Your vote for the actively worst feat of pathfinder?

[Mightypion]

Well, full Beast totem for pounce is level 10 on barbs (Primalists can also get it at 10 by expending an extra feat, other bloodragers need to wait for level 13 for monstrous physique 2 the spell in order to turn into something with pounce).

There are several things that your party members can do to set up full attacks before this.
Wizards can telekinetic charge the barbarian at an enemy starting on level 9, Bards/Skalds and jesters jaunt their barb friend for 30 feet (barb friend does not get an extra attack from it though).

There is a considerable amount of time between level 6, where you get iteratives, and level 10-13 where you can reliable iterative as a melee in a way that incorporates movement.

Of course, the whole pounce stuff has one other issue, while pouncing, AC is reduced considerably, you could be quite open to attack, and if foes are not flat footed they could try to f.e. trip you on AoOs.

Charging Barbs (assuming they rage) have pretty high CMB (10+10+6+(2 to 4) =29ish), so they are typically not in danger of getting tripped by an AoO from a reach trip weapon wielding mook (there a bunch of these), but their charge lanes can be fairly easily blocked by casting some grease, entangle, web etc. .

[Claxon]

The point isn't about the level but about the idea of "wasting" a round to set up attack next round.

PF1 is a game of rocket tag, as you level up combats often end in 2 to 3 rounds (or at least any real risk of losing) are gone by that point.

Spending a round to set up your next just isn't a great tactic IMO.

[Melkiador]

Even pounce isn’t useful that often in a real game if you are using the default rules. There are way too many things that can be in your way and prevent a charge.

[Mightypion]

Melkiador wrote:

Even pounce isn’t useful that often in a real game if you are using the default rules. There are way too many things that can be in your way and prevent a charge.

This is a big reason why jesters jaunt is a massively underappreciated spell. Teleporting your melee beatstick 30 feet one your standard action is big.

Admiddetly, its a level 3 spell for a Bard/Skald and thus a relativlely rare resources, however, it can be a great candidate for spell kenning despite it actually being a Bard/Skald spell, as it is a big commitment to actually use a permanent slot for it.

Sorcerors may reasonably hope to make use of it via UmD is available.

[VoodistMonk]

There are definitely worst ways for a Bard to spend their turn, but you are asking quite a bit from your Bard... level 7 is when 3rd-level spells show up... the Bard knows 2 spells, can only cast one, once per day... So, you just assume the Bard is going to learn the spell you want, and waste their only casting of a 3rd-level spell they have for that day... on you. Good luck with that being a sustainable strategy. Lol.

Sometimes, starting Inspire Courage as a move action, then throwing the Barbarian at the enemy with Jester's Jaunt with your standard action is literally the best course of action... sometimes. Other times, though, maybe you should not be such a meathead and actually incorporate move and attack options in your own character. I play Bards, I like helping my team win... I don't suffer fools, though. I don't feel sorry for people that haven't figured out how to do simple things on their own. And I don't waste my resources constantly helping the same clown do the same crap every time.

Eventually, you better provide your own options, because I have my own $#!+ to do and can't carry your lazy @$$ through this entire game myself. I don't care of it's a Barbarian or a Rogue... by the time we get to where my action economy is improving, you better be figuring it out, buddy. Take Vital Strike, walk your @$$ up there, and hit them really hard once. I literally don't care what you do, but I am not going to do it for you every freaking time.

The answer is a flat no, with little room for discussion. Dedicate half my known spells of this level to you? Why? Dedicate my only casting of this spell level for the day to you? Why? Because you are a narrow-minded, laser-focused, murderhobo one-trick-pony and can't charge through difficult terrain? Don't have the Acrobatics to make a simple jump? Wasted all your feats on offense but didn't think about how you were going to get next to your target? Sucker... I'm not here to babysit your poor decision making.

Just wanted to post a Bard's perspective on this matter. Lol.

[Claxon]

Melkiador wrote:

Even pounce isn’t useful that often in a real game if you are using the default rules. There are way too many things that can be in your way and prevent a charge.

I think that varies heavily group to group depending on how much detail your GM puts into their maps.

I've had same that don't go beyond "these are the walls" and so charging, even inside buildings isn't all that hard. Rhino charge also helps (letting you ready a charge when an enemy gets into a spot you can charge).

[TxSam88]

Claxon wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Mightypion wrote:

I think the issue with TWF is that actually getting full attacks off is pretty tough in practice vs thinking opposition.

Round 1, Stealth or invisibility to get into position

Round 2, Full iterative attack with both weapons (usually with sneak attack damage, d8's if you are smart).

And if your pouncing barbarian friend and archer buddy just do there thing and full attack and kill the enemies before you can do that?

That sort of thing sounds good in theory, but I've never seen it work in my group.

Never seen a pouncing barbarian build in our group, and we banned archers in our group because of this.

[TxSam88]

Claxon wrote:

The point isn't about the level but about the idea of "wasting" a round to set up attack next round.

PF1 is a game of rocket tag, as you level up combats often end in 2 to 3 rounds (or at least any real risk of losing) are gone by that point.

Spending a round to set up your next just isn't a great tactic IMO.

Yeah, if combat is over in 2-3 rounds, then the GM isn't challenging the party enough, IMO.

[Claxon]

TxSam88 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Mightypion wrote:

I think the issue with TWF is that actually getting full attacks off is pretty tough in practice vs thinking opposition.

Round 1, Stealth or invisibility to get into position

Round 2, Full iterative attack with both weapons (usually with sneak attack damage, d8's if you are smart).

And if your pouncing barbarian friend and archer buddy just do there thing and full attack and kill the enemies before you can do that?

That sort of thing sounds good in theory, but I've never seen it work in my group.

Never seen a pouncing barbarian build in our group, and we banned archers in our group because of this.

Wait wait wait! Rather than propose any number of fixes to the underlying action economy system which devalues the contribution of melee characters your group "fixed" the situation by banning archers? What about casters?

Are you sitting there all playing fighters and rogues only?

I'm sorry, that just seems like a silly way to resolve the problem compared to say....giving everyone a free move action.

TxSam88 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

The point isn't about the level but about the idea of "wasting" a round to set up attack next round.

PF1 is a game of rocket tag, as you level up combats often end in 2 to 3 rounds (or at least any real risk of losing) are gone by that point.

Spending a round to set up your next just isn't a great tactic IMO.

Yeah, if combat is over in 2-3 rounds, then the GM isn't challenging the party enough, IMO.

In my experience, the GM can't challenge the party enough to do that (at high levels) without either creating excessively custom monsters or running all the enemies at like CR+5 or higher.

My experience is rocket tag, and either one side or the other is going to pretty much kill the opposite side in the opening volley.

Now that said, it's a byproduct of high player optimization and is often regarded (on this website) as one of the worst parts of the game, so getting away from rocket tag is good. But it takes a lot of effort to do so.

[DeathlessOne]

It is a matter of consuming 1/4 to 1/3 of their daily resources per encounter. Doesn't matter how you get there, only that you get there. CR is a guideline, and it is important to remember that if that guideline does not reflect the game you are playing, then you have deviated from the expectations somewhere and need to adjust, or deal with the consequences.

[Claxon]

DeathlessOne wrote:

It is a matter of consuming 1/4 to 1/3 of their daily resources per encounter. Doesn't matter how you get there, only that you get there. CR is a guideline, and it is important to remember that if that guideline does not reflect the game you are playing, then you have deviated from the expectations somewhere and need to adjust, or deal with the consequences.

I agree with you, but the system is broken enough that succeeding in doing that can be quite a challenge.

It can also be initiating to people like myself because if the game is supposed to be "you're enemies are X strong" and then because the whole group of player characters manage to be X+3 strong you now raise the difficulty level of the enemies until they're back at the same 1/4 to 1/3 resource expenditure. Also resource expenditure as the point of comparison sucks for classes that don't have much in the way of resources, like fighters or rogues. Even barbarians don't have a lot of resources besides rage. And HP isn't really a good resources to base the expenditure around either (at least not on its own, as players have a habit of stopping for the day if they take much damage and can't heal). I agree with what is being said as surface statement about how things should work, but the reality is that the minutiae is much more complicated.

[TxSam88]

Claxon wrote:

Wait wait wait! Rather than propose any number of fixes to the underlying action economy system which devalues the contribution of melee characters your group "fixed" the situation by banning archers? What about casters?

Are you sitting there all playing fighters and rogues only?

I'm sorry, that just seems like a silly way to resolve the problem compared to say....giving everyone a free move action.

In my experience, the GM can't challenge the party enough to do that (at high levels) without either creating excessively custom monsters or running all the enemies at like CR+5 or higher.

My experience is rocket tag, and either one side or the other is going to pretty much kill the opposite side in the opening volley.

Now that said, it's a byproduct of high player optimization and is often regarded (on this website)...

I've been playing with the same group for 30 years, we have HIGH optimization and 6 players. Challenging the party has always been an issue. the Fighter Archer was ALWAYS killing the BBEG before the rest of the party could even have their first turn. Banning "fighters" (specifically the archers) was a single action that eliminated the BBEG insta-death. Keeping the encounters the same (per the AP) and simply using the advanced template on all the bad guys was enough to make combats go from 1-2 rounds to 5-6 rounds. it's no longer a game of rocket-tag at our tables. Parties have a chance to spend a round to maneuver and/or buff. they get to use neat spells and abelites that they weren't getting to use. and quite frankly the "combat" has become more enjoyable.

I don't have an issue with character optimization, but I do have an issue with complicated solutions, K.I.S.S. is an excellent model to live by and has worked well in our games.

[VoodistMonk]

Wait, ban archers?

Put enemy archers on the field that will show exactly what archers can do... now the archers in the party are forced to shoot the enemy archers... it all evens out, and life is good.

Have melee combatants charge the archers in the party, forcing them [the archers in the party] to move... thus, they [the archers in the party] cannot just full attack every round.

Have cover and concealment and areas of darkness and enemies using Invisibility/Stealth... and use every rule in the book to block lines of sight on the battlefield.

Have flying enemies that purposefully ignore the front line and target squishy casters and archers.

But to outright ban archers is freaking lazy...

[TxSam88]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Wait, ban archers?

Put enemy archers on the field that will show exactly what archers can do... now the archers in the party are forced to shoot the enemy archers... it all evens out, and life is good.

Have melee combatants charge the archers in the party, forcing them [the archers in the party] to move... thus, they [the archers in the party] cannot just full attack every round.

Have cover and concealment and areas of darkness and enemies using Invisibility/Stealth... and use every rule in the book to block lines of sight on the battlefield.

Have flying enemies that purposefully ignore the front line and target squishy casters and archers.

But to outright ban archers is freaking lazy...

We play adventure paths and don't care to totally rewrite the adventure. Banning archers was the simple solution and seems to have worked so far. We're look into whether we can just ban rapid shot and many shot and then be able to allow archers again. But the main point was to let the rest of the party have a turn.

As for "forcing archers to move", once they get the feat that allows them to shoot with provoking an AOO, they just stand there and shoot whoever charged them and kill them in one round. Archers generally get to go first, and will have the highest AC in the party, so even with provokes, they just stand there and shoot.

[Mightypion]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Bard perspective

I played plenty of skalds and bards.

At level 7, I strongly recommend investing in singing steel chainshirt,especially as a bard. Its under 1K to make inspire courage a swift action. Heck, if I was the bloodrager I would pitch into that if you cant afford it somehow. For a Skald it is a more significant purchase moneywise.

Charging through mooks is not something even the most Babysitting light hyperoptimized bloodrager can do at level 7.

Charging through terrain is possible, but you need to be Fey Bloodrager or mixed blood with it. Fey isnt the worst bloodline, but well, the most reliable ones are generally Abyssal, Black Blood and Aberrant.

Jump DCs are pretty tough. If you dont have a running start because the grease/the pit is 10 or less in front of you, jumping over it is DC 20-30 (depending if its a 10 foot jump or a 15 foot jump), the main problem here is that it is pretty easy, in practice, to deny the "running start" bonus and thus double the jump DC. Assuming you skilled acrobatics every level, level 7 you are looking at an effective skill of 10ish (considering ACP of around 3), this has a 20% chance of failing an easy jump, an a 50%ish chance of failing a difficult one. Pretty daunting odds, I would rather move around most of the time.

A wand of jump is not an unreasonable and can be used without UMD, but well, featwise, if you do run elephant in the room, you can prboably slot in skill focus acrobatics in. It will hoever be a mostly wasted feat in the midgame once you get flight. Bloodragers need iron will, combat reflexes, power attack and hugely benefit their entire party if they get some trip on top of that.

The true beuty of jester jaunt is that most Bloodragers are also massive AoO machines, and you can surgically position them in a way that lets them full attack the enemy caster boss while putting threat (any bloodrager can get 20 feet threat range, making it impossible for a caster to 5 foot step out of range some can get 25 or 20 feet with melee /natural weapons)on a massive radius. If the Bloodrager also has improved trip, well, you end up massively swinging the action economy in your favor.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Don't ban archers. Liberal use of spells can come in handy. I have some brutally effective PCs in my game, but the one thing they DON'T have yet is a constantly-on way to see invisible creatures yet. Here's the deal; I don't have the invisible creatures deal damage or make attacks.

PCs enter an area, they find a powerful CR 8 demon with some minions; combat begins. Turns out that there's an invisible bugbear sorcerer whose sole job is just to use buff spells on the demon. Period.

So when the demon survived round 1, suddenly its stronger; then its AC went up; then on round 3 it got healing from the sorcerer having UMD and a wand. The demon only ended up lasting one extra round, but it frustrated the players and prolonged the battle.

Here's the way I look at it: if I don't put the PCs on a clock, they can take their time and often pre-buff for a fight. Well, if the enemies have any access to spells and spellcasting, why wouldn't THEY buff themselves just as much as the party?

This might not work at super high levels, but between levels 7-10 its still paying dividends.

[VoodistMonk]

Jester's Jaunt is good, but it's competing with the likes of Dispel Magic, Good Hope, Haste, Remove Curse, Reviving Finale, and See Invisibility... as well as others... if I already have my Flagbearer/Banner of Ancient Kings combo up and running, Good Hope becomes way less of a priority... but the chances of me having a 14000gp Banner of Ancient Kings at level 7 are slim unless I craft it myself... requiring me to take crafting feats that otherwise may not be planned in my build.

All I'm saying is, I'm glad to help out... but absolutely do not rely on me making that spell a priority just for you. Please, for your own sake, have other options.

[Mightypion]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Jester's Jaunt is good, but it's competing with the likes of Dispel Magic, Good Hope, Haste, Remove Curse, Reviving Finale, and See Invisibility... as well as others... if I already have my Flagbearer/Banner of Ancient Kings combo up and running, Good Hope becomes way less of a priority... but the chances of me having a 14000gp Banner of Ancient Kings at level 7 are slim unless I craft it myself... requiring me to take crafting feats that otherwise may not be planned in my build.

All I'm saying is, I'm glad to help out... but absolutely do not rely on me making that spell a priority just for you. Please, for your own sake, have other options.

It is a lot more reasonable for a Skald, I mentally derped and thought Bards had Spell kenning equivalents.

Also, I effing forget the most underused Bloodrager spell at level 1.
Pick this . This increases, from a swift action, your base speed by a factor of 10. If you speed is 30, that ups your basespeed to 300, which also means that you get a 27*4=100+ temporary skill bonus on your jump skills in this turn.
How did I miss this level 1 spell?

[DeathlessOne]

Claxon wrote:

I agree with you, but the system is broken enough that succeeding in doing that can be quite a challenge.

... I agree with what is being said as surface statement about how things should work, but the reality is that the minutiae is much more complicated.

I don't find the system broken at all. It is just a machine with a lot of moving parts and if you let a gear slip somewhere, it causes problems everywhere. The system, to me, is complex. Not broken. I remove gears and simplify the system when I find problems.

[Coidzor]

Claxon wrote:

And if your pouncing barbarian friend and archer buddy just do there thing and full attack and kill the enemies before you can do that?

Then you weren't needed for the fight in the first place and it wasn't a serious combat if 1/2 or less of the party kills the entire encounter in one round.

[lordjulius]

Claxon wrote:

I'm going to take a different route and say Sacred Geometry. It's great for a player, bad for the other players and GM.

Sacred Geometry would be a great feat if you were GMing for your kids and like the idea of them sharpening their math skills while playing the game. But boy would I hate to watch another player struggling with this every round.

[VoodistMonk]

lordjulius wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I'm going to take a different route and say Sacred Geometry. It's great for a player, bad for the other players and GM.

Sacred Geometry would be a great feat if you were GMing for your kids and like the idea of them sharpening their math skills while playing the game. But boy would I hate to watch another player struggling with this every round.

Sacred Geometry is no worse than the metamagic feats you choose to pick up with it, honestly. The fact the metamagic feats are complete clownshoes to begin with is probably the root of the problem... not Sacred Geometry, specifically.

And there are several apps/spreadsheets built to take the guesswork out of any and all additional math associated with Sacred Geometry... I think it's somewhere around 7 ranks in Know:Engineering, and rolling the dice becomes pointless... success, roll again, still a success, like 99% of the time.

I think it's a great feat for builds that don't have room for multiple metamagic feats. I also think it offers a lot of flavor if you actually roleplay these extra calculations as part of the spellcasting process.

[Coidzor]

VoodistMonk wrote:

And there are several apps/spreadsheets built to take the guesswork out of any and all additional math associated with Sacred Geometry... I think it's somewhere around 7 ranks in Know:Engineering, and rolling the dice becomes pointless... success, roll again, still a success, like 99% of the time.

I believe that's part of why the feat is panned. Either A. it's onerous because someone is sitting there doing calculations or B. it's a complete farce because someone is using a computer to do it.

VoodistMonk wrote:

I think it's a great feat for builds that don't have room for multiple metamagic feats. I also think it offers a lot of flavor if you actually roleplay these extra calculations as part of the spellcasting process.

The flavor is, admittedly, kinda neat.

[Neriathale]

Going back to the original question, I'm going to propose Point Blank Shot. Why?

1. If you are an archer what the bleep are you doing within 30' of the opposition in the first place? You should be at least twice that far away. Preferably further. Therefore it should never come into play if you are being tactically sensible.
2. It's a pre-requisite for Precise Shot which is the most tedious "if you don't have this you suck" feat tax in game.
3. It's a pre-requisite for Far Shot. Think about how stupid that is.

If you want to play an archer you need to take both of these horrible feat taxes as early as possible, which really pushes you towards specific classes and/or races.

[Melkiador]

Neriathale wrote:

If you are an archer what the bleep are you doing within 30' of the opposition in the first place? You should be at least twice that far away. Preferably further. Therefore it should never come into play if you are being tactically sensible

How are enemies not getting that close to you? Even humans can close 120 feet with a run action and be ready to smash your face in on the next round. If you aren’t benefitting from PBS constantly, your GM is being too kind.

[HeHateMe]

Rysky wrote:

Power Attack.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying Power Attack is a bad feat because everyone should be able to do that without spending a feat on it, or are you saying that trading accuracy for extra damage is bad in general?

[Rysky]

It's a feat tax, everyone has to have it or you fall behind, especially if someone else in the party has it.

[HeHateMe]

Rysky wrote:

It's a feat tax, everyone has to have it or you fall behind, especially if someone else in the party has it.

Yep, understood. I personally am of the belief that Power Attack should be a combat option like Fight Defensively, rather than a feat. Also, I think combat maneuvers like Trip and Bull Rush shouldn't require a feat to use without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. I certainly don't think Combat Expertise should be a pre-requisite for anything either. I hate feat taxes in general.

[Jhaeman]

Sometimes these super overpowered min-max munchkin problems can be dealt with through a clear understanding set by the GM at the beginning of the campaign. For example, in my character generation guidelines, I make it clear that such characters aren't welcome and will get the kibosh (entry "i" below).

Extract from I would appreciate it if you didn't:

a. Play a conjurer/pet collector who dramatically slows down combat by using a bunch of NPC combatants every round;
b. Play an enchanter who dominates/charms every PC in sight;
c. Play a witch who spams the slumber hex to end every encounter;
d. Play a character who adamantly refuses adventure, travel, or danger;
e. Play a character with such strong personal goals that all adventure hooks are ignored;
f. Play a carbon copy of a character I’ve seen you play before;
g. Spoil yourself or the other players on plot twists in the adventure path;
h. Whether “in character” or out, be racist, sexist, homophobic, or in any other way a jerk to the other gamers at the table;
i. Super min-max an overpowered character that trivialises most challenges (if this happens, expect that other-dimensional forces will conscript your Superman to aid in cosmic battles off-screen, and you’ll need to come up with a new character)
In any other way be that guy . . .

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Jhaeman wrote:

Sometimes these super overpowered min-max munchkin problems can be dealt with through a clear understanding set by the GM at the beginning of the campaign. For example, in my character generation guidelines, I make it clear that such characters aren't welcome and will get the kibosh (entry "i" below).

** spoiler omitted **

You could just use more monsters that are immune to sleep.

Or monsters immune to charm.

Or ask the player to have an Excel sheet for those NPC combatants to speed up play.

Or if the character is super powerful, use kobolds with traps in tunnels.

Or any other non-solution to PF1 balance problems that people bring up in such conversation.

(But really, Tucker's kobalds with levels of Rouge in tunnels, that works every time)

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Neriathale wrote:

1. If you are an archer what the bleep are you doing within 30' of the opposition in the first place? You should be at least twice that far away. Preferably further. Therefore it should never come into play if

Nobody plays archers like that. A "lone sniper far away from the party" just doesn't work, because a) dungeons b) this invites a host of problems, such as the archer getting ambushed while the rest of their party is 300 feet away or the archer not being able to switch to melee.

Outside of once in a blue moon situation, D&D/PF archery is at short ranges.

[VoodistMonk]

As a GM, I try not to use archers to their full extent... honestly, a light crossbow [simple weapon] is 80 freaking feet, the shortbow is still 60 feet... these are the "short" ranges. A sling even has a 50 foot short range. If we are willing to take penalties for range, what, exactly, is a party caught in the open to do? Charge/Run towards the archers? Lol...

Traps... reach weapons with Brace... AoO, in general... readied actions... terrain... it's not a viable tactic.

Expect martials to shoot back with their just-in-case ranged option? This is how pointless TPK's happen. Is it a learnin lesson? Sure. But who peppers a 4th-level party to death from the treeline in the distance? Who does that? And why? At least a Flyby Attack dragon is memorable...

Archers in the party RARELY get such an opportunity to plink away at distance... unless it is part of some strategy to draw stupid enemies out. What? You get an opportunity to "snipe" some lonely guard once in your career, but it's just not likely to maintain a buffer distance greater than 30 feet between you and your target in common practice.

Even if you win initiative, which is likely as a Dex-based archer, you will probably have to position yourself in a spot least likely to get to killed and/or most likely to give you the best firing lane(s) across the battlefield. If you aren't moving/being forced to move... either yourself or the GM is being lazy. Simple as that.

Terrain, confined indoor spaces, enemies/allies/noncombatants, lighting... in most combats, you will pray for 35 feet of open firing lane and never see it. Point Blank Shot is what makes you an adventurer, and not a hunter or noble weekend archer... nobody else knows how to shoot a bow in a hallway. It is what makes you better than that snob noble paying for classes instead of fighting bandits that move and fight back. Or something like that... I hate feat taxes too... but shooting a bow at something up in your business is much different than casually shooting arrows at something "other there".

It comes down to that "I'd rather you not"... if you have a clown in the party that is willing to shut down an encounter before anyone else gets a chance to meaningfully participate, then that clown has to modify their approach to the game or GTFOH... if the archer in the party is standing still killing everything before the rest of the party can close and engage, then the player is the problem... not archery. It's not the Sleep Hex that is the problem, it's the clown that uses it every freaking time...

If you want to do the same freaking thing every round, be the martial... swing the blade. And swing, and swimg, and swing some more. Every round. Every encounter. We have classes exacly for that. If you want to be a powerful and gamechanging contribution to this party, find ways to do that in creative ways that involve the party... and, by chance, consider that the GM might want to have fun, too.

Take Sacred Geometry, please. Be a Witch with the Slumber Hex. Please be a ZAM/Inquisitor archer... do it... bring it... just don't be "that guy". There is absolutely no feat I fear as a GM, there is nothing too far over the top if the player is a team-player.

[JiCi]

I'm tempted to say Vital Strike... because it caused a LOT of problems.

At first, the feat itself allowed you to make one powerful attack in pretty much any situation where an attack action could be used. However, at some point, the devs decided to rework every single other feat to avoid stacking Vital Strike on top.

[Derklord]

JiCi wrote:

At first, the feat itself allowed you to make one powerful attack in pretty much any situation where an attack action could be used. However, at some point, the devs decided to rework every single other feat to avoid stacking Vital Strike on top.

I don't follow. Vital Strike always asked for the attack action, which virtually no other rule option uses. There's wasn't a single second in Pathfinder's lifetime where Vital Strike on a charge, Cleave, or Spring Attack was legal.

[zza ni]

Derklord wrote:

JiCi wrote:

At first, the feat itself allowed you to make one powerful attack in pretty much any situation where an attack action could be used. However, at some point, the devs decided to rework every single other feat to avoid stacking Vital Strike on top.

I don't follow. Vital Strike always asked for the attack action, which virtually no other rule option uses. There's wasn't a single second in Pathfinder's lifetime where Vital Strike on a charge, Cleave, or Spring Attack was legal.

well... that's not exactly true (anymore).

cleave + V.S.

charge + V.S (scroll down to 'Gorum's Swordmanship')

spring attack + V.S. (scroll to the 'Chrysanthemum’s Blooming' ability)

in pathfinder, almost every rule has an exception...

---

also for the record:
- Attack of opportunity + V.S.

- flyeby attack allow to pretty much V.S. while sorta spring attack. Con: you might provoke aoo from the one you attack and you need fly speed. Pro: a lot less feats required then spring attack.

[JiCi]

Derklord wrote:

JiCi wrote:

At first, the feat itself allowed you to make one powerful attack in pretty much any situation where an attack action could be used. However, at some point, the devs decided to rework every single other feat to avoid stacking Vital Strike on top.

I don't follow. Vital Strike always asked for the attack action, which virtually no other rule option uses. There's wasn't a single second in Pathfinder's lifetime where Vital Strike on a charge, Cleave, or Spring Attack was legal.

They essentially rewrote every other feat to specify the required action. Many feats suddenly received "as a standard action" in an errata, locking out Vital Strike.

The thing is that Vital Strike is an attack action, which is different from a standard action that allows an attack roll.

So yeah, charging is now standard, manyshooting is now standard, cleaving is now standard, EVERYTHING is now standard, just to avoid players from stacking Vital Strike on top.

Vital Striking is now only good for the following:
- Ranged attacks to save on ammunitions (especially for crossbows and firearms)
- Natural attacks
- Builds that emphasize on movement, because you are allowed an attack action as a standard action after a move action

[Derklord]

JiCi wrote:

They essentially rewrote every other feat to specify the required action. Many feats suddenly received "as a standard action" in an errata, locking out Vital Strike.

Which ones? Name the feats, please.

JiCi wrote:

So yeah, charging is now standard, manyshooting is now standard, cleaving is now standard, EVERYTHING is now standard, just to avoid players from stacking Vital Strike on top.

Charging was changed from a "special standard action" in 3.0 to a full-round action in 3.5. Manyshot worked "As a standard action" in 3.5, and was changed to a conditional ability requiring a full-attack action in PF. Unless it was based on a 3.5 feat that I don't know of, Pathfinder's Cleave was invented at the same time as Vital Strike, and has been unchanged ever since.

I don't think anything was ever changed to no longer work with Vital Strike. I think you're fighting windmills here!

@zza ni: That's not what I meant and you know it.

[pad300]

VoodistMonk wrote:

lordjulius wrote:

Sacred Geometry is no worse than the metamagic feats you choose to pick up with it, honestly. The fact the metamagic feats are complete clownshoes to begin with is probably the root of the problem... not Sacred Geometry, specifically.

That's just a no.

Sacred Geometry removes the need for a higher level spell slot to cast said metamagic'd spell... As has been demonstrated over several editions, free metamagic is abusable. Add the facts that it's uses per day are only limited by your spell slots, and that it's mechanics are clunky at the table (and rely on player, not character, ability), and you get a really bad feat...

[VoodistMonk]

I don't think Sacred Geometry is any more, or less, clownshoes than any other form of metamagic... free, or not. The end result is the exact same.

Things that should just be built-in options are "bad" feats... things like Deadly Aim, Combat Expertise, and Power Attack should be the exact same as built-in mechanics like fighting defensively. Things that already are built-in like the ability to ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach... literally everyone can do this at level one, and if a level one player said they were doing this 99.9% of GM's would allow it even knowing that the Strike Back feat is a feat, and has a BAB +11 prerequisite. Why? Because Strike Back is a bad feat. Lol.

Most of the feat tax feats aren't even bad feats... the stupid hoops you have to jump through is what is bad. And that is a mechanic of the game design, not the feats, themselves. Developers allowed this asinine pile-up of prerequisites to become a thing... and now it's a thing.

[Azothath]

upthread there are some truly awful feats;
Troth of the Pharaoh{PFS} Mummy's Mask AP feat for NPC fanatics to try to do some fire damage. I wonder if it deters mummy attacks?

Monkey Lunge{PFS}, LoL, another turkey.

I'll add Technologist which is a flat 1+ feat tax for the setting and then doesn't affect using most tech weapons and armor, only identifying or repairing them (hello Mr. NPC)... and then you still need exotic Wpn Prof(firearms) for firearms and possibly Gunsmithing.
Luckily you can still muddle through with your hockey mask and chainsaw. Good luck on finding new batteries. I remember the consternation in Org Play.

The flavorful but overly tedious & time consuming in live play (Arithmancy, Sacred Geometry) I'll add Conceal Spell and its ilk. Why not just use Illusion of Calm:1st or Aura of the Unremarkable:3-4th?

[Neriathale]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Neriathale wrote:

1. If you are an archer what the bleep are you doing within 30' of the opposition in the first place? You should be at least twice that far away. Preferably further. Therefore it should never come into play if

Nobody plays archers like that. A "lone sniper far away from the party" just doesn't work, because a) dungeons b) this invites a host of problems, such as the archer getting ambushed while the rest of their party is 300 feet away or the archer not being able to switch to melee.

Outside of once in a blue moon situation, D&D/PF archery is at short ranges.

I played an archer for 16 levels in Giantslayer and was almost always out of short range, but then again I'm not a great theorycrafter, so I was probably playing the character all wrong. Perhaps I should have said that based on my sub-par playing style PBS is a waste of a feat because it never applies...

[Melkiador]

Neriathale wrote:

I played an archer for 16 levels in Giantslayer and was almost always out of short range, but then again I'm not a great theorycrafter, so I was probably playing the character all wrong. Perhaps I should have said that based on my sub-par playing style PBS is a waste of a feat because it never applies...

Giant slayer may be an exception. A majority of the AP took place outside or in huge rooms, much larger than normal, because giants. Still, I can think of multiple encounters where the enemies should have gotten close to you after a round or so. My guess is that your GM just let the giants focus on your melee fighters instead of ever going after the back row.

I've only played a few "archers", but I've played a lot of back row guys like casters and the norm is that enemies are constantly in your face.

[DeathlessOne]

Melkiador wrote:

Giant slayer may be an exception. A majority of the AP took place outside or in huge rooms, much larger than normal, because giants. Still, I can think of multiple encounters where the enemies should have gotten close to you after a round or so. My guess is that your GM just let the giants focus on your melee fighters instead of ever going after the back row.

I've only played a few "archers", but I've played a lot of back row guys like casters and the norm is that enemies are constantly in your face.

Any good archer/ranged caster needs a buddy next to him that is a switch-hitter and can protect them if the future pincushions decide to get uppity and rush them.

I play that role in my current Giantslayer campaign. My archer buddy is an Eldritch Archer Magus, and I am a multiclassed-to-hell-and-back Brawler/Unrogue/Witch (Strangler/Sylvan Trickster/White-haired Witch VMC Magus) that focuses on Cackles and Vital Strikes with my giants-bane crossbow. I've got the means to deal with anything that tries to rush my glass cannon buddy.

So, yeah, that's a long way of saying... we don't get much use from PBS either.

[Ventnor]

Combat Expertise. There's already an option to fight defensively, why do we need a different action to trade accuracy for AC? Not to mention that it's a prerequisite for like, half the combat feats in the game for some reason.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Ventnor wrote:

Combat Expertise. There's already an option to fight defensively, why do we need a different action to trade accuracy for AC? Not to mention that it's a prerequisite for like, half the combat feats in the game for some reason.

^ what I was going to say

[zza ni]

Ventnor wrote:

Combat Expertise. There's already an option to fight defensively, why do we need a different action to trade accuracy for AC? Not to mention that it's a prerequisite for like, half the combat feats in the game for some reason.

I had homebrew weapon focus to have 'this count as having weapon expertise for all requirments but only for using said weapon'

Basicly allowing to take feats that ask for W.E. and use them with the weapon you focus with.

[JiCi]

Derklord wrote:

JiCi wrote:

They essentially rewrote every other feat to specify the required action. Many feats suddenly received "as a standard action" in an errata, locking out Vital Strike.

Which ones? Name the feats, please.

JiCi wrote:

So yeah, charging is now standard, manyshooting is now standard, cleaving is now standard, EVERYTHING is now standard, just to avoid players from stacking Vital Strike on top.

Charging was changed from a "special standard action" in 3.0 to a full-round action in 3.5. Manyshot worked "As a standard action" in 3.5, and was changed to a conditional ability requiring a full-attack action in PF. Unless it was based on a 3.5 feat that I don't know of, Pathfinder's Cleave was invented at the same time as Vital Strike, and has been unchanged ever since.

I don't think anything was ever changed to no longer work with Vital Strike. I think you're fighting windmills here!

I've lost count of many times the devs had to answer fans' questions about Vital Strike. Most of them were "can I combine Vital Strike with this feat?" and the answer was always "no", all because Vital Strike doesn't work "everytime you're entitled to an attack roll".

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Yeah, but could you name those re-written feats?

[Derklord]

JiCi wrote:

I've lost count of many times the devs had to answer fans' questions about Vital Strike.

That's not what I asked. What I ask is for you to support your claims with evidence. You claimed Paizo rewrote feats. You claimed Paizo errata'd feats. Show me feats that Paizo rewrote or errata'd!

[VoodistMonk]

Derklord wrote:

JiCi wrote:

I've lost count of many times the devs had to answer fans' questions about Vital Strike.

That's not what I asked. What I ask is for you to support your claims with evidence. You claimed Paizo rewrote feats. You claimed Paizo errata'd feats. Show me feats that Paizo rewrote or errata'd!

Unfounded claims are irritating, indeed... but demanding evidence in this way may not be productive. Remember, arguing on the internet is like being in an ugly contest... even if you win, you're still ugly.