not taking fireball.