And the Crappiest Feat Award goes to...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the reason people resent Point Blank Shot is that, unless you're playing a Human and/or a Fighter, you cannot effectively play an archer at level 1, and that's just dumb. Only Humans and Fighters can take both Point Blank and Precise Shot at level 1, which means everyone else is eating a -4 to -8 penalty on every single shot they make (where Humans and Fighters only take a -0 to -4, depending on angle).

Precise Shot is the "allows you to play an archer" feat, and PBS just feels like filler because it doesn't actually contribute to letting you play an archer except as a feat tax before you're allowed to take the "allows you to play an archer" feat.

It's dumb. I understand why it exists, but it's still dumb.


Combat medic could be pretty useful. In a low magic seting where healing is scarce the ability to stop bleeding without interruption could be handy (bleding is pretty easy to cause with weapons these days). I can see many characters considering it in case the game took place in the Mana Wastes, Alkenstar, Rhadoum or Razimiran. Obvous casting in these locales could be impossible bring troubles upon worshippers of a wrong deities.

A lot of feats are situational, which doesn't concern me a lot consiering that UC and UM are to be covering corner cases as well (although It could stop in these books ;) ). Otherwise I'll just go with the core and other things available.

Dark Archive

Did Caustic Slur get errata'd or something?

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a Bluff check against one sort of favored enemy. Any creature of that type within 60 feet of you must make a Will saving throw or become angered. If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls). If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2. These modifiers end when combat ends. This ability does not work on creatures that cannot understand you, though sometimes a simple gesture is sufficient for an intelligent opponent to catch your gist regardless of any language barrier.

Seems to me that you are giving a foe that attacks you (the wisdom of that is up to you) power attack, but it has no effect if they don't attack you.

However in this thread, it seems implied that you basically just buff the monster and they are then free to go about tearing the arms off the sorcerer, but that's not how the above reads.

Is it different in print?

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
That said, Ultimate Combat offers a few jewels as well. I love the sap feats, for instance, or Vicious Stomp, or Clustered Shots...

What, exactly, is wrong with Vicious Stomp?

Its not only easier to get than Greater Trip, it stacks with it. Trip an opponent (as a monk, or an unarmed fighter), and they provoke both for falling prone, and for the special AOO granted by Greater Trip. Thats comparable to Medusa's Wrath, except it doesn't require the target to fail a save. And you get benefits partway through the chain instead of having to wait forever.

EDIT: Unless you were listing those feats for comparison. In which case I apologize?

A subject can't generate 2 AoO for the same action, so I doubt the two AoO stack.

Ice Titan wrote:

Sea Legs.

Requires you to be level 5 with 5 ranks in Profession (sailor).

Gives +2 Acrobatics, Climb and Swim.

Doesn't get better.

Athletic has no prerequisites and gives you +2 to Climb and Swim, +4 at 10 ranks.

As far as Sea Legs goes, I think it is pretty bad.

It is a feat for all those guys that never go above level 10 or for people that is interest in reaching a specific value in the skills fast and then stop training them.

Not all people play for the long run.


enrious wrote:

Did Caustic Slur get errata'd or something?

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a Bluff check against one sort of favored enemy. Any creature of that type within 60 feet of you must make a Will saving throw or become angered. If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls). If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2. These modifiers end when combat ends. This ability does not work on creatures that cannot understand you, though sometimes a simple gesture is sufficient for an intelligent opponent to catch your gist regardless of any language barrier.

Seems to me that you are giving a foe that attacks you (the wisdom of that is up to you) power attack, but it has no effect if they don't attack you.

However in this thread, it seems implied that you basically just buff the monster and they are then free to go about tearing the arms off the sorcerer, but that's not how the above reads.

Is it different in print?

No, I believe that's right. But you are missing the point. It is supposed to be some silly aggro mechanic, but completely fails in it's purpose.

-It is requires a standard action to use. That means the Ranger can't attack this round. That's a lot to give up.
-It requires a skill check, and therefore an investment in Bluff.
-It only works on favored enemies, which are limited in number.
-They still receive a saving throw to ignore the whole affect.

That's a lot of prerequisites to fulfill. But let's say a Ranger get's lucky. His favored enemy is threatening to kill the sorcerer on its next turn. You blow the standard action (instead of shooting it full of arrows), succeed on the skill check, and it fails the saving throw. What have you actually accomplished? By RAW? Nothing. It is still just as easy for it to kill the sorcerer than it was before you wasted your turn. You haven't actually done anything at all to protect the sorcerer. All it means is that if the enemy has any attacks left over from murdering the sorcerer he's going to be able to do more damage to you if you get hit.

And that's why Caustic Slur is a horrible feat.

Dark Archive

Merkatz wrote:
enrious wrote:

Did Caustic Slur get errata'd or something?

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a Bluff check against one sort of favored enemy. Any creature of that type within 60 feet of you must make a Will saving throw or become angered. If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls). If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2. These modifiers end when combat ends. This ability does not work on creatures that cannot understand you, though sometimes a simple gesture is sufficient for an intelligent opponent to catch your gist regardless of any language barrier.

Seems to me that you are giving a foe that attacks you (the wisdom of that is up to you) power attack, but it has no effect if they don't attack you.

However in this thread, it seems implied that you basically just buff the monster and they are then free to go about tearing the arms off the sorcerer, but that's not how the above reads.

Is it different in print?

No, I believe that's right. But you are missing the point. It is supposed to be some silly aggro mechanic, but completely fails in it's purpose.

-It is requires a standard action to use. That means the Ranger can't attack this round. That's a lot to give up.
-It requires a skill check, and therefore an investment in Bluff.
-It only works on favored enemies, which are limited in number.
-They still receive a saving throw to ignore the whole affect.

That's a lot of prerequisites to fulfill. But let's say a Ranger get's lucky. His favored enemy is threatening to kill the sorcerer on its next turn. You blow the standard action (instead of shooting it full of arrows), succeed on the skill check, and it fails the saving throw. What have you actually accomplished? By RAW? Nothing. It is still just as easy for it to kill the...

No, I got the suckitude of it, but saying that if it succeeds you've given a free PA to the monster, who doesn't have to attack you (and is therefore free to PA someone else) is disingenuous.

The feat is already terribad; no need to make up more reasons why that's so.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonsong wrote:
Swap Places from the APG. Its a teamwork feat therefore a feat tax on 2+ players and should have been a combat maneuver.

Swap Places is stupidly good for a cavalier who can "share" it.

"Aw, you smart, smart monster who thought you were gonna be cute by moving around me to beat on my wizard friend...well, heeerree's Johnny!' <switch!><bash><bash><bash>

Most teamwork feats suck unless there's a cavalier around. Make an entire party full of cavaliers....

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Mike Schneider wrote:

Swap Places is stupidly good for a cavalier who can "share" it.

"Aw, you smart, smart monster who thought you were gonna be cute by moving around me to beat on my wizard friend...well, heeerree's Johnny!' <switch!><bash><bash><bash>

Most teamwork feats suck unless there's a cavalier around. Make an entire party full of cavaliers....

Oooor. You could use the standard action you need to give your teammates the feat on some more-effective method to help cover your friend.


A Man In Black wrote:
Channeled Revival or whatever it is struck me as especially bad. It takes a full-round action to revive an ally, and only works within one round after that ally dies. They have to drop right at your feet for you to be able to use this.

I'm not actually sure you need to be next to them to use this. It just says they're restored to life "as if you had cast the breath of life spell" - I read that as saying "here's the mechanics to use". If it actually intended on you needing to be right next to them, it would be phrased "to cast the breath of life spell" or something like that.

It's certainly unclear, but I'm pretty sure the intent is that it works in the same radius as channel energy itself.


WPharolin wrote:
Babble Peddler - You don't need a feat to lie to people.

No, but the feat does force them to trade with you if you do succeed in lying to them, where normally they might not. It's not great - it's basically forcing mechanics onto what would otherwise be roleplayed out (possibly with the same rolls), but it has a use.

Quote:
Caustic Slur - This feat makes your favored enemy "angry" except that all it really does is grant them power attack or make their power attack stronger. It doesn't actually force them to attack you or anything like that. Its a feat that makes your enemies stronger...that's it.

No argument here. While they might miss you more due to the attack penalty, to actually benefit from that you have to have been close to untouchable already, and they still have the chance to roll a natural 20 and turn all that bonus damage against you. I don't know what the point of this one was.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Bobson wrote:

I'm not actually sure you need to be next to them to use this. It just says they're restored to life "as if you had cast the breath of life spell" - I read that as saying "here's the mechanics to use". If it actually intended on you needing to be right next to them, it would be phrased "to cast the breath of life spell" or something like that.

It's certainly unclear, but I'm pretty sure the intent is that it works in the same radius as channel energy itself.

As written, you don't use any of channel energy's rules at all, you just burn uses of it to cast breath of life I suspect that the author merely didn't notice that breath of life was a touch spell.

Giving it channel energy's range is a reasonable fix.


A Man In Black wrote:
Bobson wrote:

I'm not actually sure you need to be next to them to use this. It just says they're restored to life "as if you had cast the breath of life spell" - I read that as saying "here's the mechanics to use". If it actually intended on you needing to be right next to them, it would be phrased "to cast the breath of life spell" or something like that.

It's certainly unclear, but I'm pretty sure the intent is that it works in the same radius as channel energy itself.

As written, you don't use any of channel energy's rules at all, you just burn uses of it to cast breath of life I suspect that the author merely didn't notice that breath of life was a touch spell.

Giving it channel energy's range is a reasonable fix.

As written, it also doesn't use any of the spell casting rules, except BoL's effect. See the Iconoclast Inquisitor's Dispelling Attack ("as if she had cast dispel magic") and the Gunslinger's Menacing Shot grit ("as if they were subject to the fear spell"). "As if" implies "use the mechanics, not the delivery method".

But it also doesn't use channel energy's rules. In fact, by RAW there isn't any range on it. Maybe the BBEG has someone elsewhere in his lair whose only job is to burn their channel energy uses to BoL him whenever he dies (as determined by a status spell or a magic item or something).....

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Bobson wrote:
As written, it also doesn't use any of the spell casting rules, except BoL's effect. See the Iconoclast Inquisitor's Dispelling Attack ("as if she had cast dispel magic") and the Gunslinger's Menacing Shot grit ("as if they were subject to the fear spell"). "As if" implies "use the mechanics, not the delivery method".

How is the range not one of the mechanics?


Zmar wrote:

Combat medic could be pretty useful. In a low magic seting where healing is scarce the ability to stop bleeding without interruption could be handy (bleding is pretty easy to cause with weapons these days). I can see many characters considering it in case the game took place in the Mana Wastes, Alkenstar, Rhadoum or Razimiran. Obvous casting in these locales could be impossible bring troubles upon worshippers of a wrong deities.

I wouldn't consider Combat Medic nearly as dumb if it wasn't a teamwork feat. I mean why the heck does the target of the healing have to have a feat for you to dodge blows? Heck, the target could be unconscious and yet their feat participation is required. That's utter nonsense.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Swap Places from the APG. Its a teamwork feat therefore a feat tax on 2+ players and should have been a combat maneuver.

Swap Places is stupidly good for a cavalier who can "share" it.

"Aw, you smart, smart monster who thought you were gonna be cute by moving around me to beat on my wizard friend...well, heeerree's Johnny!' <switch!><bash><bash><bash>

Most teamwork feats suck unless there's a cavalier around. Make an entire party full of cavaliers....

The point is it should be something anyone can attempt It should not be a cavalier/inquisitor only ability. It's not a crappy feat because it codified something people have been house ruling for years/ editions. It's a crappy mechanic because of how it was codified, as a feat. Even worse as a teamwork feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonsong wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Swap Places from the APG. Its a teamwork feat therefore a feat tax on 2+ players and should have been a combat maneuver.

Swap Places is stupidly good for a cavalier who can "share" it.

"Aw, you smart, smart monster who thought you were gonna be cute by moving around me to beat on my wizard friend...well, heeerree's Johnny!' <switch!><bash><bash><bash>

Most teamwork feats suck unless there's a cavalier around. Make an entire party full of cavaliers....

The point is it should be something anyone can attempt It should not be a cavalier/inquisitor only ability. It's not a crappy feat because it codified something people have been house ruling for years/ editions. It's a crappy mechanic because of how it was codified, as a feat. Even worse as a teamwork feat.

It wouldn't be so stupid if it wasn't a teamwork feat. All teamwork feats are on the list for crappiest feat award. Teamwork feats just seem like they were feats that required some sort of action from an ally so someone came up with the bright idea that "hey, let's make them BOTH take the same feat to pull off the action, that way, it inspires group dynamics and teamwork!" No, no it doesn't.

This is like saying bad guys would need feats to perform combat maneuvers on them. "If your enemy has 'Get Bullrushed', you may push it back with an additional 5' for every 5 you succeed on your check."
Why doesn't it suddenly become less stupid to require this for an ally? Just make Swap Places a standard action normally then you can take a feat to make it a move action.


Another one of my favourites...

Childlike. It has two effects:

  • You can take 10 on Bluff checks in some circumstances...which is useless because there's nothing stopping you from normally taking 10 on Bluff checks (other than house rules, I suppose).
  • You get a bonus (effectively +6) on disguising yourself as a human child (rather than a halfling). Seriously, how often does that come up in a typical game? Even if it does come up often (doubtful), a Hat of Disguise is cheap.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Daniel Moyer wrote:
The Paladin in my group is mounted, being a mounted Cavalier made this feat one of my top choices for tactician... after all mounts are allies too, so swap places applies... need to set up a charge lane anyone? ;)

Are you just swapping places between the cavalier and the paladin, or are the horses switching, too? The mount is at least one size larger than the cavalier, yes?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
hogarth wrote:

Another one of my favourites...

Childlike. It has two effects:

  • You can take 10 on Bluff checks in some circumstances...which is useless because there's nothing stopping you from normally taking 10 on Bluff checks (other than house rules, I suppose).
  • You get a bonus (effectively +6) on disguising yourself as a human child (rather than a halfling). Seriously, how often does that come up in a typical game? Even if it does come up often (doubtful), a Hat of Disguise is cheap.

This reminds me of the trouble with Pass for Human.

As written, you don't get a penalty for impersonating a human, and get a plain ordinary +10 bonus to Disguise, as long as you're playing a human. So let's say you're a burly half-orc. If you're trying to pass yourself off as some other half-orc bruiser, no bonus. If you're trying to pass yourself off as Queen Abrogail of Cheliax instead, +10.

The feat makes you a master of disguise, as if you've already taken the Skill Focus (Disguise) and Deceitful feats, and already had 10 ranks invested. As long as you're pretending to be human.

But let's face it; who uses Disguise?

Personally, I'd have just introduced a Pass for Human race trait that allows you to perfectly disguise your race as human. Leave it at that, stay out of the mechanics.


Cartigan wrote:
Just make Swap Places a standard action normally then you can take a feat to make it a move action.

I agree a feat to "Improve" the action is a good way to go. Especially as folks are increasingly asking for "tanking" abilities.

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:


  • You can take 10 on Bluff checks in some circumstances...which is useless because there's nothing stopping you from normally taking 10 on Bluff checks (other than house rules, I suppose).

I suppose a DM could argue that lying to a person puts you in immediate danger, or that the nature of lying is distracting as you have to think about what you're saying while lying, thus you are distracted.


umbralatro wrote:
Otherwise, my vote would be for Extra Cantrips/Orisons. Totally worthless next to Expanded Arcana.

I'm not sure I follow. Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't Expanded Arcana do exactly the same thing as Extra Cantrips/Orisons when you specify Level 0 spells? Expanded Arcana allows you to add 2 spells of any level lower than your highest castable level, Extra Cantrips/Orisons adds 2 cantrips or orisons... It looks to me like they function the same in this case and are interchangeable. How is Extra Cantrips/Orisons useless?


Cartigan wrote:
It wouldn't be so stupid if it wasn't a teamwork feat. All teamwork feats are on the list for crappiest feat award. Teamwork feats just seem like they were feats that required some sort of action from an ally so someone came up with the bright idea that "hey, let's make them BOTH take the same feat to pull off the action, that way, it inspires group dynamics and teamwork!" No, no it doesn't.

Hey now, lets not go overboard. Only about 90% of teamwork feats suck. But Coordinated Charge? Potentially brutal with mounted chargers or pouncing druids. Paired Opportunists with anything that provokes AoO? Broken Wing Gambit, Feint Partner, Snake Style... the possibilities are endless.

Although, looking at the Teamwork Feat list, I have another for the pyre: Ensemble. It lets you aid another on Perform! I mean, I think you could do it before, but now it is only an immediate action! But it is also limited to four people. You know, to prevent abuse.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:


Although, looking at the Teamwork Feat list, I have another for the pyre: Ensemble. It lets you aid another on Perform! I mean, I think you could do it before, but now it is only an immediate action! But it is also limited to four people. You know, to prevent abuse.

Well, come on, a barber shop quartet is already massively destructive. I can't imagine what would happen if you let the Polyphonic Spree get a hold of this feat.


Quote:
All teamwork feats are on the list for crappiest feat award.

Outflank is an incredibly good teamwork feat. . . .

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

meabolex wrote:
Quote:
All teamwork feats are on the list for crappiest feat award.
Outflank is an incredibly good teamwork feat. . . .

Lookout is pretty good as well. Lets everyone basically use the Perception of the best guy. Also, full rounds during the suprise round? Yes please.

The real problem with the teamwork feats is getting people to take them. You kind of have to coordinate levelling up, becasue nothing is sadder than only one character having a teamwork feat all alone. Once characters have them, they tend to use them in my experience.

That having been said, some of them are quite awful, e.g., Ensemble.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I see it, teamwork feats are more GM fodder than player fodder. Maybe they would be used in a home game where you know who's going to be sitting next to you all the time, but in something like PFS they are utterly useless for players since you have no idea who will be at your table.

For designed encounters, many of them can make for vicious foes.


lastknightleft wrote:
hogarth wrote:


  • You can take 10 on Bluff checks in some circumstances...which is useless because there's nothing stopping you from normally taking 10 on Bluff checks (other than house rules, I suppose).
I suppose a DM could argue that lying to a person puts you in immediate danger, or that the nature of lying is distracting as you have to think about what you're saying while lying, thus you are distracted.

Maybe. But then I'd expect it to say something like "you can always take 10" or "even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so" or what have you.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

ryric wrote:
Lookout is pretty good as well. Lets everyone basically use the Perception of the best guy. Also, full rounds during the suprise round? Yes please.

As long as everybody is clustered, adjacent to the best guy, yeah.


drbuzzard wrote:

As I see it, teamwork feats are more GM fodder than player fodder. Maybe they would be used in a home game where you know who's going to be sitting next to you all the time, but in something like PFS they are utterly useless for players since you have no idea who will be at your table.

For designed encounters, many of them can make for vicious foes.

I hear Cavaliers and Inquisitors love Teamwork feats, even by themselves. Wierdly enough it's like they are designed with the idea that not everyone will take them in mind!

(I'm being snarky in a playful way in case you were wondering where my comment sits on the funny to jerk meter.) In essence Teamwork feats are good IF you are A)An Inquisitor (who gets the benefits regardless), B) A Cavelier (Who can grant the benefits as needed X/Day), or C) A well designed and coordinated party (Which is hard to do even in a home game. Sometimes there's just that guy who doesn't want to take a teamwork feat over power attack or whatever.). So by those standards they definately fall under good to not good but nowhere near worse feats ever. (Except Ensemble... because a bard should already be able to perform with a group...)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just joined a PbP in which everyone decided to become members of the same half-orc family (mostly). Because of the common bond and RP, the GM said that we could all take two Teamwork Feats for free, but that we had to decide amongst ourselves which ones to take.

I thought that was genius.


Stewart Perkins wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:

As I see it, teamwork feats are more GM fodder than player fodder. Maybe they would be used in a home game where you know who's going to be sitting next to you all the time, but in something like PFS they are utterly useless for players since you have no idea who will be at your table.

For designed encounters, many of them can make for vicious foes.

I hear Cavaliers and Inquisitors love Teamwork feats, even by themselves. Wierdly enough it's like they are designed with the idea that not everyone will take them in mind!

(I'm being snarky in a playful way in case you were wondering where my comment sits on the funny to jerk meter.) In essence Teamwork feats are good IF you are A)An Inquisitor (who gets the benefits regardless), B) A Cavelier (Who can grant the benefits as needed X/Day), or C) A well designed and coordinated party (Which is hard to do even in a home game. Sometimes there's just that guy who doesn't want to take a teamwork feat over power attack or whatever.). So by those standards they definately fall under good to not good but nowhere near worse feats ever. (Except Ensemble... because a bard should already be able to perform with a group...)

Don't forget the character with an animal companion. Teamwork feats work great when you're able to select the feats for both parties involved and can help keep the animal companion from being just an extra source of hp for the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
InVinoVeritas wrote:

I just joined a PbP in which everyone decided to become members of the same half-orc family (mostly). Because of the common bond and RP, the GM said that we could all take two Teamwork Feats for free, but that we had to decide amongst ourselves which ones to take.

I thought that was genius.

I like that but does show what a sticky wicket they are that basically you have to give them away to get a non society group that "meets" semi- regularly to use them. Aside from the ones along with LOTS OF OTHER FEATS *cough PA,CE cough* that should be actions(call them "Stunts"), or combat maneuvers.

Basically instead of each book having a big chapter on feats it should have a smaller feats chapter and a chapter on combat with a revised actions chart with all the new actions/ stunts do they provoke and which book they are in, and the systems for enacting that action/maneuver. Yes having to pour through multiple books is not ideal, BUT we do it for spells feats and archetype abilities already...

Yes I am stating the opinion that Paizo is developing the game in a way that is a "hidden trap" by focusing on making so many feats rather than the more accessible actions/ maneuvers that you lose the ability to be dramatic because somebody will say, "You don't have the feat to be able to do that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All this talk brings me to the conclusion that some feats should be considered "minor feats" and be taken as bonus feats every even level or each 4 levels or something. This way, people would be able to get some feats they want to, but are not worth taking.
What would be your list for those feats?


sunshadow21 wrote:
Stewart Perkins wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:

As I see it, teamwork feats are more GM fodder than player fodder. Maybe they would be used in a home game where you know who's going to be sitting next to you all the time, but in something like PFS they are utterly useless for players since you have no idea who will be at your table.

For designed encounters, many of them can make for vicious foes.

I hear Cavaliers and Inquisitors love Teamwork feats, even by themselves. Wierdly enough it's like they are designed with the idea that not everyone will take them in mind!

(I'm being snarky in a playful way in case you were wondering where my comment sits on the funny to jerk meter.) In essence Teamwork feats are good IF you are A)An Inquisitor (who gets the benefits regardless), B) A Cavelier (Who can grant the benefits as needed X/Day), or C) A well designed and coordinated party (Which is hard to do even in a home game. Sometimes there's just that guy who doesn't want to take a teamwork feat over power attack or whatever.). So by those standards they definately fall under good to not good but nowhere near worse feats ever. (Except Ensemble... because a bard should already be able to perform with a group...)

Don't forget the character with an animal companion. Teamwork feats work great when you're able to select the feats for both parties involved and can help keep the animal companion from being just an extra source of hp for the party.

Don't forget D) A DM who wants to use lower CR monsters in a fight while still having them pose a little bit of a threat to the party. Outflank with moderately powerful enemies and shield wall in any situation will help groups of lower CR foes with numerical advantages at least pose some threat to the party, and amplified Rage could be pretty nice if your party is fighting an orc warband or something.


Xum wrote:

All this talk brings me to the conclusion that some feats should be considered "minor feats" and be taken as bonus feats every even level or each 4 levels or something. This way, people would be able to get some feats they want to, but are not worth taking.

What would be your list for those feats?

I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'minor' list. Also Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency. Nobody takes those feats. I don't remember the last time I considered even giving an NPC one of them.

Point Blank Shot should give a Dodge bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks provoked from ranged attacks, and not be a prereq for anything.

Most of those Teamwork feats shouldn't be feats at all. If you want to grant an ally a better bonus for flanking or Aid Another, that should just be a regular Combat feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcane_Guyver wrote:

I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'lesser' list. Also Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency. Nobody takes those feats. I don't remember the last time I considered even giving an NPC one of them.

Point Blank Shot should give a Dodge bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks provoked from ranged attacks, and not be a prereq for anything.

Most of those Teamwork feats shouldn't be feats at all. If you want to grant an ally a better bonus for flanking or Aid Another, that should just be a regular Combat feat.

To be honest, I would put a whole lot on that list.

Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Skill focus, All skill bonus and save bonus feats, all racial feats, all teamwork feats, all "extra" feats (extra lay on hands, extra rage), critical focus and a whole lot more.


Xum wrote:
Arcane_Guyver wrote:

I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'lesser' list. Also Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency. Nobody takes those feats. I don't remember the last time I considered even giving an NPC one of them.

Point Blank Shot should give a Dodge bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks provoked from ranged attacks, and not be a prereq for anything.

Most of those Teamwork feats shouldn't be feats at all. If you want to grant an ally a better bonus for flanking or Aid Another, that should just be a regular Combat feat.

To be honest, I would put a whole lot on that list.

Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Skill focus, All skill bonus and save bonus feats, all racial feats, all teamwork feats, all "extra" feats (extra lay on hands, extra rage), critical focus and a whole lot more.

Since your premise was to allow people to take feats that aren't worth taking, that's an awfully all-inclusive list.

Weapon Focus is a great feat for anyone who actually uses a weapon. Some of the racial feats are incredible (Steel Soul). Skill Focus is very good in the right builds. Some of the teamwork feats are outstanding because they give excellent bonuses to things you do anyway.


Oh, yeah, the list would be extensive. Those proficiency feats were just some of the most pathetic feats that I could think of off the top of my head.


Quote:
I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'minor' list.

Yeah, sadly these feats are pretty crappy now. Except for Arcane Armor Training/Mastery, there's really no point to take them. Why not just take the Additional Traits feat and get the Armor Expert trait? That gives you mithral breastplate without any proficiency.


Fozbek wrote:
Xum wrote:
Arcane_Guyver wrote:

I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'lesser' list. Also Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency. Nobody takes those feats. I don't remember the last time I considered even giving an NPC one of them.

Point Blank Shot should give a Dodge bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks provoked from ranged attacks, and not be a prereq for anything.

Most of those Teamwork feats shouldn't be feats at all. If you want to grant an ally a better bonus for flanking or Aid Another, that should just be a regular Combat feat.

To be honest, I would put a whole lot on that list.

Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Skill focus, All skill bonus and save bonus feats, all racial feats, all teamwork feats, all "extra" feats (extra lay on hands, extra rage), critical focus and a whole lot more.

Since your premise was to allow people to take feats that aren't worth taking, that's an awfully all-inclusive list.

Weapon Focus is a great feat for anyone who actually uses a weapon. Some of the racial feats are incredible (Steel Soul). Skill Focus is very good in the right builds. Some of the teamwork feats are outstanding because they give excellent bonuses to things you do anyway.

I agree, but so what? None of those feats are AWESOME, some are good on the right builds, so what? I assure you, they would still come short on feats. Now, with those added there some other people would be able to say "Hey, I really would like to have knowledge in the arcane, even though I'm a fighter" Bam, skill focus. Aside from the fact that it would kill the one trick pony problem (mostly)

Ahh, improved 2 weapon fighting, greater 2 weapon fighting and all vital strike feats, run, Endurance.


Xum wrote:
None of those feats are AWESOME

Steel Soul is. No Dwarf should EVER miss taking it. +2 to all saves vs spells and spell-like abilities? Pure gold.

And Weapon Focus may not be AWESOME flavor-wise, but it is mechanically.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Fozbek wrote:
And Weapon Focus may not be AWESOME flavor-wise, but it is mechanically.

Weapon Focus is a fine feat, but it's pure poison, game-design-wise. There are lots of good reasons for not forcing people to use the same sort of weapon for their entire career, and vanishingly few reasons I can think of to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
hogarth wrote:

From the almost-but-not-quite-completely-useless department...

Flaring Spell. Seriously, nobody gives a crap about the Dazzled condition; please stop making new feats/class abilities/spells to make people Dazzled.

Better dazzled then vajazzled.


A Man In Black wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
And Weapon Focus may not be AWESOME flavor-wise, but it is mechanically.
Weapon Focus is a fine feat, but it's pure poison, game-design-wise. There are lots of good reasons for not forcing people to use the same sort of weapon for their entire career, and vanishingly few reasons I can think of to do it.

That's easily fixed by simply changing it to weapon groups ala the Fighter's Weapon Training ability. No need to give it to everyone ever as a bonus feat.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Fozbek wrote:
That's easily fixed by simply changing it to weapon groups ala the Fighter's Weapon Training ability. No need to give it to everyone ever as a bonus feat.

Same problem, alleviated only slightly. This is probably its own thread worth of discussion, though.


Fozbek wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
And Weapon Focus may not be AWESOME flavor-wise, but it is mechanically.
Weapon Focus is a fine feat, but it's pure poison, game-design-wise. There are lots of good reasons for not forcing people to use the same sort of weapon for their entire career, and vanishingly few reasons I can think of to do it.
That's easily fixed by simply changing it to weapon groups ala the Fighter's Weapon Training ability. No need to give it to everyone ever as a bonus feat.

You miss the point, it's not GIVE it, it's to put it on a sub-pr category with other feats and give the chance for people to get it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stewart Perkins wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Seriously, nobody gives a crap about the Dazzled condition; please stop making new feats/class abilities/spells to make people Dazzled
Jubilee is sad now.
Of course she is, she's a vampire...

Huh??? shows you how much I haven't read X-Men lately.

Given that she is Jubilee, she at least has a good reason to sparkle.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
Given that she is Jubilee, she at least has a good reason to sparkle.

You have correctly noted the joke, yes.


A Man In Black wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Given that she is Jubilee, she at least has a good reason to sparkle.
You have correctly noted the joke, yes.

Where is the Like button?

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / And the Crappiest Feat Award goes to... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.