I'm playing with some people who are new to the pathfinder business, and while they have the basic mechanics down, I'm worried they may fall into trap feats and options on the basis of them sounding cool. In example, our gunslinger with no ranks in UMD picked up a spell tattoo for a Light spell, which he also thinks is going to be permanent and not one-use.
So to start us off, I've heard quite frequently that Scorpion Style and its derived feats are a huge trap option, especially for monks who get them as bonus feats. What is it exactly about them that makes the tree a trap?
I'm playing with some people who are new to the pathfinder business, and while they have the basic mechanics down, I'm worried they may fall into trap feats and options on the basis of them sounding cool. In example, our gunslinger with no ranks in UMD picked up a spell tattoo for a Light spell, which he also thinks is going to be permanent and not one-use.
So to start us off, I've heard quite frequently that Scorpion Style and its derived feats are a huge trap option, especially for monks who get them as bonus feats. What is it exactly about them that makes the tree a trap?
For Scorpion Style in particular:
1) you have to declare it in advance
2) its a Standard (meaning you don't get iteratives or Flurry)
3) even if it hits, its effect is negated by a Fort save (which is the best save for most monster types) with a middling DC
In other words, it's a feat that lets you waste actions all day.
Attack feats that only work on an Attack action (i.e. not as part of a full attack or charge) are often traps, as they become much less useful once you get iteratives. Not always, but mostly.
An feat or ability that only gives a benefit while you have no ranks in a skill is usually a trap. It's a lot cheaper to put a couple of ranks into a skill (especially a class skill) than to spend a valuable feat on achieving the same thing. Rogue talents have a couple of these.
Vital Strike and Dilettante for example?
|
The funny thing about Vital Strike is that it's not as bad as it's been made out to be. It just doesn't work the way you might think on a casual first reading, so it's also not as good as a lot of people hope it will be.
I've seen it used in practice quite regularly, and a feat for +2d6 damage in the first/surprise round of combat when you're not in full attack range yet, isn't a bad deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The overall trick to spot the bad options is to make sure you read the rules for things really well. This is not a snark but a important thing that can stop 80% of the missundestandings. Second if somthing is too good to be true. It most likely is.