Worst feat ever


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Silent Saturn wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Rogue Talents. There are a lot of iffy ones, so might as well mention a few new ones.

** spoiler omitted **

I mean, at least a few of those give bonuses, but my gosh... that first one. You have to make a check, against something that scales directly against you, the foe gets bonuses to the check, and you can fall prone and get just... Oh my gosh. You can derp and slip on a banana peel, in combat!

The new Rogue guide on these boards (written by Shaman Bond I believe) actually rates Disabling Stunt highly. His argument: Constructs often have high DR and SR if not outright immunity to magic, so the fighter and the wizard both often find themselves at a loss. With this, the rogue actually gets to be the hero in a situation nobody else can deal with.

wich are bad arguments. Golems are absurly weak against magic and golembane scarabs are farily inexpensive for martials. In fact, if you are a rogue, just buy one.


MrSin wrote:


As I said, at least it gives a plausible bonus. Acrobatic stunt was the real star here, imo. Its fully capable of getting you murdered and making it harder to get away. That's just rough.

Extra rogue talent (acrobatic stunt) can easily be within the top 10 worst feats ever.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
MrSin wrote:
As I said, at least it gives a plausible bonus. Acrobatic stunt was the real star here, imo. Its fully capable of getting you murdered and making it harder to get away. That's just rough.
Extra rogue talent (acrobatic stunt) can easily be within the top 10 worst feats ever.

Top 10 best if you really don't like the rogue. How many other feats give you a great chance to reroll like that?


That reminds me of the "True Sacrifice is the best capstone because it lets you reroll a good class" joke I used to hear.


MrSin wrote:

Rogue Talents. There are a lot of iffy ones, so might as well mention a few new ones.

** spoiler omitted **

I mean, at least a few of those give bonuses, but my gosh... that first one. You have to make a check, against something that scales directly against you, the foe gets bonuses to the check, and you can fall prone and get just... Oh my gosh. You can derp and slip on a banana peel, in combat!

Wow. Those are some of the DUMBEST things I've even seen in a splatbook. For crying out loud, the APG was giving barbarians and alchemists things like cleaving through magic or staggering/confusing your enemies in addition to bomb damage. Why do the rogue's capabilities have to be so incredibly lame in comparison?


swoosh wrote:
That reminds me of the "True Sacrifice is the best capstone because it lets you reroll a good class" joke I used to hear.

Reminds me of a joke someone had in their signature in GitP. Can't remember who it was or where it was from, but it read "Fortunately, the Monk/Warblade uses Iron Heart Surge to end the Monk class, and the day is saved!"


After having spent about two hours reading this whole thread (thank you interruptions!), I've only got one thing to say/ask...

What's with all the hate on Powerful Sneak?

Also, am I the only one who notices the double standard between Powerful Sneak's -2 to hit, and Power Attack which hits -2 at 4th level, -3 at 9th, and so on?

I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling. My rolls, for instance, are usually 1s, 2s, and 3s when it comes to d6s, and I have actually tracked it through sessions, and through levels 1-15.

A good, well-built rogue (read: a dip here and there) can easily offset the penalty.... In fact, nearly every argument that other martials have to offset PA's penalty the rogue can use (gear, feats, blah). Sure, fighters and barbs have a +5 from BAB up on the rogue, but that's easily taken care of with a few dips, flanking, and so forth.

Spout all the math at me all you want, I've read it all. I've got actual play experience that Powerful Sneak raised my minimum damage (which is pretty much what I roll) a rather noticeable level. For the record, Powerful Sneak got picked up at (rogue) level six, and I was using TWF, with Two Wep Feint, if necessary. It was even more noticeable when I picked up Deadly Sneak.

So, no, I'm not saying it's better. Not even saying it's the best talent out there. Merely pointing out that math and averages aren't god when compared to real play, and some of us have such bad luck with the dice that Powerful/Deadly sneak actually DOES help. Contrary to what I've come to term as the Math of Averages... Because though I may be a corner case, I've found that these 'averages' and speculative numbers never match at the table.

Edit: Typed all that up and forgot to contribute. I should like to nominate Hold the Blade... Not only do you need to be hit as part of flanking or sneak attack with a melee weapon... But you need a +10 BAB, can only use it once per round, and.. Take a -4 to your ac until your next turn. All just to disarm someone... Effectively +6 to the enemy's attack roll says hi.


I'd consider powerful sneak if I was a knife master and expected to have to rely on my D4 non-dagger sneak attack more often than I'd like. Ditto for any other options that drop sneak attack to D4 (don't know any off hand).

2 out of 4 is far better than 2 out of 6, and you'll roll more 1's on d4s anyway.


Power Attack: Making non-fighters hit harder than a fighter.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
memorax wrote:


There is no ooze whisperer feat on the SRD. All I found was a extraordinary ability that the Slime Lord has at first level

My characters lurk in dark, obscure corners of the rules that will [dr orpheus]SEAR YOUR MIND DOWN TO THE SKULL![/dr orpheus]

Heh. I had that book in print and i didn't even know that feat existed till it came up on a message board.

Linky

Lets you wild empathy, charm animal, and dominate animal oozes. That and create ooze could be nasty.

Good to know. I guess I may just have to get that book eventually. The only problem I see is if the DM allows 3.5. material or not.


MrSin wrote:

Rogue Talents. There are a lot of iffy ones, so might as well mention a few new ones.

** spoiler omitted **

I mean, at least a few of those give bonuses, but my gosh... that first one. You have to make a check, against something that scales directly against you, the foe gets bonuses to the check, and you can fall prone and get just... Oh my gosh. You can derp and slip on a banana peel, in combat!

...

...
... that's... uh... impressive, to say the least.

Is ... could it be useful if you have, I don't know, Roach Crawl or something?

Are there very specific builds that could use it?

(I'm not sure - I'm asking.)


Artemis Moonstar wrote:


Also, am I the only one who notices the double standard between Powerful Sneak's -2 to hit, and Power Attack which hits -2 at 4th level, -3 at 9th, and so on?

At level 10 that -2 means a +4 to damage using piranha strike (or +6 if two handing) for rogues. Does Powerful sneak rised your damage at least by +4 most of times? (This means you rolled four 1s of your 5d6)

EDIT: Still, those are feat I would not recomend for a twf rogue.


Mathematically speaking, Powerful Sneak is horrible. It increases your average damage output per die by a whopping .167 - so when you're at level 19 and have 10d6 sneak attack, Powerful sneak will increase your average damage roll by 1.67 damage. Even without the -2 to hit penalty, it would be a waste of a talent, and that's already taking into account how weak rogue talents are in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He already said he doesn't believe in math, so why bother trying to explain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But its so powerful.

It would be cool it was like "+1 damage per die rolled" or something


Exactly the problem with Powerful Sneak. On each sneak attack die, you have 1/6 chance of getting a +1 damage. You receive 1 die per 2 levels.

EXCEPT: It has to be a full attack action, and it only applies when you have sneak attack. Let's assume you're a great tactician and can guarantee yourself the sneak attack on your full attacks. Then, what happens is that you take -2 attack, and get +1/6 damage, +1/6 per two levels.

Now let's compare to Power Attack (or even Piranha Strike). For -1 attack, you get +2 damage on every attack. You gain -1/+2 for every +4 BAB.

So, a rogue with Power Attack would be level 6 before the -2 attack matches the -2 from Powerful Sneak. At that time, with Power Attack you're doing +4 damage on each attack. With Powerful Sneak, you're doing +1/2 damage on a selection of attacks. Before level 6, the Power Attacking rogue is doing more damage at a lower penalty to attack in all cases.

Next Power Attack boost is at 11th level when you've got a +8 BAB. Then, Power Attack nets you -3 attack, and +6 damage. Powerful Sneak gets you -2 attack, and +5/6 damage. If you're really "lucky" and roll all ones on your sneak attack, you can get a maximum of +5 damage. Even at its best, Powerful Sneak does not compete.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:


I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling...

Spout all the math at me all you want, I've read it all. I've got actual play experience...

...math and averages aren't god when compared to real play, and some of us have such bad luck with the dice that Powerful/Deadly sneak actually DOES help. Contrary to what I've come to term as the Math of Averages... Because though I may be a corner case, I've found that these 'averages' and speculative numbers never match at the table.

I get the feeling the hard numbers aren't going to sway him.


@ Athaleon: Actually, I'm very much into science (astronomy and physics mostly), so I've got no problem with math and hard numbers.

@ WJS: It seems I should have clarified what I meant with my comment on the double standard with PA. I was merely attempting to point out that everyone was going on about the -2, when PA smacks you upside the head with an increasingly worse penalty to attack. I was speaking of the penalty, and apologize for not being clearer.

Again, you all seem to not be taking my dice rolling into account. Throughout the entire career of that character, I was consistently rolling below average on my SA die. It wasn't just some bad session, it was, quite literally, every d6 I used seemed to hate that character. Out of 5 dice, I would consistently pop up two 1s, one to two 2s, and a 4.
Hilariously, my bad damage luck seemed to scale with level. And, no, this isn't just remembering the worst rolls.. This was nearly every sneak attack I would make. My best in the entire career went 6, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1. Fortunately, at the time I had deadly sneak which made all those 1s and 2s into 3s. This usually came with full-attacks with Greater TWF with high-crit weapons.
Which is why I have lost faith when it comes to the hard numbers, at least when it comes to me.

Yeah, sure, in the DPR olympics, Powerful Sneak doesn't even get its foot in the door. Seems that yet again I have to state that I'm not trying to say PS/DS are fantastic options (which it seems everyone believes is what I'm saying). Merely pointing out that it's not as completely useless as everyone is making it out to be on paper. Primarily because, statistically, you're not supposed to be able to roll three 1s in a row, but as any gamer can testify, it happens, more for some of us, less for others.

....
.....
......
.......

Maybe if I put it way down here to try and distance it from that PS/DS fiasco, I'll actually get to see someone's opinion on what appears to be a trap feat.

Hold the Blade:

You can take your opponent’s weapon after being stabbed in the back.

Prerequisites: Improved Disarm, base attack bonus +10.

Benefit: Whenever an enemy deals damage to you with a melee weapon as part of a flanking attack or sneak attack, you can make a combat maneuver check to disarm against that opponent as an immediate action. You must have at least one hand free when you use this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –4 penalty to your AC until your next turn. You can only use this feat once per round.

Its got a 2 feat tax, needs a 13 int (I've heard of people using int as a dump stat), and need a +10 BAB. From there, it's useful only whenever you get smacked when you're flanked or via sneak attack (situational), have to burn an immediate action, have 1 hand free, and become easier to hit on your turn! Oh, and it's only usable once per round... That flanker's buddy says hi with a +6 attack bonus...

Disarm's usually pretty good... But i've never been a fan of AC penalties.


And my point is, that even the maximum benefit from Powerful Sneak (rolling 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) is less than the constant benefit from Power Attack. Also, you only start to see worse attack rolls at level 11.

Level PA BestPowSneak
2 -1/+2 -2/+1
3 -1/+2 -2/+2
4 -1/+2 -2/+2
5 -1/+2 -2/+3
6 -2/+4 -2/+3
7 -2/+4 -2/+4
8 -2/+4 -2/+4
9 -2/+4 -2/+5
10 -2/+4 -2/+5
11 -3/+6 -2/+6
12 -3/+6 -2/+6
13 -3/+6 -2/+7
14 -3/+6 -2/+7
15 -3/+6 -2/+8
16 -4/+8 -2/+8
17 -4/+8 -2/+9
18 -4/+8 -2/+9
19 -4/+8 -2/+10
20 -4/+8 -2/+10

Now, of course, you're only ever earning the best Powerful Sneak when you roll all ones. Roll anything other than 1, and you're earning less.

So... let's say you're unlucky, and half of your sneak attack die rolls end up being 1. Then the chart looks like this:

Level PA HalfPowSneak
2 -1/+2 -2/+.5
3 -1/+2 -2/+1
4 -1/+2 -2/+1
5 -1/+2 -2/+1.5
6 -2/+4 -2/+1.5
7 -2/+4 -2/+2
8 -2/+4 -2/+2
9 -2/+4 -2/+2.5
10 -2/+4 -2/+2.5
11 -3/+6 -2/+3
12 -3/+6 -2/+3
13 -3/+6 -2/+3.5
14 -3/+6 -2/+3.5
15 -3/+6 -2/+4
16 -4/+8 -2/+4
17 -4/+8 -2/+4.5
18 -4/+8 -2/+4.5
19 -4/+8 -2/+5
20 -4/+8 -2/+5

I know you don't care about hard numbers, but I'm not even talking averages here. I'm talking straight up single die rolls in all circumstances. I honestly can't imagine taking Powerful Sneak, even being an unlucky dice roller like I am.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Hold the Blade:

You can take your opponent’s weapon after being stabbed in the back.

Prerequisites: Improved Disarm, base attack bonus +10.

Benefit: Whenever an enemy deals damage to you with a melee weapon as part of a flanking attack or sneak attack, you can make a combat maneuver check to disarm against that opponent as an immediate action. You must have at least one hand free when you use this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –4 penalty to your AC until your next turn. You can only use this feat once per round.

Its got a 2 feat tax, needs a 13 int (I've heard of people using int as a dump stat), and need a +10 BAB. From there, it's useful only whenever you get smacked when you're flanked or via sneak attack (situational), have to burn an immediate action, have 1 hand free, and become easier to hit on your turn! Oh, and it's only usable once per round... That flanker's buddy says hi with a +6 attack bonus...

Disarm's usually pretty good... But i've never been a fan of AC penalties.

Yes, that is in fact a pretty terrible looking feat.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
And my point is, that even the maximum benefit from Powerful Sneak (rolling 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) is less than the constant benefit from Power Attack.

*facepalm* I do believe I've stated I'm not comparing the DPR of PS to PA? I don't believe I've ever actually said it was better. All I was doing was pointing out that people were mostly shouting about the -2 penalty whereas the eventual -3 or worse penalties for power attack weren't really mentioned. And that it wasn't as useless as, say, Elephant Stomp or pre-errata Prone Shooter It's a dead horse that's already gotten carted off to the glue factory.

Wrong John Silver wrote:
I know you don't care about hard numbers, but I'm not even talking averages here. I'm talking straight up single die rolls in all circumstances. I honestly can't imagine taking Powerful Sneak, even being an unlucky dice roller like I am.

Granted, but I thought it was implied that I was speaking of Deadly Sneak as well? Which needs Powerful Sneak as a tax. If that wasn't clear (despite my saying Deadly Sneak several times), sorry about that...

Moving on from this dead horse's glue, seeing as we'll all just have to agree to disagree...

@ Xexyz: Seriously though. I can think of half a dozen other things to use the swift/immediate for, depending on the build. That alone kills the feat imo, but that -4 to ac's just asking to be abused by opportunistic opponents.

Perhaps it would have been better if it expended an AoO instead of your immediate.


One of my friends rolls so bad on his d6 rolls that if he got a feat that increased 1's to 2's he'd double his channelling output (he's the cleric). Of course that's only on one dice. He rolls fine with other dice though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
And my point is, that even the maximum benefit from Powerful Sneak (rolling 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) is less than the constant benefit from Power Attack.

*facepalm* I do believe I've stated I'm not comparing the DPR of PS to PA? I don't believe I've ever actually said it was better. All I was doing was pointing out that people were mostly shouting about the -2 penalty whereas the eventual -3 or worse penalties for power attack weren't really mentioned. And that it wasn't as useless as, say, Elephant Stomp or pre-errata Prone Shooter It's a dead horse that's already gotten carted off to the glue factory.

The feat is usually considered so terrible because of the intense confirmation bias it produces. People take it because it looks good at first glance, see the 1s being improved, and then defend it with their last breath without realising it is basically doing nothing for them. That's practically the definition of trap feat.

That said, if you're hitting on a 3 with a TWF rogue like you mentioned, your game isn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of challenge, so you're right in that the powerful sneak isn't really hurting you.. just not really doing much.

A summary of points:

1) You can see why I thought you were a troll from all the responses you got :-). I wasn't trying to call you out, but saying 'powerful sneak isn't bad' is kinda like saying 'rogues are a fantastic class' and expecting not to get backlash.

2) You cannot take an ability expecting to get bad luck. Unless your dice are poorly balanced (the solution is get new dice), you cannot predict how your luck will run. Thus, you should generally build towards average predictors.

3) You say you don't want to compare DPS... but all powerful sneak does is modify DPS. If it doesn't increase your DPS, what exactly is it doing for you? For a feat that exists solely to increase DPS, you can make the argument that 'ignoring DPS this feat isn't that bad a feat'. If you ignore the DPS calculation the feat does nothing at all.

4) It's definitely not as bad as elephant stomp or pre-errata prone shooter.... but people often list it as being one of the worst because it creates situations like the one we're currently in, where players take it thinking it helps them when it actually isn't.

5) Hold the blade is pretty bad, but it's not nearly as bad as powerful sneak, which is why people are ignoring it in your posts.

As an aside, at your next couple of sessions, set up a running tally. Give yourself a +1 every time you get the +1 from powerful sneak. Every time you miss by 2 or less, roll damage for that attack anyway and minus it from the tally (your powerful sneaks from misses subtract like the rest of the damage of course). You'll quickly see why powerful sneak is a trap if you have as bad luck as you claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Artemis:

Ok, let's ignore the comparisons in DPR to power attack for whatever reason. Let's look at *just* the DPR of Powerful Sneak itself.

As others have shown, it adds a paltry +0.167 damage per SA die on average. But it *also* inflicts a -2 to hit which means, unless you only miss on a 1-2 or only hit on a 19-20 (which, if anything other than a very rare situation, means you've got other problems / fights are so easy you can afford to make bad decisions), powerful sneak means you're hitting 10% less often, which means you're effectively doing 10% less damage. That's a loss of 0.35 damage per SA die (1d6 average is 3.5), already about DOUBLE the bonus damage you're getting! And that's ignoring the 10% hit to base weapon damage, strength and enhancement bonuses (if any), other random damage boosts like bardic music, etc...

"But I don't care about theory-crafted averages, I never do 12.167 damage in a real game!"

Right you are, Pathfinder is a game of absolutes. Either you hit or you miss. The monster is downed or up and trying to kill you. This is why powerful sneak is even worse than painted above. Because you're not "just" going to do 10% less damage consistently. You're going to occasionally just miss entirely and do *no damage*. Quite likely (since it was a sneak attack), the damage lost making a difference in whether the monster gets another turn to ream the party or not. On the other hand, since the talent just converts 1's to 2's, it's only ever going to add a few points of damage in the "ideal" case where you roll incredibly poorly. In which case, your damage will still end up pretty low and the monster will likely still be up.

"But I don't trust math at all, I hates the maths!"

Well, then you're beyond reason and I could care less about convincing you. But I will still refute your arguments, for the sake of other people who may read this thread and can actually be swayed by logic, rather than let them be duped into thinking this is actually a good rogue talent instead of the massive trap that it actually is.

Spoiler:
And Deadly Sneak is also bad, just less bad than Powerful Sneak, and not worth paying two talents for even if your non-SA damage is so non-existent that Deadly Sneak manages to break even on gain vs. loss, which it probably won't for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
And my point is, that even the maximum benefit from Powerful Sneak (rolling 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) is less than the constant benefit from Power Attack.
*facepalm* I do believe I've stated I'm not comparing the DPR of PS to PA? I don't believe I've ever actually said it was better. All I was doing was pointing out that people were mostly shouting about the -2 penalty whereas the eventual -3 or worse penalties for power attack weren't really mentioned.

I think the big difference is that Power Attack is used by Full BAB classes that have usually also have other accuracy boosts from their class features, while the rogue is at 3/4 BAB and has fewer ways of increasing their accuracy.

A level 10 fighter might be taking -3 on power attack vs the rogue's -2, but the fighter's BAB is 3 better at base, then another +2 for weapon training, and possibly another +2 on top of that for Greater Weapon Focus. 14-3 is a lot better off than 7-2.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling.

These two statements cannot both be true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling.
These two statements cannot both be true.

Do not mock the dice gods!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling.
These two statements cannot both be true.
Do not mock the dice gods!

Have you sacrificed your goat to the RNG lately? Maybe your just not appeasing him well enough.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and reply. Don't call other posters "trolls" please.


Silent Saturn wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Rogue Talents. There are a lot of iffy ones, so might as well mention a few new ones.

** spoiler omitted **

I mean, at least a few of those give bonuses, but my gosh... that first one. You have to make a check, against something that scales directly against you, the foe gets bonuses to the check, and you can fall prone and get just... Oh my gosh. You can derp and slip on a banana peel, in combat!

The new Rogue guide on these boards (written by Shaman Bond I believe) actually rates Disabling Stunt highly. His argument: Constructs often have high DR and SR if not outright immunity to magic, so the fighter and the wizard both often find themselves at a loss. With this, the rogue actually gets to be the hero in a situation nobody else can deal with.

Create Pit

Your Welcome...


It may not exactly be the worst feat, because it does technically give the character a benefit, but I can't not mention Shield of Swings. The feat pains me to look at. You have to be wielding a two-handed weapon and have taken Power Attack, which means you're probably building for damage, and then you have to choose to half that damage on a full attack for what you could get for a potion of shield. You'd be far better served with Additional Traits to grab Accelerated Drinker, drink the potion as a move action, and take a single attack, and you even get another trait in the deal.


Gendarmes wrote:
...for a potion of shield...

FYI there is no such thing as a potion of shield.

You can get a scroll of it if you have UMD though.

Peet


Peet wrote:
Gendarmes wrote:
...for a potion of shield...
FYI there is no such thing as a potion of shield.

Why not? Its a spell of 1st through 3rd level that targets one or more creatures and has a casting time of less than one minute. If mage armor, why not shield?


It has a target of Personal. Targets of Personal cannot be made into potions.

PRD, Magic Item Creation wrote:
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
It has a target of Personal. Targets of Personal cannot be made into potions.

Oh! I see. Weird. I always forget mage armor isn't personal.


I'll cast mage armor on the party monk all the time!


Wrong John Silver wrote:
I'll cast mage armor on the party monk all the time!

Yarr, or an eidolon or kensai. All pretty choice. In fact mage armor is one of the big ways to raise monk's AC sky high.

Just looked up why you can't use personal range potions. Weird logic... total derail though. We're supposed to talk about bad things here I thought!


MrSin wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I'll cast mage armor on the party monk all the time!

Yarr, or an eidolon or kensai. All pretty choice. In fact mage armor is one of the big ways to raise monk's AC sky high.

Just looked up why you can't use personal range potions. Weird logic... total derail though. We're supposed to talk about bad things here I thought!

Making a spell personal means you can make an effect that's really powerful for a martial, but restricted to a caster like a Wizard. For example, giving martials potions of shield is equivalent to either a +2 heavy shield or a heavy shield with Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus. On top of that, you're immune to magic missile. Potions of shields would go right up there with Enlarge Person as 'always carried' potions for martials. It would also mean martials could easily hit absurd ACs at low levels because they only need that 1 spell which will last an entire combat.

There are other such spells out there, for example, giving a martial access to True Strike would basically mean a 50 GP 'guaranteed hit' option. Unlike other potions, there is no need for a caster level on True Strike.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I'll cast mage armor on the party monk all the time!

Yarr, or an eidolon or kensai. All pretty choice. In fact mage armor is one of the big ways to raise monk's AC sky high.

Just looked up why you can't use personal range potions. Weird logic... total derail though. We're supposed to talk about bad things here I thought!

Making a spell personal means you can make an effect that's really powerful for a martial, but restricted to a caster like a Wizard. For example, giving martials potions of shield is equivalent to either a +2 heavy shield or a heavy shield with Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus. On top of that, you're immune to magic missile. Potions of shields would go right up there with Enlarge Person as 'always carried' potions for martials. It would also mean martials could easily hit absurd ACs at low levels because they only need that 1 spell which will last an entire combat.

There are other such spells out there, for example, giving a martial access to True Strike would basically mean a 50 GP 'guaranteed hit' option. Unlike other potions, there is no need for a caster level on True Strike.

It's rather telling that one of the scariest unique abilities of the Alchemist is being able to hand out infusions of personal range spells to martials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not scary, and the game should dramatically pare back all the stupid personal range buffs. Being able to share more buffs with the weakest classes in the game isn't bad for the game, quite the opposite.

Also: Mage armor is pretty great for a wildshaping druid, too, until he can afford Wild armor.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Black Marketeer
You have many contacts and a keen eye for hidden opportunities in the marketplace.

Prerequisites: Appraise 1 rank, Diplomacy 1 rank, Knowledge (Local) 1 rank.

Benefit: By utilizing your black market connections, you acquire a resource pool worth 100 gp. This can only be used on illegal or illicit items or services (note that something may be illegal or illicit in one area but perfectly acceptable in another).

Typical illegal or illicit items are drugs, poisons, evil magic items, slaves, or dead bodies, though intangibles such as secret information may also qualify (and for these items, a secret of equal value—at the GM’s discretion—must be contributed to the pool).


RJGrady wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


I understand all the math... I also understand that the whole 'random average' schlock doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling.
These two statements cannot both be true.

I don't agree. While I strongly disagree with Artemis stance on Deadly Sneak, it is very well possible to understand DPR and similar concepts and still claiming that the DPR math doesn't match up well for most people's experiences in dice rolling.

DPR works on averages. It assumes that out of 20 rolls, one will be a 20, one will be a 19, etc. That's of course the correct way to calculate DPR, and can be very useful to do - but that doesn't mean it matches up with most people's experiences in actual gameplay.

Because most people will have experiences that deviate from that statistical average.

In addition, the DPR math doesn't make a difference between a 10% chance to deal 100 damage and a 50% chance to deal 20 damage, when these are very very different in terms of how they are played.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Because most people will have experiences that deviate from that statistical average.

You can't predict your deviance though. As someone said earlier, throw away your bad dice!


MrSin wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Because most people will have experiences that deviate from that statistical average.
You can't guess your deviance though. As someone said earlier, throw away your bad dice!

That's true, I can't know exactly what my average is (unless I record all rolls I make). I don't think that makes the statement less relevant though. For all the joys and uses of theorycrafting, DPR only shows you a theoretical average; not what you'll actually achieve in game, which will usually be higher or lower, and often noticably so.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Because most people will have experiences that deviate from that statistical average.
You can't guess your deviance though. As someone said earlier, throw away your bad dice!
That's true, I can't know exactly what my average is (unless I record all rolls I make). I don't think that makes the statement less relevant though. For all the joys and uses of theorycrafting, DPR only shows you a theoretical average; not what you'll actually achieve in game, which will usually be higher or lower, and often noticably so.

Actually the longer you do something the more likely your going to go back to the average, especially when rolling dice like D6's 100 times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:

Black Marketeer

You have many contacts and a keen eye for hidden opportunities in the marketplace.

Prerequisites: Appraise 1 rank, Diplomacy 1 rank, Knowledge (Local) 1 rank.

Benefit: By utilizing your black market connections, you acquire a resource pool worth 100 gp. This can only be used on illegal or illicit items or services (note that something may be illegal or illicit in one area but perfectly acceptable in another).

Typical illegal or illicit items are drugs, poisons, evil magic items, slaves, or dead bodies, though intangibles such as secret information may also qualify (and for these items, a secret of equal value—at the GM’s discretion—must be contributed to the pool).

Is this real?


Marthkus wrote:
Is this real?

Black Marketeer is real yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Is this real?
Black Marketeer is real yes.

That is 1/9 half a feat

extra traits

rich parent

Which is generally considered an awful trait.

551 to 600 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Worst feat ever All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.