|
Wow, I wasn't aware there were so many abyssimal feats around. Thanks for the laugh track! ;)
I guess some of those feats really are worse than Death and Glory, though by a small margin. D&G has a slight advantage over a full attack if your enemy is a single hit away from falling AND you would die next round anyway. Even so, if you miss, your enemy gets to kill you for free and will have the next round available for killing your friends instead of finishing you off. Bad trade-off, even then.
The absolute worst feat I have ever seen in any d20 game has to be Elephant Stomp.
Oh yeah...I read another thread where someone was describing that feat, and I figured I must be missing something, somehow. I honestly have no clue what it was intended to do. If you succeed at an overrun attempt, you can choose not to overrun after all? Bwuh?
I can at least make a decent guess as to how Monkey Lunge is supposed to work. I'd put it in the same category as Ride-By Attack -- someone screwed up the wording and made it practically non-functional.
I too have seen people take run as a feat. This happens most often when I'm running a very small game--e.g., 2 players and a GM. Being able to run faster and longer than your foes is pretty useful in such a context.Are you sure that the important thing is not 'run faster and longer than the slowest of your buddies?'
SCNR
Or "I don't have to out-run the troll...I just have to out-run YOU!" =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess some of those feats really are worse than Death and Glory, though by a small margin. D&G has a slight advantage over a full attack if your enemy is a single hit away from falling AND you would die next round anyway.Except the feat has the requirement: "you could totally attack your opponent at least twice". And the effect: "by abandoning all your attacks except one, you get a small bonus (and if that attack doesn't kill your opponent, you die)".
Even without the "you die" clause, the feat would be total crap: you have a better chance to kill him with your normal full-attack sequence than with only one attack and a small bonus. And if you don't, you're not a melee-er, then why did you bother to take this feat in the first place ?
I can see this being really good in some situations. Consider a TWF rogue with kukris and Butterfly's Sting. You have this feat, greater vital strike, and DoG. You're also a barbarian that has Furious Finish, and a Scythe.
The partner crits, but does normal damage. Passes the crit to you.
You do 32 damage from the scythe (8d4 maxed from Furious Finish). At least +4 damage from DoG, but probably +5.
You have 26 base strength and +4 from raging, so +10 damage from str. Actually, +15 from str since Scythes are two handed.
Power Attack is +12 damage.
So, total that all up, with maybe +2 from the enhancement bonus, and we get 66 damage. Which is a crit. For 264 damage.
That's about 40% of Treerazer's HP. DoG "only" contributed 20 points of damage to that, which isn't bad at all.
Wow. You have a very good imagination Cheapy, cause you know, such character would NEVER exist, fun to imagine it though, hehe.
...Was that sarcasm? 20 out of 264 is only 7%. That's not impressive at all. And even if it weren't a crit within a full attack would do more. I simply fail to follow what Death or Glory is remotely contributing there, especially to be worth *getting squashed right after*.
...Was that sarcasm? 20 out of 264 is only 7%. That's not impressive at all. And even if it weren't a crit within a full attack would do more. I simply fail to follow what Death or Glory is remotely contributing there, especially to be worth *getting squashed right after*.
No, wasn't sarcasm. 20 extra damage isn't bad at all, even if it's a small percentage of the total damage.
I'm not saying it's a great feat, just that it's not horrible and has its (however contrived) uses. A dwarf facing a giant will basically get +4 AC vs them, negating most of the bonus from the DoG.
I think it's meant for Small sized characters though, who generally can get a few feats to help them avoid the Big Folks.
By the time you're already doing 244 damage, 20 extra is chump change, especially when you could easily make up the difference by making a full attack and scoring multiple hits. And ESPECIALLY when 20 extra comes at the price of "if that's not enough to kill the thing, a skyscraper-sized hammer is gonna get dropped on you."
Well, it has its use when you're facing a giant who have between 244 and 263 HP, with a friend who took butterfly's sting and did a crit, and...
Meh... According to my definition, a feat "has its use" if it comes into play at least once in the whole campaign.
No actually that's an indication that it is still on the weak side far better than the feat that will never have its use but not far enough closer to the median of the bell curve to make it out of one standard deviation of the 0 use feat.
|
Elephant Stomp
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Overrun, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When you overrun an opponent and your maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, instead of moving through your opponent's space and knocking her prone, you may stop in the space directly in front of the opponent (or the nearest adjacent space) and make one attack with an unarmed strike or a natural weapon against that opponent as an immediate action.
Normal: When your overrun maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and she is knocked prone.
Situation; you (a barbarian or monk owner of this feat) and a rogue ally are stealthily hidden on top of a roof; below you, guarding the set-back doorway to some hive of scum and villainy, is the "bouncer": a large, headband-wearing centaur with a scorpion whip and what you guess is probably an Efficient Quiver full of large javelins and what-not-else slung over his shoulder. He radiates strong magic all over. The dude is big, stable on four legs, and apparently also quite dextrous, fast, and used to fobbing off magical assaults.
You and/or the rogue do a little buffing via UMD'ing wands, then declare INIT....
* rogue wins, delays to go after you.
* you both ready in the surprise round to go top of initiative in the first combat round.
* you jump straight down on top of the unaware centaur and use your Elephant Stomp to declare an Overrun. (Since the centaur is flat-footed, he's denied his DEX bonus to AC and CMD; since he's also a large stable creature with a whip who also throws weapons and is therefore used to laughing off trip and disarm attempts, you guess he hasn't put much, if any, into pumping CMD.)
* You succeed, roll off into "the nearest adjacent space" -- of which you can pick any since you came down from above -- and choose the square containing the recessed doorway, and give him a good punch (if monk) or claw (if beast totem) on the way.
* You then take your regular attack (since the feat-granted attack came free courtesy of the overrun, you're not denied your regular attack), and Vital Strike him for a heaping wad.
* Simultaneously, your rogue is Acrobatic'ing down into the flanking position, sneak-attacks, makes a Bluff check to fool the centaur into believing that he made all of the attacks, then runs (Spring Attack or Fast Getaway, et al) across the street to hide behind a tree.
-- You, the "meat-shield" of the pair, now block the doorway, and your opponent might not even know you're there if your rogue ally successfully bluffed him. If, unaware, he backs into the recessed doorway for protection, he gets AoO'd. If he stands where he is and attacks, he leave himself open to another flank-granted sneak attack.
So, like most tactical feats, Elephant Stomp is useless unless you actively work to exploit relevant situations -- THEN it lets you do some cool things.
* You then take your regular attack (since the feat-granted attack came free courtesy of the overrun, you're not denied your regular attack), and Vital Strike him for a heaping wad.
And this is where it all falls apart. Your Overrun Maneuver cost you a standard action. So by this point, you've blown a standard, move, and immediate (swift) action. How do you plan on taking a "regular attack"?
|
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).
Yeah, Elephant Stomp is useless.
Sharp Senses:
Gain a +2 to perception checks! Not like Skill Focus isn't superior in every way or anything with its +3 bonus which later turns into a +6. Or Alertness with its +2 bonus that later turns into a +4. AND affects another skill.
I vote for this one as worst feat ever. No one would even consider taking it unless they had Skill Focus AND alertness and were REALLY trying to max out their perception.
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm putting my vote in for Elephant Stomp. I think what they wanted to do originally was what Vicious Stomp does now... someone goes prone, you step on them, though they wanted the prone-going overrun-focused, I guess. What they ended up doing was making something no one should ever take ever.
Cockatrice Strike is also terrible, but maybe you're fortuned up and have a ton of rerolls from something else, so you're willing to be it all on one hit critting. It's a profoundly stupid thing to do, but I could see someone using the feat and something good happenning at some point.
This is not the case for Elephant Stomp. If you use it, nothing better can come from such use than from not using it - ever. Any in-game effect it has could be replicated by charging the foe you'd overrun with a normal charge instead. You've spent a feat so you can make a normal charge attack contingent on beating CMD...
Heck, even sharp sense grants something.
Taking elephant stomp is akin to saying "No thank you, level 3, I don't need another feat. I'm good. I'll just wait for level 5"
cockatrice strike has a good flavor, technically it's crappy (because you could coup de grace instead).
But really, a person who can turn people into stone at will sounds cool for a villain.
Too bad for all the prerequisites, only a monk or very specific fighter would consider using it.
Sharp senses:
well there are people who believe in pumping everything into perception, but I believe such things should not be supported.
My vote too goes to sharp senses.
Is that a joke? Toughness is an widely recognized as a good feat. It basically gives you a +2 Con for the purposes of HP.
Four pages and no mention of Summoner's Call?
Prerequisite: Eidolon class feature.
Benefit: Whenever you summon your eidolon, you may give it a +2 enhancement bonus to it's Strength, Dexterity, [/b]or[/b] Constitution. [/b]This bonus lasts 10 minutes after the summoning ritual is complete.[/b]
So it's a feat for one class feature, that can be made useless with magic items, and [/b]lasts 10 minutes after a minute long ritual[/b]. The only possible use for this feat involves the spell summon eidolon and even then it is debatable.
Four pages and no mention of Summoner's Call?
Prerequisite: Eidolon class feature.
Benefit: Whenever you summon your eidolon, you may give it a +2 enhancement bonus to it's Strength, Dexterity, [/b]or[/b] Constitution. [/b]This bonus lasts 10 minutes after the summoning ritual is complete.[/b]So it's a feat for one class feature, that can be made useless with magic items, and [/b]lasts 10 minutes after a minute long ritual[/b]. The only possible use for this feat involves the spell summon eidolon and even then it is debatable.
At which point you could've used Augment Summoning to give it a +4 to Str and Con for the duration of the summons instead.
I say Summoner's Call is in the top 5 list of "Why would anyone ever take these feats?"
Better question is why would anyone design those feats and put it in a book? Not worth the paper it's printed on.
Better question is why would anyone design those feats and put it in a book? Not worth the paper it's printed on.
Various reasons. Last minute nerfing so it couldn't be removed from the book but was made pointless and terrible. Designers designing for role-players - "A feat that gives me a static bonus to Perception forever making it worse than all other Perception feats but I can only take it if I have a certain racial ability? Oh, I'm all over that." And just bad design - people think something sounds really cool, then people who actually play the game point out how stupid it is or that there are at least three different things that do the same thing but better (aka, lack of knowledge about the game).
Caustic Slur is the silliest thing I have seen in PF. Can anyone explain to me how it makes sense at all?
Was the objective here to introduce an aggro mechanic by actually making it mechanically advantageous to attack the feat holder? Shouldn't they have named it "Vulnerable Target"?
Yes, I'm going to take a feat that makes it easier for my enemies to hit me for more damage and gives me nothing in return. PS- I doesn't even force them to attack me.
Death or Glory isn't bad if you combine it with Crane Wing Wing. Yes, your opponent gets to make an AoO, which you can then deflect for free.
Combine with the Vital Strike line at your leisure.
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.
I tend to agree while i realize that new book like UC a chance for errata hasn't even been a possibility but a lot of the others considering we just went through a round of errata makes me less inclined to believe in a change.
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.I tend to agree while i realize that new book like UC a chance for errata hasn't even been a possibility but a lot of the others considering we just went through a round of errata makes me less inclined to believe in a change.
Me too, unfortunatelly.
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.
Well, the really suboptimal stuff can just be ignored.
It's the easily-abused stuff that needs to be removed or revised.
In the very long run, I hope that some feats get retooled or re-envisioned in some later edition... but that scarcely applies to any of the feats in this thread, the majority of which should simply wither and die.
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.Well, the really suboptimal stuff can just be ignored.
It's the easily-abused stuff that needs to be removed or revised.
In the very long run, I hope that some feats get retooled or re-envisioned in some later edition... but that scarcely applies to any of the feats in this thread, the majority of which should simply wither and die.
And then we end up with a game full of god awful or mediocre feats/spells/classes/everything else.
Why fix anything bad in Pathfinder? We already "fixed" all the bad stuff when pulling it from OGL! Everything from this point out is perfect, except for the stuff that is too good, which needs nerfed!
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.Well, the really suboptimal stuff can just be ignored.
It's the easily-abused stuff that needs to be removed or revised.
In the very long run, I hope that some feats get retooled or re-envisioned in some later edition... but that scarcely applies to any of the feats in this thread, the majority of which should simply wither and die.
That's already an improvement.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Death or Glory isn't bad if you combine it with Crane Wing Wing. Yes, your opponent gets to make an AoO, which you can then deflect for free.
Azten, the wording for D/G is spcific and quirky: first off, the opponent doesn't get an Attack of Opportunity:
Secondly, to benefit from Crane Wing:
... your monk needs to have one hand free and be fighting defensively. I don't see how that's particularly efficient when using Death or Glory. If your monk deflects the immediate action, he's no longer able to deflect the monster's normal attack.
Azten, the wording for D/G is spcific and quirky: first off, the opponent doesn't get an Attack of Opportunity:
** spoiler omitted **
After reading that, it's certainly not in the same league as Elephant Stomp (incoherent) or Extra Cantrips or Orisons (obsolete). A +4 (or better) bonus to attack and damage is nothing to sneeze at; I could see using it versus a high-AC, relatively low-damage monster (like a dragon with Shield and Mage Armor running, say).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm wondering if after all this is said and done, and they realized that somethings are simply horrible and shouldn't exist, if something will be done about it. I love paizo, I think they are fantastic, and problems happen in all games, but so far they've done a pretty good job at fixing things, but I don't see they doing anything about those issues exposed here.Well, the really suboptimal stuff can just be ignored.
It's the easily-abused stuff that needs to be removed or revised.
More or less this. There is a lot more noise made when a feat is overpowered. When a feat is underpowered there might be a few gripes but in the end people just ignore it. Overpowered feats spawn long arguments on the forums, then even longer arguments when they get reeled in "it was overnerfed, it's now useless!!!".
On the flip side, if you crank out a book with 350 completely worthless feats you aren't going to sell a lot of books. I think Paizo's average is pretty decent at this point.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Or a fatigued target, or sickened, or staggered, or blinded or deafened, or paralyzed...What's that from?Ultimate combat.
The feat allow you to go into the square of an opponent against whom you made a successful stunning fist. You gain +4 AC against that opponent. And when the "stun" condition ends, the opponent can go away using a 5-foot-step. Oh, you can do an AoO, but since you're a monk, you miss.
Oh yes, you also have +4 AC against a paralyzed opponent. Sounds much better.
Hmmm, most strange, I had parsed it as you get a +4 dodge bonus to AC (period, against everyone) and a +4 to hit the guy who's space you were in.
Relevant text:
While you are in your opponent’s space, you gain a +4 dodge
bonus to AC and a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls against
that opponent.
Something for the faq, I suppose.
prototype00
|
|
The Elephant Stomp hate is probably a little OTT, considering a developer clarified this feat over a year ago in this thread.
You make an overrun attack as normal. The feat does nothing unless your combat maneuver check exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more. At that point, the opponent is knocked prone as normal, but you stop (rather than moving through the opponent's space) and can make an immediate unarmed or natural weapon attack against the prone opponent.
Without the feat, the opponent is knocked prone, you move through his space, and you don't get an immediate attack. Likewise, simply moving up and attacking the opponent doesn't knock them prone.
So yes, a poorly worded Feat, but given the clarification hardly a contender for 'crappiest Feat', IMHO.
In fact, it's a pretty solid choice for monks, wildshaped druids, and others who favour natural or unarmed attacks.
Its prerequisites go off the Power Attack chain, so are less MAD than the trip Feats which go off the Int-dependent Combat Expertise.
The attack being an immediate instead of a swift action is important because it makes the Feat helpful if you ready an action to Overrun someone, which makes it handy for ambushes and the like (if you look at the Feats in the Sargava book they're mostly designed to help make you a better ambusher - it's a theme). Combined with the Rhino Charge Feat from the same book you can ready an action to charge and overrun and curb stomp someone...
Being an immediate action also doesn't eat your AoO, so less need for high Dex and Combat Reflexes if you combine Elephant Stomp with, say, Greater Overrun. Although I understand there's some sort of 'Vicious Stomp' Feat in UC (I haven't seen the book yet) which could combine with both of these for an attack which knocks your opponent prone and curb stomps them three times... at the end of a charge no less!
So yeah, hardly 'crappy' with the right build... just very badly worded.
Four pages and no mention of Summoner's Call?
Prerequisite: Eidolon class feature.
Benefit: Whenever you summon your eidolon, you may give it a +2 enhancement bonus to it's Strength, Dexterity, [/b]or[/b] Constitution. [/b]This bonus lasts 10 minutes after the summoning ritual is complete.[/b]So it's a feat for one class feature, that can be made useless with magic items, and [/b]lasts 10 minutes after a minute long ritual[/b]. The only possible use for this feat involves the spell summon eidolon and even then it is debatable.
At which point you could've used Augment Summoning to give it a +4 to Str and Con for the duration of the summons instead.
I say Summoner's Call is in the top 5 list of "Why would anyone ever take these feats?"
Augment Summoning doesn't work on the Eidolon ability.
But it does work on the Summon Ediolon spell, which is what was under discussion.
"And the Crappiest Feat Award goes to..."
NOTE: Those with good taste, adequate intellect, or even the slightest sense of decency will not enjoy the above spoiler. I however, lack all of those things.
"And the Crappiest Feat Award goes to..."
** spoiler omitted **
NOTE: Those with good taste, adequate intellect, or even the slightest sense of decency will not enjoy the above spoiler. I however, lack all of those things.
Well played, Sir. Well played.
After reading that, it's certainly not in the same league as Elephant Stomp (incoherent) or Extra Cantrips or Orisons (obsolete). A +4 (or better) bonus to attack and damage is nothing to sneeze atYou say that because you didn't see the conditions:
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Against a creature of size Large or larger, you
can make a single melee attack as a full-round action, [...]In other words: "if you totaly can do two attacks, don't, and get a crappy bonus instead of an attack". Even without the clause "get a free blow coz you like it", the feat is bad. With this clause, it's total crap.
No, I noticed that. I still think it would be useful in cases where your main attack only hits on an 18+, say; your second attack would only hit on a 20, anyways.
Don't get me wrong -- it's not generally useful, but it doesn't have zero usefulness.
|
|
<aw, where did that go...rummage...rummage...rummage...Ah-ha! Found yeh.>* You then take your regular attack (since the feat-granted attack came free courtesy of the overrun, you're not denied your regular attack), and Vital Strike him for a heaping wad.And this is where it all falls apart. Your Overrun Maneuver cost you a standard action. So by this point, you've blown a standard, move, and immediate (swift) action. How do you plan on taking a "regular attack"?
Charge Through (Combat)
You can overrun enemies when charging.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
Note that Improved Overrun is a prerequisite for Elephant Stomp, and the latter feat should be viewed as a tertiaty feat in a chain. -- So, you can Overrun/Stomp as a free action, then get your normal attack at the end of the charge. (In the example I provided, our hero has to jump 10' off the roof for it to qualify as a charge.)
* * * * * *
"And the hands-down winner in the 'ABSOLUTE WORST "FEATURE" IN THE GAME' category,
-- a suger-coated delight beloved by munchkins everywhere but which has been specifically crafted
to KILL them, the poor naive fools, is...." <drumroll> -- "...May I have the envelope please!"
Note that Improved Overrun is a prerequisite for Elephant Stomp, and the latter feat should be viewed as a tertiaty feat in a chain. -- So, you can Overrun/Stomp as a free action, then get your normal attack at the end of the charge. (In the example I provided, our hero has to jump 10' off the roof for it to qualify as a charge.)
Are you really confident about the legality of you being able to overrun the target of the charge? Because I'm not. I know that it wouldn't be legal 99% of the time, but in corner cases such as the situation you described I could possibly see it going 50/50, depending on the GM. But I wouldn't count on it in PFS, that's for certain.
That still makes it pretty much a waste of a feat.