PDA

View Full Version : Feats that suck



Pages : [1] 2

Frog Dragon
2008-12-31, 07:05 PM
So here's a thread for what feats suck mechanically and are generally just not worth the feat slot.
One thing I avoid like the plague is Dodge. a +1 to ac for the price of a feat slot???!! Not worth it especially when it's a dodge bonus that's effective against one opponent per round. Dodge as a feat sucks. Only take it as a prequisite.

Malacode
2008-12-31, 07:06 PM
On the same train of thought, Mobility. Seriously, fail. Leap of the Heavens is pretty useless unless you also have Pounce, so maybe that can go here

Edit: And all the ones that give +2 to two skills, and Skill Focus. Useless unless you build your character around one skill, and then THEY'LL be useless most of the time (With the exception of the Jumplomancer of course)

Augment Summoning
Eschew Materials
Improved Counterspell
I'll add more later

Flickerdart
2008-12-31, 07:11 PM
Skill Focus (Comprehend Languages). But that's just getting silly.

In all seriousness, the Weapon Focus feats are pretty bad as well.

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 07:16 PM
Well, famous Monkey Grip.

Stupid idea, extremaly weak feat. What's more to want?:smallcool:

Frog Dragon
2008-12-31, 07:18 PM
Snatch Arrows sucks some seriour ass too. Thrown wepaons are rather rare and anyway it's easrier to use your own storage and one hand free requirement makes most any feat suck.

Malacode
2008-12-31, 07:21 PM
Monkey grip has it's uses... Sure, not many and they're rather flawed, but it has its uses... Anyway, Improved Familiar (or even the feat that gives you a familiar despite your lack of spellcasting). Why waste a feat on something that HURTS YOU?

Vexxation
2008-12-31, 07:24 PM
Augment Summoning

Just try to tell that to a Malconvoker :smallamused:

Ryuuk
2008-12-31, 07:26 PM
Improved Familiars isn't so bad if you're going for a Duskblade or Hexblade. If you use the version from CWar, you start getting to the big nasty and ridable familiars like a hippogriff or a winter wolf. Coupled with full bab and shared buffs...

RandomLunatic
2008-12-31, 07:28 PM
Weapon Specialization (Net)

Heck, proficiency is pretty pointless, since it makes touch attacks anyway.

Improved Overrun-I have never, ever, found a legitimate use for Overrunning.

Destructive Rage (CWar)-I mean, seriously, has anybody ever taken that feat for any reason other than to qualify for Frenzied Berserker?

BRC
2008-12-31, 07:33 PM
Lessee, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Repeating Light Crossbow). Unless you are REALLY strapped for cash, there is no reason to not go for the Repeating Heavy Crossbow. I've seen some more out there, but thats the one I can think of now.

monty
2008-12-31, 07:34 PM
Improved Sunder, unless you're going for Combat Brute.

"Hey look, he has a fancy sword! I better smash it! Really, who needs loot?"

Copacetic
2008-12-31, 07:35 PM
Athletic-Absolutely gorram useless.

monty
2008-12-31, 07:39 PM
Oh, and how could I forget Toughness?

The Glyphstone
2008-12-31, 07:47 PM
Toughness isn't bad for really low level games. +3 HP at level 1 is a fair amount.

Doug Lampert
2008-12-31, 07:47 PM
Skill Focus (Comprehend Languages). But that's just getting silly.

In all seriousness, the Weapon Focus feats are pretty bad as well.

Weapon focus with a two hander is as good as +2 to damage, you just power attack for one more point. Except you're not forced to power attack if you ever need that extra +1 to hit (say for a full attack against a foe with a fair AC).

For the two-handed melee types weapon focus is almost globally better than weapon specialization. And this assumes you're not pulling any cheeze to get the power attack multiplier higher than 2.

Yet I've had people tell me that Barbarians shouldn't take Weapon Focus because they weren't eligable for Weapon Specialization and the only reason to take Focus was to qualify for Specialization! They wouldn't take the BETTER feat (at least for a barbarian build) because they couldn't use it to get the WORSE feat.

It's EASY to underrate a +1 to attacks, but that's a big bonus. It's roughly 10% extra damage for most builds. It's not natural spell, but its a solid mid value feat. Don't take it if you have a feat that really fits your build, but if you have a feat to spare it's money in the bank.

RandomLunatic
2008-12-31, 07:51 PM
Whirlwind Attack. Costs a ton of feats, requires you to get yourself surrounded in melee ('AH-HA! I've got them right where I... uh-oh.'), and then, as a full-round action, you can make them all real pissed at you, instead of killing one or two with a full attack.

AslanCross
2008-12-31, 07:51 PM
Dodge is so bad that Wizards printed a couple of feats that one could take in place of it for Feat/PrC prerequisites. The other thread mentions Expeditious Dodge and Desert Wind Dodge. I think they're still both highly situational, but at least they don't require some easily-forgettable bookkeeping for a +1 bonus against one enemy.

Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec aren't so bad if you plan to take Melee Weapon Mastery. I think the stacking bonuses are decent enough. The only problem is that you need to be a level 8th fighter to get it. XP

monty
2008-12-31, 07:52 PM
Toughness isn't bad for really low level games. +3 HP at level 1 is a fair amount.

I suppose so, but for a long game, you're spending a feat on something that will quickly become irrelevant. Maybe if you're using retraining rules, but otherwise, it's marginal at best.

The Glyphstone
2008-12-31, 07:55 PM
I suppose so, but for a long game, you're spending a feat on something that will quickly become irrelevant. Maybe if you're using retraining rules, but otherwise, it's marginal at best.

Absolutely - if your game is going to level past...5...or so, Toughness is only worth considering with retraining. For a 1st-3rd level one-shot game, however, it is potent.

Flickerdart
2008-12-31, 07:56 PM
Weapon focus with a two hander is as good as +2 to damage, you just power attack for one more point. Except you're not forced to power attack if you ever need that extra +1 to hit (say for a full attack against a foe with a fair AC).

For the two-handed melee types weapon focus is almost globally better than weapon specialization. And this assumes you're not pulling any cheeze to get the power attack multiplier higher than 2.

Yet I've had people tell me that Barbarians shouldn't take Weapon Focus because they weren't eligable for Weapon Specialization and the only reason to take Focus was to qualify for Specialization! They wouldn't take the BETTER feat (at least for a barbarian build) because they couldn't use it to get the WORSE feat.

It's EASY to underrate a +1 to attacks, but that's a big bonus. It's roughly 10% extra damage for most builds. It's not natural spell, but its a solid mid value feat. Don't take it if you have a feat that really fits your build, but if you have a feat to spare it's money in the bank.
Only at low levels. That +1 to hit AC30 won't make a difference whether you have 10 or 30 attack bonus. It's not a BAD feat, but it becomes irrelevant quickly, just like anything else that doesn't scale.

BRC
2008-12-31, 08:01 PM
Whirlwind Attack. Costs a ton of feats, requires you to get yourself surrounded in melee ('AH-HA! I've got them right where I... uh-oh.'), and then, as a full-round action, you can make them all real pissed at you, instead of killing one or two with a full attack.
Fighter: Check it out, I can do WHIRLWIND ATTACK!
Wizard: I'm sorry, what was that, I was too busy counting the number of spells I have that do the same thing, only better, and at a range, as a standard action.

AslanCross
2008-12-31, 08:04 PM
Fighter: Check it out, I can do WHIRLWIND ATTACK!
Wizard: I'm sorry, what was that, I was too busy counting the number of spells I have that do the same thing, only better, and at a range, as a standard action.

At a lower level, with less prerequisites.

Fizban
2008-12-31, 08:06 PM
Monkey grip has it's uses... Sure, not many and they're rather flawed, but it has its uses... Anyway, Improved Familiar (or even the feat that gives you a familiar despite your lack of spellcasting). Why waste a feat on something that HURTS YOU?

Familiar= extra actions= win. Combine with the spell Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability to effectively quicken a number of spells for one 6th level slot, except they stack with quicken, and you could even quicken the spells you grant for a total of 4 spells per round (note that metamagic does not increase the level of the spell, so you can meta the imbued spell without reducing it's max level as long as you can pay the slot). Aid another for +2 on practically any skill check, or even non-str ability check for that matter. An extra set of eyes and ears means you get two rolls for any sense check, and since the familiar has your skills, two rolls on most of your skills. Take a raven and a few ranks of UMD to get some use out of those actions before IFWSA, or a bat for the next best thing to your own blindsense. And that's all with it just sitting on your shoulder, sharing your buffs and laughing.

Now, Improved Familiar is pretty useless. Nothing there you can't get with a Polymorph spell (standard or subschool). The whole "whoo, they keep their hp if it's higher" just points out that the creature choices are pathetic, since your familiar hp will be higher than theirs. Yeah, a duskblade or hexblade has a higher hit die, but 1/2 average 1d10 is only 2.75, which isn't much better than 1/2 average 1d4 for 1.25. The only choices I've seen worth considering are Lantern Archon for free Greater Teleports (everybody in the portable hole!) and the Coure Eladrin for incorporealness (pop through the wall and open door, 50% miss chance for all non ghost touch attacks).

JaxGaret
2008-12-31, 08:08 PM
Only at low levels. That +1 to hit AC30 won't make a difference whether you have 10 or 30 attack bonus.

There's a whole range of attack bonuses between 10 and 30 for which that +1 will be the difference between hitting and missing.

BRC
2008-12-31, 08:10 PM
Only at low levels. That +1 to hit AC30 won't make a difference whether you have 10 or 30 attack bonus. It's not a BAD feat, but it becomes irrelevant quickly, just like anything else that doesn't scale.
Actually, that +1 bonus can still be pretty good. You can roll 1 less than you need just as easily at level 1 as you can at level 20.

Paul H
2008-12-31, 08:12 PM
Hi

Toughness is good for 1st lvl arcanists since it helps them live to get higher levels!

1) I play spellcasters, so Iron Will is pretty useless.

2) Only ever used Gt Fortitude as prereq for Stormlord.

3) Combat Casting is good for Clerics/Healers who need to get close to danger. Otherwise it's only good for 'Shielded casting' (name)? Stops AoO when casting spells.

4) Any crafting feat when your campaign doesn't allow time for creating magic items.

Cheers
Paul H

Flickerdart
2008-12-31, 08:20 PM
That's not how math works.
...perhaps I did not explain myself well enough.
At higher levels, the +1 isn't important enough to warrant wasting a feat on. Take a random CR10 creature, the Fire Giant with an AC of 23. The same 10th level Fighter will have BAB 10, plus maybe +8 from STR, and a nice +3 weapon, at least. That's +21 to hit: a 90% chance. Sure, if you took WF, that makes it a 95% chance, but it means you're tied to your weapon type, which many people will find restricting. If the Fighter had taken a better feat, on the other hand, he could be doing something more useful than a +5% to hit, which he could just pay for and buy a weapon +1 better.

At level 20, with a 35 AC Balor, the Fighter is swinging for +20 BAB, +, let's say, 10 STR and +5 weapon. He hits at +40: he's not going to miss unless he gets a 1. WF here is useless, as he's still hitting 95% of the time.

Some 3/4 BAB class (say, a Rogue) may indeed have a use for the +1, but they don't have the feats to spare. And the Fighter doesn't need it. It's not a BAD feat, there are just BETTER ones.

JaxGaret
2008-12-31, 08:22 PM
3) Combat Casting

Ah, Combat Casting. Almost completely overshadowed by Skill Focus (Concentration), itself no powerhouse of a feat.

monty
2008-12-31, 08:23 PM
At a lower level, with less prerequisites.

The prerequisite being "be a wizard."

JaxGaret
2008-12-31, 08:26 PM
...perhaps I did not explain myself well enough.
At higher levels, the +1 isn't important enough to warrant wasting a feat on. Take a random CR10 creature, the Fire Giant with an AC of 23. The same 10th level Fighter will have BAB 10, plus maybe +8 from STR, and a nice +3 weapon, at least. That's +21 to hit: a 90% chance. Sure, if you took WF, that makes it a 95% chance, but it means you're tied to your weapon type, which many people will find restricting. If the Fighter had taken a better feat, on the other hand, he could be doing something more useful than a +5% to hit, which he could just pay for and buy a weapon +1 better.

At level 20, with a 35 AC Balor, the Fighter is swinging for +20 BAB, +, let's say, 10 STR and +5 weapon. He hits at +40: he's not going to miss unless he gets a 1. WF here is useless, as he's still hitting 95% of the time.

Some 3/4 BAB class (say, a Rogue) may indeed have a use for the +1, but they don't have the feats to spare. And the Fighter doesn't need it. It's not a BAD feat, there are just BETTER ones.

Not everyone plays the same campaigns. In some campaigns you're just as likely to fight 45 AC NPCs with class levels as you are to fight 35 AC stock MM Balors.

But I do agree that if you're already hitting ~90% of the time, WF isn't doing much for you, and in general it's definitely not a top tier feat.

Zeta Kai
2008-12-31, 08:28 PM
Toughness isn't bad for really low level games. +3 HP at level 1 is a fair amount.

But at 4th level, you'll already be better off with Improved Toughness. Improved Toughness doesn't have Toughness as a prerequisite, either. Hell, it's so much better, WotC printed it 3 times (in Complete Warrior, Libris Mortis, & MM3).

ChaosDefender24
2008-12-31, 09:51 PM
Skill Focus: Speak Language

Pie Guy
2008-12-31, 10:01 PM
Skill Focus: Truespeak

If you need it, you've already lost dnd.

Telonius
2008-12-31, 10:20 PM
Armor Proficiency (Light).

BRC
2008-12-31, 10:23 PM
Armor Proficiency (Light).
Most Armor Proficiencies, if your class dosn't have proficiency in it anyway, there is probably a reason. I think Barbarians who take Heavy Armor Proficiency may be the exception, as Fast Movement is the only thing you lose.

monty
2008-12-31, 10:33 PM
Most Armor Proficiencies, if your class dosn't have proficiency in it anyway, there is probably a reason. I think Barbarians who take Heavy Armor Proficiency may be the exception, as Fast Movement is the only thing you lose.

And since, if you're taking the spirit lion totem, you're losing fast movement anyway, it's reasonable enough. Becomes obsolete once you can afford mithral, though.

BRC
2008-12-31, 10:34 PM
And since, if you're taking the spirit lion totem, you're losing fast movement anyway, it's reasonable enough. Becomes obsolete once you can afford mithral, though.
It saves you a good deal of cash though.

Flickerdart
2008-12-31, 10:36 PM
Skill Focus: Truespeak

If you need it, you've already lost dnd.
Not really. Optimized (and I mean, really optimized) Truenamers are actually decent. Certainly better than Monks. There was a guide for them on the Wizards boards that has them succeed checks 90% of the time most levels.

monty
2008-12-31, 10:39 PM
It saves you a good deal of cash though.

9k < feat, at least at higher levels.

Arcane_Snowman
2008-12-31, 10:40 PM
Not really. Optimized (and I mean, really optimized) Truenamers are actually decent. Certainly better than Monks. There was a guide for them on the Wizards boards that has them succeed checks 90% of the time most levels. After doubling effective ranks with Item Familiar, and you still don't cast as many times as a wizard (afair).

I can't believe the Two-Weapon Fighting Chain hasn't been included.

dyslexicfaser
2008-12-31, 10:49 PM
On the same train of thought, Mobility. Seriously, fail. Leap of the Heavens is pretty useless unless you also have Pounce, so maybe that can go here

Leap of the Heavens is the lynchpin in a small handful of very potent builds involving Battle Jump, Leap/Power Attack, Totemist's Landshark Boots, and/or Tiger Claw maneuvers.

jcsw
2008-12-31, 11:13 PM
After doubling effective ranks with Item Familiar, and you still don't cast as many times as a wizard (afair).

That's because you haven't seen things with +120s in truespeak who can gate 30 times a day.

Roland St. Jude
2008-12-31, 11:19 PM
Leap of the Heavens is the lynchpin in a small handful of very potent builds involving Battle Jump, Leap/Power Attack, Totemist's Landshark Boots, and/or Tiger Claw maneuvers.

Indeed. It's good for jumpers. And it's better than its predecessors in the jumping realm. You could have Skill Focus: Jump. Or surprisingly, it's even better than the epic feat, Legendary Leaper.

Arcane_Snowman
2008-12-31, 11:24 PM
That's because you haven't seen things with +120s in truespeak who can gate 30 times a day. as far as I can see, that still includes the 1000xp for using the Calling Function, as well as an increased casting time to 1 minute.

grinner666
2008-12-31, 11:26 PM
On the same train of thought, Mobility. Seriously, fail.

Mobility is actually pretty seriously useful if you're a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin (i.e. no Tumbling as a class skill) and want to move around in combat ... especially in decent armor ... without getting hacked to pieces.


Augment Summoning
Eschew Materials
Improved Counterspell
I'll add more later

Augment Summoning is actually one of my favorite Druid feats. It makes his already-superior summoned creatures absolutely awesome. The only downside is that you've got to take Spell Focus/Conjuration first ... now there's a worthless feat (esp. for a Druid) ... unless you happen to be fighting Undead and using Cure spells on them.

Which idiot decided Cure spells were Conjurations and not Transmutations, anyway?

:smallbiggrin:

The other two I completely agree with. I have, however, been in one campaign where nearly every spellcaster took Eschew Materials ... because the DM was an a-hole who decided he was going to use 1E rules for material components and make every spellcaster track every friggin' thing he used for every friggin' spell he cast. What a pain.

:smallannoyed:

Skjaldbakka
2008-12-31, 11:28 PM
I played a truenamer with item familiar. He was a pretty potent healer and UMD monkey.

I crunched some numbers, and he added a lot of HP/day to the party, more than a cleric of that level could do.

And since it was almost all though fast healing effects, he could still do other things in combat.

Tank gets hit, put up fast heal on him, start whipping out de-buffs on the enemy.

SoD
2008-12-31, 11:36 PM
I can't believe the Two-Weapon Fighting Chain hasn't been included.

Probably because it can be very nice for damage dealers. As long as your damage dealer is a rogue (or similar, with it's sneak attack on both weapons). Or combining with the monks flurry of blows (snigger) for lots of attacks per round, if your DM allows it.

Arcane_Snowman
2008-12-31, 11:41 PM
Probably because it can be very nice for damage dealers. As long as your damage dealer is a rogue (or similar, with it's sneak attack on both weapons). Or combining with the monks flurry of blows (snigger) for lots of attacks per round, if your DM allows it. the problem with it is that it is very situational, yes it's very good with extra damage such as sneak attack or when using something that doesn't care too much about AC (Gish with Wraithstrike for example), but as a viable feat for say a fighter, it fails miserably.

grinner666
2009-01-01, 12:06 AM
the problem with it is that it is very situational, yes it's very good with extra damage such as sneak attack or when using something that doesn't care too much about AC (Gish with Wraithstrike for example), but as a viable feat for say a fighter, it fails miserably.

If a feat sucked because it sucks for somebody, then ALL FEATS would suck.

Yes, I would not take Two-Weapon Fighting as a Fighter, or in fact as anything other than a Rogue or Ranger (who can get it for free). Then again, I wouldn't take Combat Casting as a Fighter or a Rogue either, or Power Attack & Improved Sunder as a Wizard. That doesn't make any of those feats suck, it just means you've got to know what you're doing before you take them.

Two-Weapon Fighting is a great feat for a mid-to-high level Rogue. Combat Casting is a wonderful feat for a spellcaster who might ... or wants to ... end up in melee combat (Cleric or Druid, or a Wizard/Sorcerer in a smaller party).

"Situational" doesn't mean "sucks". Most or all feats are situational in nature; making certain they're used effectively is the player's responsibility, not the game's.

Not, once again, that there aren't some that just suck out loud ...

:smallbiggrin:

monty
2009-01-01, 12:25 AM
Which idiot decided Cure spells were Conjurations and not Transmutations, anyway?

Personally, I'd put them in Necromancy. You know, manipulating life energy and all that jazz.

BRC
2009-01-01, 12:28 AM
One feat that sucks is the epic feat Polyglot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#polyglot).

Basically, it's a feat for epic level Wizards or Rogues who speak five languages already, and whose DM puts them in situations where they want to talk with people who speak other languages. And not the same languages either, because if the DM keeps sending you against people who speak Aquan, than you invest a couple ranks in Speak Language (Aquan). And this happens with such frequency that you don't want to buy potions or a wand of Tounges. Also, unless my calculations are wrong, it would cost 54,000 for an item that gives you a Tounges spell with a command word and takes up no body slot. Assuming of course that your not a caster who can use a scroll of Permenancy.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-01, 11:26 AM
One thing I avoid like the plague is Dodge. a +1 to ac for the price of a feat slot???!!
In my opinion, dodge is probably the worst feat ever printed, because aside from being mechanically severely underpowered, it is an extremely common trap to new players (because of its obvious name, and presence in the PHB) and takes up valuable play time with needless bookkeeping.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-01, 01:29 PM
dodge is underpowered compared to a lot, but seriously it isnt a useless sucky feat. it is a low level feat. huge difference.

brew potion on the other hand...
aside for npcs or tensers transformation addicts, it has no use.

Siosilvar
2009-01-01, 01:39 PM
Personally, I'd put them in Necromancy. You know, manipulating life energy and all that jazz.

Which is where they were for the first 2 editions (can't speak for 0E though).

arguskos
2009-01-01, 02:03 PM
In my opinion, dodge is probably the worst feat ever printed, because aside from being mechanically severely underpowered, it is an extremely common trap to new players (because of its obvious name, and presence in the PHB) and takes up valuable play time with needless bookkeeping.
As printed, yeah, Dodge is among the worst feats out there. However, I gotta say that I personally think Toughness is even worse. I mean, Improved Toughness barely has ANY prerequisites, and is vastly better.

As for Dodge though, here's an easy fix (to make it tolerable): You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC.

Forget the stupid bookkeeping crap, it just gives you +1 AC and is tolerable if you need to take it for some reason.

Theomniadept
2009-01-01, 02:37 PM
Okay, I have to say that Two Weapon Fighting isn't good for a rogue. It only applies double damage on your turn to an opponent who is flanked or flat footed. Against an opponent immune to flanking or never loses Dex to AC, you lose those opportunities for double SA. Here's a list of feats that are much better for rogues.

Combat Expertise - just a prerequisite for now.

Telling Blow - Add SA on confirmed Critical. Combine with a keen rapier or the such for a critical range of 15-20.

Sneak Attack of Opportunity - Prerequisite is Combat Expertise. You can sacrifice all your AoOs of a round for one that applies SA. At higher levels, basically means massive damage in one attack almost every round.

Staggering Strike - SA staggers opponent for 1 rnd. Useful for chaining SA.

Arterial Strike - SA causes bleeding of 1HP/rnd. Stacks. Perfect for combining with other feats applying SA to more situations, thus more bleeding and stacking.

Deafening Strike - SA deafens opponent, perfect for killing spellcasters.

Impeding Attack - SA causes opponent to take a -2 penatly on Str and Dex based ability or skill checks. Thus, less Reflex saving and less attack.

Concussion Attack - SA causes opponent to take a -2 penalty on Int and Wis based skill checks. Less Will and hurts all but Cha based spellcasters.

Not counting feats that have other prerequisites like Disembowling Strike, you take a human (estra feat) rogue to Epic level 21 before Two Weapon Fighting is more beneficial than other feats. If you DO take other feats and their prerequisites, don't even bother with Two Weapon Fighting. You'd already get SA that causes status effects, causes Con damage, can be applied to more situations, etc.

Jarade
2009-01-01, 03:19 PM
As far as dodge goes, most realize what a horrible feat it is.

However; seeing that most people are aware of its uselessness, you can usually petition the GM to either increase the bonus, or get rid of the bookkeeping problems and just have it apply on top of you current dex bonus.

And if your really lucky, your GM will accept both. As of now, my current Rouge (level 5) has a dodge bonus of 2 to his AC, that is in effect at all times his dex bonus is applicable. (Essentially, my 18 dex counts as a 22 when determining my AC)

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-01, 03:30 PM
If I had to re-do dodge, the dodge bonus would be dependent on one's level. Every four character levels adds another +1 to the bonus, until it's a +5 at 20th level...

SurlySeraph
2009-01-01, 03:50 PM
Dual Strike, from CompAdv. It´s basically ``If you are dual-wielding, you can make two attacks as a standard action. But you lose every benefit you could conceivably get from making two attacks as a standard action.´´


Improved Overrun-I have never, ever, found a legitimate use for Overrunning.

I found Improved Overrun very useful until my DM realized that by RAW you could only overrun one opponent per round. After that, well...


Okay, I have to say that Two Weapon Fighting isn't good for a rogue. It only applies double damage on your turn to an opponent who is flanked or flat footed. Against an opponent immune to flanking or never loses Dex to AC, you lose those opportunities for double SA. Here's a list of feats that are much better for rogues.

Against an opponent immune to flanking or who never loses Dex to AC, you´re already pretty much useless. And none of the feats you listed make you much more useful against said opponents.

Berserk Monk
2009-01-01, 05:12 PM
Toughness.
+3 hit points. Not all that useful. Maybe at level one when you have next to no hit points but honestly, only someone with a d4 HD (wizards/sorcerers) should be worried and they can just take a toad as a familiar which grants them +3 hp. Improved Toughness is better: +1 hp per HD.

In fact, I had an idea for a webcomic about a fighter who only took toughness as his feats.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 05:35 PM
Eagle's Claw Attack - Wis 13 and two other feats required. After that, you get to add your Wis modifier to damage on inanimate objectswith unarmed strikes! Wowee! Great for breaking planks of wood in exhibitions - otherwise, leave the serious sundering to the guy with Power Attack and the two handed adamantine weapon...

BRC
2009-01-01, 05:40 PM
Eagle's Claw Attack - Wis 13 and two other feats required. After that, you get to add your Wis modifier to damage on inanimate objectswith unarmed strikes! Wowee! Great for breaking planks of wood in exhibitions - otherwise, leave the serious sundering to the guy with Power Attack and the two handed adamantine weapon...

Monk: A door? leave this to me guys, I've got EAGLES CLAW!
\Rogue: I've got Lockpicks
Wizard: I've got Knock.
Barbarian: I've Got an Adamantine Greataxe.
Bard: While you guys were talking, I convinced the goblins on the other side to open the door for us.
Monk:...Do the goblins have a corner I can cry in.
Bard: Maybe, I'll ask, you see, I also got them to declare me their king.
Barbarian: I hate diplomacy.

Saph
2009-01-01, 05:48 PM
Monk: A door? leave this to me guys, I've got EAGLES CLAW!
\Rogue: I've got Lockpicks
Wizard: I've got Knock.
Barbarian: I've Got an Adamantine Greataxe.
Bard: While you guys were talking, I convinced the goblins on the other side to open the door for us.
Monk:...Do the goblins have a corner I can cry in.
Bard: Maybe, I'll ask, you see, I also got them to declare me their king.
Barbarian: I hate diplomacy.

If I put quotes in my sig, that would go in. :)

- Saph

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 05:52 PM
Monk: A door? leave this to me guys, I've got EAGLES CLAW!
\Rogue: I've got Lockpicks
Wizard: I've got Knock.
Barbarian: I've Got an Adamantine Greataxe.
Bard: While you guys were talking, I convinced the goblins on the other side to open the door for us.
Monk:...Do the goblins have a corner I can cry in.
Bard: Maybe, I'll ask, you see, I also got them to declare me their king.
Barbarian: I hate diplomacy.
LOL :smallbiggrin: - that's great!

My next character may be a Barbarian with an adamantine axe - every time he hacks through a door, he'll stick his head through... "Here's Johnny!"

Cybren
2009-01-01, 06:01 PM
Improved Sunder, unless you're going for Combat Brute.

"Hey look, he has a fancy sword! I better smash it! Really, who needs loot?"

except Wealth By Level is a target, not a value, so if the DM is doing his job you will always have the proper amount of equipment for your level.
Plus you can repair stuff with Craft for a fraction of its cost.

only1doug
2009-01-01, 06:16 PM
Monk: A door? leave this to me guys, I've got EAGLES CLAW!
\Rogue: I've got Lockpicks
Wizard: I've got Knock.
Barbarian: I've Got an Adamantine Greataxe.
Bard: While you guys were talking, I convinced the goblins on the other side to open the door for us.
Monk:...Do the goblins have a corner I can cry in.
Bard: Maybe, I'll ask, you see, I also got them to declare me their king.
Barbarian: I hate diplomacy.

My current character has an adamantine maul (nicknamed Doormaker) (not yet been used to make any doors but it has been discussed)

monty
2009-01-01, 06:26 PM
except Wealth By Level is a target, not a value, so if the DM is doing his job you will always have the proper amount of equipment for your level.
Plus you can repair stuff with Craft for a fraction of its cost.

No, the DM's job is to create an immersive story and challenge you properly. Nowhere in the DMG does it say, "You must give your players X loot." If you smash everything he gives you, that's your fault.

And repairing a magic item still costs half as much as making it yourself.

Cybren
2009-01-01, 06:36 PM
No, the DM's job is to create an immersive story and challenge you properly. Nowhere in the DMG does it say, "You must give your players X loot." If you smash everything he gives you, that's your fault.

And repairing a magic item still costs half as much as making it yourself.

That's
that's what the Wealth By Level Guideline is for. It's exactly for that sort of thing. "You should probably make sure your players have X loot at Y level". It's a whole thing. In the DMG.
A guide. For dungeon masters.

monty
2009-01-01, 06:44 PM
That's
that's what the Wealth By Level Guideline is for. It's exactly for that sort of thing. "You should probably make sure your players have X loot at Y level". It's a whole thing. In the DMG.
A guide. For dungeon masters.

You even said it yourself. That's a guideline. If your players smash everything that comes their way, why in a setting-appropriate god's name would you give them more stuff? That makes no sense.

"Hey guys, you know what I noticed? The more treasure I break, the more treasure we find! Weird, huh?"

Cybren
2009-01-01, 06:47 PM
You even said it yourself. That's a guideline. If your players smash everything that comes their way, why in a setting-appropriate god's name would you give them more stuff? That makes no sense.

"Hey guys, you know what I noticed? The more treasure I break, the more treasure we find! Weird, huh?"

Uhm, because punishing one of your players for his character build by giving him less stuff is a jerk move?

Signmaker
2009-01-01, 06:51 PM
Uhm, because punishing one of your players for his character build by giving him less stuff is a jerk move?

It's the player's choice. Just like Vow of Poverty is. A sunderer should know that his trademark isn't exactly beneficial when it comes to equipment procurement.

monty
2009-01-01, 07:01 PM
Uhm, because punishing one of your players for his character build by giving him less stuff is a jerk move?

You're not punishing him. You're giving him plenty of stuff, and it's his own damn fault if he destroys it.

Also, what Signmakerens said.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 10:25 PM
Uhm, because punishing one of your players for his character build by giving him less stuff is a jerk move?
Agreed with monty and Signmakerens.

1st: WBL is exactly what monty says: a guideline. Players who whine about not being up to the level indicated by the WBL table are being churlish in the extreme. Of course, the DM has to apply some common sense - you don't want 6th level character with nothing better than a masterwork longsword and some alchemists fire; or conversely, a 2nd level character with a Mirror of Lifetrapping and Ring of Elemental Command. But I've seen way too many people post on forums about holding their DM ransom to the WBL tables. Thank goodness I don't have anyone like that in my group(s).

2nd: the DM having an opponent wield a magical weapon is a perfectly acceptable way of giving treasure to the party. If a player makes a sunder build, then complains about the scarcity of magical weapons, he may need to learn a little concept called "cause and effect". Or would it be better that the enemies take on the party with mundane items, keeping all the magical loot just waiting to be collected upon their demise in a nice, safe chest under their beds?

Malacode
2009-01-01, 10:28 PM
I don't see the problem with Sunderers... A Wizard Cantrip or a Level 2 cleric spell is enough to repair almost any weapon/shield they may break. If it isn't a potential taget of said spells, a simple Craft check will do. Not hard.

Cybren
2009-01-01, 10:33 PM
Agreed with monty and Signmakerens.

1st: WBL is exactly what monty says: a guideline. Players who whine about not being up to the level indicated by the WBL table are being churlish in the extreme. Of course, the DM has to apply some common sense - you don't want 6th level character with nothing better than a masterwork longsword and some alchemists fire; or conversely, a 2nd level character with a Mirror of Lifetrapping and Ring of Elemental Command. But I've seen way too many people post on forums about holding their DM ransom to the WBL tables. Thank goodness I don't have anyone like that in my group(s).

2nd: the DM having an opponent wield a magical weapon is a perfectly acceptable way of giving treasure to the party. If a player makes a sunder build, then complains about the scarcity of magical weapons, he may need to learn a little concept called "cause and effect". Or would it be better that the enemies take on the party with mundane items, keeping all the magical loot just waiting to be collected upon their demise in a nice, safe chest under their beds?


Uhhh, wow, this isn't a little hostile at all a lot.
That's right. WBL is a guideline. A target guideline. Not a "this is the amount of money you throw at them guideline. If you only gave them potions and then they drank the potions, their wealth at that point is 0. Because they don't have anything. Likewise if you are sending wealth to your players through enemies weapons to such a degree that the sunderer is ruining things for himself and the other players, you're just being a bad DM. You're essentially saying "You chose that feat because you wanted to do something but instead i'm going to make doing that hurt you even more, bwahahahahahaha". By all means, things they break are broken. But why would you be giving the majority of the parties wealth to them via weapons from foes when you know the fighter has Improved Sunder? It's just something you do to be a jerk.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 10:45 PM
Uhhh, wow, this isn't a little hostile at all a lot.
That's right. WBL is a guideline. A target guideline. Not a "this is the amount of money you throw at them guideline. If you only gave them potions and then they drank the potions, their wealth at that point is 0. Because they don't have anything. Likewise if you are sending wealth to your players through enemies weapons to such a degree that the sunderer is ruining things for himself and the other players, you're just being a bad DM. You're essentially saying "You chose that feat because you wanted to do something but instead i'm going to make doing that hurt you even more, bwahahahahahaha". By all means, things they break are broken. But why would you be giving the majority of the parties wealth to them via weapons from foes when you know the fighter has Improved Sunder? It's just something you do to be a jerk.
Whoever said the majority of a parties wealth should be from magic weapons? Certainly no one in this thread.

But when the party does come across magical weapons, they are more likely to be wielded by someone than just conveniently lying around. No one is advocating "Muahaha, you took Improved Sunder, so it's my job as a DM to screw you over!". But it's simple cause and effect. You break enough of the enemies weapons, some of them are going to be magical. Don't expect charity from the DM because your own actions destroyed some loot.

It would be like holding up a bank with a flamethrower, then complaining if all the notes got burned...

Eldariel
2009-01-01, 10:45 PM
It's pretty much inevitable if someone has Improved Sunder; like it or not, every high level humanoid opponent is gonna have magic equipment and there's no way to make it not part of the treasure. The only way to retain the equipment amount is by giving more equipment, which just isn't believable by any stretch of imagination (about as rational as having opponents not use their equipment).

If you're gonna sunder, you're gonna be behind WPL in exchange for having easier time in those combats - trade-off you knew you were making when you took the feat. Alternatively, save Improved Sunder for Hydras. It's like casting Disjunction; you're gonna wreck the opponents, but you just also wrecked the treasure making the future harder for you. Frankly, if my players make a conscious decision to destroy items, they'll simply not recieve as much; it's a trade-off they're willing to take and it's their decision, so they'll bear the consequences.


Also, it's kinda hard not to make 'em lose treasure to using Improved Sunder; you can mostly Sunder weapons and if you do that, it's pretty inevitable that you'll break some valuable stuff since it's rather obvious that high level meleers have most of their money invested in their weapon. The other alternative is making the feat useless by not throwing any opponents with weapons at them.


As for crappy feats:
Endurance: Doesn't do enough for a feat, and you can practically never use it unless the entire party has it.

Run: Doesn't do enough for a feat, and you'll rarely have a chance to use it anyways.

Combat Casting: Oh, yawn.

Spring Attack: Le sigh.

Mobility: Thanks to full attacks, moving in combat isn't a good idea in the first place.

Great Cleave: Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Whirlwind Attack: WTF is this anyways? Full-Round Action with tons of prerequisites to do less attacks than usual?

Spring Attack: Give up all your attacks for the ability to get Charged?

Shot on the Run: You only give up 3-4 attacks for...well, for something you'll never use as you could just move before or after shooting 90% of the time.

Most core feats: Yea, they don't do enough (special attention to Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, etc. that are way too sitiuational to ever be worth picking, and they're actually parts of a feat chain!). Skill-feats all fall under this, Forge Ring is a common victim (two items per face and a way expensive creation feat; why not just pick Craft Wondrous Items instead?), Silent/Still Spell (the use is obvious, but nobody just can afford the one-level adjustment for these), Widen Spell (if it were +1...), Tower Shield Proficiency (its only use doesn't actually require proficiency), etc.

Really, core is a treasure trove for crappy feats. Then it has Power Attack, Natural Spell, Improved Trip, few metamagic & item creation-feats, Augment Summoning, Combat Reflexes, Rapid Shot, EWP: Spiked Chain and few others from the "best" end of things.

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-01, 10:46 PM
I don't see the problem with Sunderers... A Wizard Cantrip or a Level 2 cleric spell is enough to repair almost any weapon/shield they may break. If it isn't a potential taget of said spells, a simple Craft check will do. Not hard.

The item in question may be repaired by your Craft check, but it's no longer magical once that happens. And guess what 99% of its value comes from? Yeah, and that's why sundering potential treasure is a fairly sucky tactic.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 10:51 PM
The item in question may be repaired by your Craft check, but it's no longer magical once that happens. And guess what 99% of its value comes from? Yeah, and that's why sundering potential treasure is a fairly sucky tactic.
Indeed - Mending will repair an item, but not restore it's magical properties. Likewise with Make Whole.

Deepblue706
2009-01-01, 10:51 PM
Sunder isn't bad; it can eliminate threats of enemy weapons, spellcasting compnents, holy symbols, and important unmanned objects like a length of chain, etc. Unfortunately, it really works as well as a DM is willing to think about letting it be applied. Which is basically all of a Fighter's tactics, interestingly enough. I wonder if this, by any means, has something to do with why people consider the class so damn weak.

WBL, as Cybren points out, is not supposed to be the total amount of treasure to be found in a dungeon prior to PC interaction. It's how much crap they should have when encountering challenges of appropriate CR. That's all. You might only find really crappy ways to accomodate a guy who uses the Sunder tactic, but that's your problem as a DM. You have a responsibility to uphold a fun environment for everyone involved with the game; that doesn't mean chastising your players because you don't like that they break things. There is no reason why wealth need only be distributed through high-cost swords, anyhow. There's no reason why all enemies need magical equipment. Large-sized (and larger) enemies present more than enough challenge with their superior weapon dice, so magic isn't all that necessary.

Sure, a Sunderer should not be fully supported all the time; otherwise the game is no longer a challenge. A DM's duty is not just to give hand-outs, but provide challenges while maintaining the fun-factor. So, maybe Sundering shouldn't work all of the time. Or even half of the time. Or even a damn quarter of the time. Maybe one-in-every-eight encounters. And you don't have to make it obvious. But, if you've got a warrior PC who has Improved Sunder, ignoring it and penalizing them for their decision is no better than repeatedly sending undead and golems at Rogues. Or perhaps Antimagic Field Robots at your Wizards. Gee, maybe you shouldn't use sneak attack or spells, dummy!

monty
2009-01-01, 10:52 PM
The item in question may be repaired by your Craft check, but it's no longer magical once that happens. And guess what 99% of its value comes from? Yeah, and that's why sundering potential treasure is a fairly sucky tactic.

You can repair magic items, but it takes a feat. And money. And experience.

So, don't break it in the first place?

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 10:59 PM
You might only find really crappy ways to accomodate a guy who uses the Sunder tactic, but that's your problem as a DM. You have a responsibility to uphold a fun environment for everyone involved with the game; that doesn't mean chastising your players because you don't like that they break things.
Not necessarily - some DMs prefer to have a world where the PCs can interact with existing challenges, discover existing treasure etc. rather than retconning it to accommodate the players actions. And guess what - some players prefer it that way to.

If I went around sundering weapons, but new ones were always mysteriously popping up in treasure chests, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief. In short, I'd rather interact with a world where my actions have consequences (both good and bad) rather than feel like I exist in a vacuum and the world revolves around me (and my party).

I'ts purely a matter of style play preference, however, neither is right or wrong...

Eldariel
2009-01-01, 11:06 PM
In short, I'd rather interact with a world where my actions have consequences (both good and bad) rather than feel like I exist in a vacuum and the world revolves around me (and my party).

This. I've felt this train of thought to be pretty common actually, at least online, and my playgroup certainly falls under this in its entirety (which may skew my perception, of course). The world needs to make some sense; weapons just appearing 'cause you broke one exactly doesn't.

Deepblue706
2009-01-01, 11:11 PM
Not necessarily - some DMs prefer to have a world where the PCs can interact with existing challenges, discover existing treasure etc. rather than retconning it to accommodate the players actions. And guess what - some players prefer it that way to.

Okay. Well, here's a scenario for you: You left town at level 1 and happened across Deathwing, the Legendary Black Dragon. He lives three miles away from starter town, and everybody warns you not to go to the mountains where he dwells...but you do anyway, because of your own reasons. Maybe you're an idiot. Maybe it's a shortcut, you're desperate, and think you might luckily elude being noticed.

Guess what. He flies over and eats you. The End. Make a new character.

You might like that, but that's for an individual player to decide whether they do or do not. It is completely separate from the fact that the DM made this decision; which is a **** move, by the way. And, if the DM does not make the players aware "this is how things roll" before the game begins, he's doing a bad job.

In short, Improved Sunder sucks when the DM says "this is how things roll". Which can be fine for some campaigns, but you can't use that to say the feat plain sucks for everyone, forever.



If I went around sundering weapons, but new ones were always mysteriously popping up in treasure chests, it would ruin my suspension of disbelief. In short, I'd rather interact with a world where my actions have consequences (both good and bad) rather than feel like I exist in a vacuum and the world revolves around me (and my party).

Why would more pop up in treasure chests? I said nothing about that. Maybe you find uh...diamonds. And you sell them. And then you get your precious new weapon.

And I said nothing about bad consequences. I said maybe one-in-eight encounters. And not necessarily obvious. Maybe you CAN sunder more than that, but meet with less favorable results.



I'ts purely a matter of style play preference, however, neither is right or wrong...

It's wrong when the DM is lazy or antagonistic, which is the impression I'm getting from the way people express their attitudes towards this topic.

Eldariel
2009-01-01, 11:16 PM
It's wrong when the DM is lazy or antagonistic, which is the impression I'm getting from the way people express their attitudes towards this topic.

I think it's more of a case of the players taking an action and the world reacting accordingly. If you go around breaking things you'd get for treasure, you're gonna end up with less treasure than otherwise. The end. To me it seems sort of silly to expect anything different, or expect that opponents simply don't use valuable weapons since you could break them which could hurt your income.

Deepblue706
2009-01-01, 11:17 PM
I think it's more of a case of the players taking an action and the world reacting accordingly. If you go around breaking things you'd get for treasure, you're gonna end up with less treasure than otherwise. The end.

Really? So, the world acts accordingly when you get XP, and any loot whatsoever? It acts accordingly when you meet enemies the MM says you're supposed to be fighting? Pish-posh.

Eldariel
2009-01-01, 11:21 PM
Really? So, the world acts accordingly when you get XP, and any loot whatsoever? It acts accordingly when you meet enemies the MM says you're supposed to be fighting? Pish-posh.

I don't get what you're saying. If players break something they would've gotten, then that something is broken and players get less. That seems like a logical functioning of the world. I expect my players to carry responsibility for their actions. Anything else basically means that PC actions don't matter.

Deepblue706
2009-01-01, 11:24 PM
I don't get what you're saying.

Yeah, I figured not. Sorry, but I'm done with this. I'm not replying to further posts in this thread.

Bye.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-01, 11:31 PM
If a feat sucked because it sucks for somebody, then ALL FEATS would suck.

Yes, I would not take Two-Weapon Fighting as a Fighter, or in fact as anything other than a Rogue or Ranger (who can get it for free). Then again, I wouldn't take Combat Casting as a Fighter or a Rogue either, or Power Attack & Improved Sunder as a Wizard. That doesn't make any of those feats suck, it just means you've got to know what you're doing before you take them.

Two-Weapon Fighting is a great feat for a mid-to-high level Rogue. Combat Casting is a wonderful feat for a spellcaster who might ... or wants to ... end up in melee combat (Cleric or Druid, or a Wizard/Sorcerer in a smaller party).

"Situational" doesn't mean "sucks". Most or all feats are situational in nature; making certain they're used effectively is the player's responsibility, not the game's.

Not, once again, that there aren't some that just suck out loud ...

:smallbiggrin: Actually Combat Casting is surpassed by Skill Focus (Concentration), a +4 bonus when casting defensively against +3 on concentration checks.
Also two-weapon fighting sucks for rangers too: it doesn't really matter that they can get it for free, for they have no extra damage to make up for the penalty on attack rolls.

Eldariel
2009-01-01, 11:31 PM
Yeah, I figured not. Sorry, but I'm done with this. I'm not replying to further posts in this thread.

Bye.

Perhaps I need to elaborate then. The part I don't get is how to draw the association between XP/encounter tables, metagame concepts, and treasure, a game concept. XP is handled outside the game, while gaining treasure is very certainly a part of the game, something the PCs have a hand in and something that's well within their area of interest and influence. Therefore PCs should be able to, and should have an interest to influence it while something like XP and encounter tables are a completely different matter simply because they don't exist to the PCs.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 11:35 PM
Okay. Well, here's a scenario for you: You left town at level 1 and happened across Deathwing, the Legendary Black Dragon. He lives three miles away from starter town, and everybody warns you not to go to the mountains where he dwells...but you do anyway, because of your own reasons. Maybe you're an idiot. Maybe it's a shortcut, you're desperate, and think you might luckily elude being noticed.

Guess what. He flies over and eats you. The End. Make a new character.
So everybody warned me, and I went ahead and did it anyway? Fair cop, I say. I knew the danger, I took a risk, I died - that's the life of an adventurer for ya. For every epic level character out there, theres a ton of adventuring newbies that got curbstomped early on, either by poor play or poor luck.

You might like that, but that's for an individual player to decide whether they do or do not. It is completely separate from the fact that the DM made this decision; which is a **** move, by the way. And, if the DM does not make the players aware "this is how things roll" before the game begins, he's doing a bad job.
Well obviously a DM would make players aware of how things work in his campaign ahead of time, that's a given for any decent DM. I wouldn't expect my 1st level character to go to the can and get ambushed by a carrion crawler, either. I'm not advocating an adversarial style of DMing, just saying that some groups prefer to have a campaign run this way. It's not killer DM syndrome, it's a (valid) play style choice.

In short, Improved Sunder sucks when the DM says "this is how things roll". Which can be fine for some campaigns, but you can't use that to say the feat plain sucks for everyone, forever.
Agreed. I don't believe I did say that, however...

Why would more pop up in treasure chests? I said nothing about that. Maybe you find uh...diamonds. And you sell them. And then you get your precious new weapon.
Maybe, but the end result is the same - I'm being shielded from the consequences of my actions by the DM, which would make for a pretty unenjoyable game from my perspective. It would be little different than if after a beloved BBEG dies, the DM kept having him Resurrected, because the players killed his pet. It would make the players feel ineffectual, like their actions don't matter.

And I said nothing about bad consequences. I said maybe one-in-eight encounters. And not necessarily obvious. Maybe you CAN sunder more than that, but meet with less favorable results.
Fair enough.

It's wrong when the DM is lazy or antagonistic, which is the impression I'm getting from the way people express their attitudes towards this topic.
Absolutely not, from my perspective anyway. When I am DMing, I like to have an adventure (campaign) ready in advance, and not to have to change it too much "on the fly" if at all possible - for me (and my group), this makes for a more real-feeling game world, and where the players feel less like they are being coddled or singled out for DM wrath.

Like I said, it's purely a play-style choice. There's nothing innately wrong with giving players extra loot to make up for a weapon that they might sunder, but it just doesn't suit my style of game. :smallwink:

monty
2009-01-01, 11:36 PM
Okay. Well, here's a scenario for you: You left town at level 1 and happened across Deathwing, the Legendary Black Dragon. He lives three miles away from starter town, and everybody warns you not to go to the mountains where he dwells...but you do anyway, because of your own reasons. Maybe you're an idiot. Maybe it's a shortcut, you're desperate, and think you might luckily elude being noticed.

Guess what. He flies over and eats you. The End. Make a new character.

You might like that, but that's for an individual player to decide whether they do or do not. It is completely separate from the fact that the DM made this decision; which is a **** move, by the way. And, if the DM does not make the players aware "this is how things roll" before the game begins, he's doing a bad job.

If there was a powerful dragon, and everybody warned me not to go there, and I did it anyway...I'd absolutely expect the DM to kill me for doing something so stupid. Bad analogy.

The_Snark
2009-01-02, 12:15 AM
I think that what Deepblue is saying is that any DM has the world conform to what the players are, at least a little. The dragon analogy wasn't a good one, but let's say you are an intrepid group of travelers, on your way from one city to the next, and a group of bandits ambushes your party.

How has the DM determined the level of these bandits? By looking at your party level, of course. The bandits won't be ridiculously easy (at least not intentionally), because that's boring—even if it might be realistic for a level 12 wizard who looks like an old man to be jumped by a group of desperate level 1 commoners, who were conscripted by a noble and then released from service with barely a day's provisions a hundred miles from home. The bandits won't be ten levels above your characters, either. (Of course, if you're at high levels, the DM probably chose something other than bandits to throw at you, simply because random high-level bandits start stretching suspension of disbelief, but that's neither here nor there.)

The game should be shaped, to a slight degree, around what the players do and what the players like; that's not the same as coddling players. But if I were DMing and planning on having a plotline involving vampires underneath the city, and my players ended up as a swashbuckler, a rogue, and an enchanter... I'd re-think my plotline so that not all the major enemies had Immunity to Player Abilities, or ensure that they had items to help them fight undead, or maybe just change a few of the undead traits to make them less invulnerable. (If they made these characters for a game that they already knew would revolve around fighting a vampire lord and his undead minions, I might not feel obliged to make these changes.) I'm not advocating that the players be the center of the universe; I generally like having a concrete, realistic world, in which stupid decisions can result in bad things. I just don't feel like picking a certain fighting style should be treated as a stupid decision.

A player who wanted to focus in sundering might talk to the DM about these concerns, and the DM would have the following options:
-Change nothing, and tell the player it's a sub-par choice. This is valid, I guess. But does it really destroy your enjoyment of the game to have the DM make a few minor changes? Sundering is not so much better than other tactics that it needs to have consequences for the entire party to balance it.
-Change something. Does it really destroy realism for the average treasure the enemies have to be increased a little bit, to account for the fact that some of it is going to be destroyed? Alternatively, the DM could plan his encounters with the players' lower equipment in mind (and really, any DM not keeping to wealth-by-level ought to be at least aware of that when creating encounters). I don't think most players would notice either of these without being told—but if you want a different type of solution, maybe Mending can restore magic weapons and shields, or there's a custom spell that can.

Accommodating players is generally a good thing, when what they want is reasonable. I feel like not wanting to shoot the party in the foot by choosing a certain combat tactic is a reasonable request.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-02, 12:44 AM
I think that what Deepblue is saying is that any DM has the world conform to what the players are, at least a little. The dragon analogy wasn't a good one, but let's say you are an intrepid group of travelers, on your way from one city to the next, and a group of bandits ambushes your party.

How has the DM determined the level of these bandits? By looking at your party level, of course. The bandits won't be ridiculously easy (at least not intentionally), because that's boring—even if it might be realistic for a level 12 wizard who looks like an old man to be jumped by a group of desperate level 1 commoners, who were conscripted by a noble and then released from service with barely a day's provisions a hundred miles from home. The bandits won't be ten levels above your characters, either. (Of course, if you're at high levels, the DM probably chose something other than bandits to throw at you, simply because random high-level bandits start stretching suspension of disbelief, but that's neither here nor there.)

Level 12 Wizards use Teleport, and so don't get jumped by Wizards. But yes, DMs of the style that Thurbane describes often through enemies at a party that are pathetically easy once thy reach level 10+.

Sometimes the locals beg of you to clear out the kobold tribe when you are on your way to kill a dragon, and sometimes you take 5 minutes and a cloud kill out of your day to save them.

Thurbane
2009-01-02, 01:06 AM
Accommodating players is generally a good thing, when what they want is reasonable. I feel like not wanting to shoot the party in the foot by choosing a certain combat tactic is a reasonable request.
Agreed, but I wouldn't really call the loss of a few magic weapons to a player's sundering "shooting them in the foot". Its not going to seriously hamper their WBL in any case, unless they are smashing a LOT of magic weapons.

Bottom line - if you are in my game, be aware that any potential treasure that you destroy yourself will not generally be compensated for in other ways. I really don't think that is being unreasonable. There are plenty of combat tactics that don't involve smashing weapons (Improved Disarm, for example) - if you chose one that does involve smashing weapons all fine and well, but be aware that said weapons are, well, smashed...

Recaiden
2009-01-02, 01:14 AM
I would like to say most of the incarnum feats that go "Once a day you may invest essentia..." So you're basing your system on adapting by putting energy into different soulmelds, and then offering us feats that that take that away?

BRC
2009-01-02, 01:25 AM
Agreed, but I wouldn't really call the loss of a few magic weapons to a player's sundering "shooting them in the foot". Its not going to seriously hamper their WBL in any case, unless they are smashing a LOT of magic weapons.

Bottom line - if you are in my game, be aware that any potential treasure that you destroy yourself will not generally be compensated for in other ways. I really don't think that is being unreasonable. There are plenty of combat tactics that don't involve smashing weapons (Improved Disarm, for example) - if you chose one that does involve smashing weapons all fine and well, but be aware that said weapons are, well, smashed...
On the other hand, Sundering is a fairly effective way of incapacitating alot of foes. A sunder-specialist can, with one standard action, turn that big evil warlord into a dude holding a broken stick. It's kind of like the Artillery Barrage/Carpet Bombing of DnD, it's useful and very powerful, but it deprives you of something you could use yourself. The analogy is bad I know.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-01-02, 01:55 AM
...perhaps I did not explain myself well enough.
At higher levels, the +1 isn't important enough to warrant wasting a feat on. Take a random CR10 creature, the Fire Giant with an AC of 23. The same 10th level Fighter will have BAB 10, plus maybe +8 from STR, and a nice +3 weapon, at least. That's +21 to hit: a 90% chance. Sure, if you took WF, that makes it a 95% chance, but it means you're tied to your weapon type, which many people will find restricting. If the Fighter had taken a better feat, on the other hand, he could be doing something more useful than a +5% to hit, which he could just pay for and buy a weapon +1 better.

At level 20, with a 35 AC Balor, the Fighter is swinging for +20 BAB, +, let's say, 10 STR and +5 weapon. He hits at +40: he's not going to miss unless he gets a 1. WF here is useless, as he's still hitting 95% of the time.

Some 3/4 BAB class (say, a Rogue) may indeed have a use for the +1, but they don't have the feats to spare. And the Fighter doesn't need it. It's not a BAD feat, there are just BETTER ones.

This may have already have been mentioned (haven't read the whole thread), but unless for some reason you are only ever attack once per turn, you have subsequent attacks to use. Each one with a -5 penalty before the last one. Thats where WF and its tree come in handy.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that by the end of the tree you have something like a +3 (or 4?) to hit with your weapon and a +8 (6?) to damage. Good for any fighter (for those subsequent attacks, remember), even better for those using TWF with the same weapon.

The_Snark
2009-01-02, 02:01 AM
Agreed, but I wouldn't really call the loss of a few magic weapons to a player's sundering "shooting them in the foot". Its not going to seriously hamper their WBL in any case, unless they are smashing a LOT of magic weapons.

If it's not seriously hampering them, then yeah, there's not really a problem; I suppose for the fighter who's running out of feat choices and grabbed Improved Sunder, or the one who got it as a feat prerequisite, it wouldn't be. I'm more thinking of the character who spent a feat on proficiency with a goliath greathammer, bought an adamantine weapon with whatever enchantment increases sundering (I'm sure there is one), and generally built their character to make sundering their best choice.

I've never really used sundering myself, so I couldn't say whether building a character around it like that would work. I probably wouldn't, because I don't like focusing too much on a single combat maneuver, and particularly not one that's only good against humanoid foes, but people do it all the time with tripping and grappling, so... *shrug*

horseboy
2009-01-02, 02:52 AM
This may have already have been mentioned (haven't read the whole thread), but unless for some reason you are only ever attack once per turn, you have subsequent attacks to use. Each one with a -5 penalty before the last one. Thats where WF and its tree come in handy.
Eh, Iterative attacks are so situational as to be more of a "holy crap, I get iterative attacks, it must be my birthday." than something that you can rely on.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-01-02, 03:30 AM
Eh, Iterative attacks are so situational as to be more of a "holy crap, I get iterative attacks, it must be my birthday." than something that you can rely on.

I'd say it happens quite a bit thanks to the 5-foot step. At least in the games I play in.

Archers get them all the time as well, and are better off fighters than anything else really (if you want to focus solely on archery).

Fizban
2009-01-02, 06:09 AM
Late to the party, but I'll comment on improved sunder. DM styles aside, I'd say it's definitely a high risk/high reward situational feat. There are plenty of nameable mundane items that you can't live without, which most people won't think to bring more than one of. Sundering without the feat is risky, but dropping an Improved Sunder will probably take someone by suprise. Deepblue said it first here, but holy symbols/divine foci and spell component pouches in particular cripple a caster if you sunder them, and if one's out of sundering reach then it by definition will require some kind of action to bring out, slowing them down and not precluding your simply sundering again. Even low end magic items would be fair targets: if an enemy is about to drink a potion, I know I won't be getting it anyway, so I might as well sunder it out of their hands rather than let them drink it (though in this case disarming is the winner), and scrolls are in the same boat.

Once you get a description of what they're keeping all their gear in, you can sunder the bag/pouch/container/bandoleer/whatever off and deprive them of their spare gear, or do the same to a scabbard in the suprise/first round of combat, or a quiver to spill their arrows across the ground. It essentially becomes mass disarm of multiple containers and secured items, and since most of the time the immediate container won't be magic (it takes full round action to rifle through the bag of holding), you don't have to worry about destroying anything important, just get creative about what you destroy. I'd also support a higher level repair spell to fix broken magic items, and while we're at it, why the heck can't you sunder armor anyway?

Curmudgeon
2009-01-02, 06:55 AM
Improved Manyshot is an Epic feat, but it's got the same "you only apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage or the ranger’s favored enemy bonus) once" limitation as Manyshot. It's strictly worse than the non-Epic feat Greater Manyshot.

And here's another vote for the whole Two-Weapon Fighting tree, even for Rogues. To use TWF you've got to commit to being within 5' of an enemy at the end of your attack -- an inherently risky proposition for characters with weak AC and HP. And you've probably based your feat choices on the expectation of also having a flanking partner nearly all the time, so if that doesn't work out you're pretty well screwed. Finally, each feat in the chain provides less benefit because the chance of hitting decreases each time -- but it still costs the same.

Kesnit
2009-01-02, 09:07 AM
Bottom line - if you are in my game, be aware that any potential treasure that you destroy yourself will not generally be compensated for in other ways.

Which is fine, if the Fighter's player knows this in advance. If the player doesn't, you risk having a disgruntled player (because you screwed over his character concept without warning), and having the other players disgruntled with the Fighter (because they are losing stuff as well).

As was said before, this is no different than sending a party with a Rogue and an Enchanter against endless undead. It makes a major part of their character ineffective for no reason, other than DM spite. (Please note, I am not saying no DM should ever have a party with a Rogue and/or Enchanter face undead. I am saying having that party face nothing but undead is gimping them for no reason.)

Eldariel
2009-01-02, 09:26 AM
As was said before, this is no different than sending a party with a Rogue and an Enchanter against endless undead. It makes a major part of their character ineffective for no reason, other than DM spite. (Please note, I am not saying no DM should ever have a party with a Rogue and/or Enchanter face undead. I am saying having that party face nothing but undead is gimping them for no reason.)

This isn't precisely true; the two are very different cases. The status quo is that you'll face some Undead, but mostly non-undead if your campaign specifically isn't geared one way or another; most definitely more than most other monster types, but far less than other types combined. Therefore, those paths are fine unless the DM specifically goes out of his way to screw the player.

On the other hand, Sunder in a normal campaign is going to result in lots of lost treasure since it's mostly usable against weapons and most higher level weapons are magical by default. So with Sunder, the DM specifically has to build his world around the character picking Sunder or the Sunderer (and his party since he's wrecking everyone's money) is going to be heavily disadvantaged.

On the other hand, a Rogue or an Enchanter is just fine in a normal world as long as DM isn't specifically gearing the campaign against them. In other words, you should expect for a Sunderer to suck unless the DM specifically says the opposite; it's the other way around with the other builds you presented.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-02, 09:53 AM
Uhhh, wow, this isn't a little hostile at all a lot.
That's right. WBL is a guideline. A target guideline. Not a "this is the amount of money you throw at them guideline. If you only gave them potions and then they drank the potions, their wealth at that point is 0. Because they don't have anything. Likewise if you are sending wealth to your players through enemies weapons to such a degree that the sunderer is ruining things for himself and the other players, you're just being a bad DM. You're essentially saying "You chose that feat because you wanted to do something but instead i'm going to make doing that hurt you even more, bwahahahahahaha". By all means, things they break are broken. But why would you be giving the majority of the parties wealth to them via weapons from foes when you know the fighter has Improved Sunder? It's just something you do to be a jerk.


it is not a target it is an estimate for cr handling.

if a dm uses a rust monster some wealth gets destroyed it happens want to complain then fine.
if a dm uses a mimic who disguises himself as an intelligent magic sword and slowly kills the party when they sleep and the rest of the party just assumes its given wealth great. blame the players for jsut assuming magic weapons are entitled.

you blame the dm for the player chosing to break weapons. just because he can break weapons doesnt mean he must BREAK EVERY WEAPON!

sometimes a sunder can save the party. cost some loot, but saves lives earns exp. the winner is the players. if the sunderer breaks every weapon because it's there, the loser is the party who would love to even get a +1 quarterstaff if only billy-bob weaponbane would stop sundering every weapon it sees.

DigoDragon
2009-01-02, 11:10 AM
If I had to re-do dodge, the dodge bonus would be dependent on one's level. Every four character levels adds another +1 to the bonus, until it's a +5 at 20th level...

I was doing a similar act with the fighter weapon focus/specialization feats. I felt it made sense that fighter feats should get more powerful as they level since that's their only real staple to go on.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-02, 11:35 AM
i
if a dm uses a rust monster some wealth gets destroyed it happens want to complain then fine.
To be fair, rust monsters don't destroy wealth, because anything they corrode magically restores itself five minutes later.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-02, 11:43 AM
To be fair, rust monsters don't destroy wealth, because anything they corrode magically restores itself five minutes later.

currency isn't magic. its wealth and its money. early weapons and armor arent guarrenteed magic most start mundane. its a worldly posession and assumed in the wealth by character level guideline.

e arent talking a high level cr creature.the likelyhood of what wealth you have whe you fight one is edible to a rust monster.

Malacode
2009-01-02, 11:51 AM
To be fair, rust monsters don't destroy wealth, because anything they corrode magically restores itself five minutes later.

Umm, what?



Rust (Ex)
A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.


I don't see anything about it getting restored after 5 minutes....

Kurald Galain
2009-01-02, 12:04 PM
Umm, what?

I don't see anything about it getting restored after 5 minutes....

Rust (Su): A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, warp, and crack. Any metal weapons, armor, and shields carried by a creature struck are weakened by this effect ... These penalties last for 10 minutes. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a)

Curmudgeon
2009-01-02, 12:38 PM
Rust (Su): A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, warp, and crack. Any metal weapons, armor, and shields carried by a creature struck are weakened by this effect ... These penalties last for 10 minutes. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a) Please note that this is only a "thought experiment" to illustrate the D&D game development process. It is not RAW content, and is not reflected in the Monster Manual Errata. The actual rust monster attack is as follows:
Rust (Ex)
A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly.

pendell
2009-01-02, 01:15 PM
I don't really play, but some thoughts on Improved Sunder anyway:

1) Why are we assuming that the player who took IS can't play it intelligently?

If I send a blackguard armed with Stormbringer or some other uber-artifact against them,
the player has two choices.

A) Sunder the weapon. In which case, no I am NOT placing another ultra-rare priceless artifact in a nearby treasure chest for them to conveniently stumble upon. I provided the opportunity -- he chose to destroy the weapon, either because he has no use for it or has cold-bloodedly calculated that he likes living more than he likes the weapon.

B) Find some OTHER way to overcome the antagonist that does NOT involve breaking the weapon. Like, I don't know, tanking to protect the party while a caster cuts loose with slay living. Or have the rogue backstab him. Or just beat him directly in melee combat.

Why not give the player credit for having a brain? After he's sundered a couple of priceless artifacts, he'll either learn better or the rest of the party will make sure he gets the message. Possibly by beating him senseless or Dominate Personing him into dancing on a table in his underwear.

So let the dice fall where they may! Weapons equipped by enemies count as treasure. I see no reason to change the treasure placement or what not based on what feats the heroes take. Certainly the mooks didn't take that into account when collecting their possessions.

Goblin 1: Oooh look! A shiny sword!
Goblin 2: Better not take it.I understand a hero with Improved Sunder is coming into the dungeon!
Goblin 1: Ah! In that case I will lock the heavily enchanted magical weapon which might save my life in a chest, while arming myself only with this crude club, so that when the hero arrives he will easily meet WBL without taking the risk of screwing himself through his own stupidity!

The moral of the story is: Players who take feats should either learn to use those feats intelligently, or take something else. A DM shouldn't make life difficult for a player based on their feat choice, but neither should she save him from stupid errors. Learn or die, in D&D and in real life.

Of course, none of this stops the DM from coaching the player a little -- y'know, a little suggestion like "So you want to sunder the plot-critical artifact which is the only weapon in the world which can kill the BBEG? Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Douglas
2009-01-02, 01:37 PM
I don't really play, but some thoughts on Improved Sunder anyway:

1) Why are we assuming that the player who took IS can't play it intelligently?
Because playing it "intelligently" is essentially just not using it. So you can either use it and screw yourself out of loot (bad) or not use it and have a wasted feat (also bad). Either way, it's bad.

Now, sundering things like holy symbols and spell component pouches is a legitimate and useful tactic, but it depends on both fighting opponents who have such things and depend on them (Eschew Materials, anyone?) and those opponents being tough enough that simply hitting for high damage won't see much immediate benefit, and still only takes out a portion of their capabilities. There are plenty of powerful spells that just don't require material or focus components at all.

Flickerdart
2009-01-02, 02:00 PM
*use of the word "artifact"*
You can't Sunder artifacts. They usually have a specific requirement for their destruction, and no other method aside from DM intervention can manage that.

Eldariel
2009-01-02, 02:05 PM
You can't Sunder artifacts. They usually have a specific requirement for their destruction, and no other method aside from DM intervention can manage that.

Or Disjunction.

Signmaker
2009-01-02, 02:29 PM
As I stated before, my personal opinion is that the player taking Improved Sunder is aware of the potential ramifications of such a tactic. A DM's monster repetoire usually includes a healthy mix of straight-up monsters and equipment-clad sentients, unless their campaign calls for a specific theme. Therefore, there is understandably a risk in destroying equipment. Enemies with equipment usually play out in the following ways, depending on DM strategy/playstyle:

1. Players have a chance to use or sell the equips, and is thus a part of WBL progression.
2. The kobold's equipment is crap, and is better off left alone/sold. Makes sense for low-level campaigns.
3. The Drow Syndrome. Equipment mysteriously disappears. Usually coupled with a straight-up GP award, so that players can buy what they want instead of looting corpses for swords and such.

As before, I stated that Improved Sunder is a player choice. Vow of Poverty, while one more extreme, is similarly a player choice. A player should NOT expect DM intervention to fill in weaknesses left by choice, though the DM may be nice enough to do so. Likewise, the DM should not feel obligated to 'make up' for a player's choice, though they can.

Yes, a DM should warn a player of the issues of taking feats like Improved Sunder and Vow of Poverty (often, sucking). However, seeing as it is a player's choice to take such a feat (in case I haven't sounded redundant to you just yet), it should not be the DM's responsibility to handwave more equipment to the PCs when enemy equipment is destroyed.

ericgrau
2009-01-02, 09:25 PM
There are a large number of situational feats, but not really any that truly suck. Some are a little worse and might be a lower priority, but still don't "suck". Defensive feats get a bad rap b/c people tend to underestimate defense, and skill feats do too b/c not only are they situational, most games under-use skills. There are also plenty of overpowered splatbook feats. If improved toughness is put side by side with core feats and there aren't 20 other OP feats to compete, every single class in the game should take it no matter what. That feat is as valuable as con.

Generally if you use something in more than 30% of combats/etc., it's a good choice. If you're saving a feat for "just in case X happens", you're screwing yourself. No core feat gives an insane bonus that you rarely use. A moderate bonus that you rarely use, sure. Even when X happens, it won't save the day.

Frosty
2009-01-02, 09:48 PM
Would Toughness be balanced if it granted 2+1hp/HD? At 1st level, you'd get 3 HP as before, but it still scalesas you level.

Cybren
2009-01-02, 10:03 PM
Yes, a DM should warn a player of the issues of taking feats like Improved Sunder and Vow of Poverty (often, sucking). However, seeing as it is a player's choice to take such a feat (in case I haven't sounded redundant to you just yet), it should not be the DM's responsibility to handwave more equipment to the PCs when enemy equipment is destroyed.

It's a DM's responsibility to make the game fun, and if the game isn't fun then the player should leave. If the DM thinks that a certain feat won't be fun in his game he should either forbid it or accommodate for it.

Eldariel
2009-01-02, 10:05 PM
Would Toughness be balanced if it granted 2+1hp/HD? At 1st level, you'd get 3 HP as before, but it still scalesas you level.

This is what I'm using. It still wanes a bit in usefulness as levels come up, but that's more of a factor of damage increasing much more. Still, 2+HD or "3 or HD, whichever is higher" both work just fine, and I've got positive play experience with both. As I said, our campaign uses the former, but the difference between it and the latter is really quite small as on level 3-5, the 2 HP don't end the world anymore. Also, it gives the Tarrasque a nice bunch of 300 extra HP or so.

monty
2009-01-02, 10:09 PM
Would Toughness be balanced if it granted 2+1hp/HD? At 1st level, you'd get 3 HP as before, but it still scalesas you level.

They already have that. It's called Improved Toughness.

You know a feat sucks when the best fix is to turn it into another preexisting feat.

imperialspectre
2009-01-02, 10:10 PM
It's still intensely sucky, as the bonus HP it would give are much less than most enemies' attacks at the relevant level, at least past about 2nd or 3rd level. If the character in question had large HD, it would survive the attack anyway; if it was trying to bolster a bunch of d4s, it would have been better off investing in CON and spending a feat to either avoid getting hit or drop the attacker first.

By about level 10, it's simply silly, since 12 hp is nothing when decent melee combatants do many times that in a round.

Of course, if the DM is only pulling enemies out of the Monster Manual, and not using dragons, outsiders, hydras, or anything with class levels, then yes, Improved Toughness might be helpful in a highly unoptimized party that tends towards long combats during which HP are slowly gnawed away.

Signmaker
2009-01-02, 10:11 PM
It's a DM's responsibility to make the game fun, and if the game isn't fun then the player should leave. If the DM thinks that a certain feat won't be fun in his game he should either forbid it or accommodate for it.

Or, you know, just warn the player that while it will look ridiculously badass to destroy everything that makes the BBEG so menacing, it does come at a future price, the gear.

Harperfan7
2009-01-02, 10:13 PM
Wow, you guys hate some of my favorite feats.

Some feats really have no right to exist, like simple weapon proficiency, I realize that and agree.

But generally, feats only suck if taken with the wrong class/build or at the wrong level.
Like dodge, it's a low level feat and it paves the way for better feats. You don't want to take it at 18th level, but it doesn't suck, especially if you are fighting one enemy of roughly your level.

Mobility is plenty useful for anybody moving around a battlefield without tumble.
Spring Attack is good for rogues and defensive fighters.
Whirlwind attack, combined with two handed weapons, great cleave, wounding weapons, vorpal weapons, spiked chains, better reach, is just awesome.
Run is plenty useful if you have a high speed. If your speed is 30ft. and isn't going to get better, leave run alone.
Toughness should just be Improved Toughness, I think we all agree on that.
Improved Overrun is for getting past a bunch of weaker enemies to get at the big bad guys who you need to kill quickly, or getting through a crowded hallway to the wizard who found himself stuck in melee.
Improved Sunder is for those instances in which you are the focus of favored enemy, bane weapons, holy/unholy weapons, smite evil, when you are fighting a fighter with Weapon Supremacy, or when you are fighting a big giant who only has one big weapon that he is far less dangerous without, and obviously it's a lot better with adamantine weapons.
Endurance is just fine.

Thurbane
2009-01-02, 10:59 PM
Which is fine, if the Fighter's player knows this in advance. If the player doesn't, you risk having a disgruntled player (because you screwed over his character concept without warning), and having the other players disgruntled with the Fighter (because they are losing stuff as well).
How many times do I need to explain that any decent DM would explain all these sorts of things up front? Why keep assuming anyone enforcing this is trying to be a killer DM and spring it on players unannounced? :smalleek:

...although having said that, if I joined a game as a player and kept smashing weapons, I would just naturally assume that those weapons were gone by my own actions, and not expect the DM to compensate me in other ways. Again, as I keep stressing, it depends entirely on the style of play that the DM and group uses. If I found that the DM did in fact compensate the party in other ways for sundered magic items, I wouldn't be upset - I'd accept it.

Sheesh - seriously, how many sunder-focused characters are running around out there anyway? The whole build becomes ineffectual against any non-item using monster (other than a Hydra), which in the typical D&D campaign is going to be quite a big chunk of your opponents.

Frosty
2009-01-02, 11:33 PM
They already have that. It's called Improved Toughness.

You know a feat sucks when the best fix is to turn it into another preexisting feat.

Well yes, but Improved Toughness sucks at 1st level. It won't help the Wizard with 5HP that much.

Assassin89
2009-01-02, 11:43 PM
The best and worst feats depend on class and tactics. Although one feat might be useless to one player, it might be useful to another.

DarkGary
2009-01-02, 11:45 PM
Although there are alot of feats that suck, there were made for a reason. or they wouldnt have been made, i think any feat has at least one good use, or add more depth to the game, making it a game that is telling a story, not Rape the system up untill you have a character that cant be beaten.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-02, 11:49 PM
Like dodge, it's a low level feat and it paves the way for better feats. You don't want to take it at 18th level, but it doesn't suck, especially if you are fighting one enemy of roughly your level.

+1 AC against one enemy is worthless at any level, and the fact that it it "leads to better feats" just proves that if it weren't a pre-req, no one anywhere would ever take it.


Mobility is plenty useful for anybody moving around a battlefield without tumble.

+4 AC against full BAB attacks means nothing, because they will still hit. And it's still only on AoO, which can be totally avoided with single spell.


Spring Attack is good for rogues and defensive fighters.

Defensive characters are a waste of space, and Spring Attack is a rogue trap because it prevents you from getting multiple SAs a round, and thus actually doing real damage.


Whirlwind attack, combined with two handed weapons, great cleave, wounding weapons, vorpal weapons, spiked chains, better reach, is just awesome.

Great Cleave can't be used with Whirlwind attack, 1 Con damage to everyone won't even be felt my most monsters, you probably aren't getting any vorpal attacks, hitting everyone within 40ft with one attack is still worse then hitting one guy with 4 attacks.


Run is plenty useful if you have a high speed. If your speed is 30ft. and isn't going to get better, leave run alone.

If you ever use the Run action in combat you are fail, because you lose Dex to AC, and don't actually do anything meaningful because you have to run in a straight line which is never worth it.


Improved Overrun is for getting past a bunch of weaker enemies to get at the big bad guys who you need to kill quickly, or getting through a crowded hallway to the wizard who found himself stuck in melee.

1) Except that Improved Overrun is fail because it takes away the option for you to auto succeed on the Overrun when someone gets out of your way.

2) You can only Overrun a single person per round, not multiple. So if your Wizard stupidly got trapped behind a bunch of goblins, and doesn't have DD or Benign Transposition, he's screwed.


Improved Sunder is for those instances in which you are the focus of favored enemy, bane weapons, holy/unholy weapons, smite evil, when you are fighting a fighter with Weapon Supremacy, or when you are fighting a big giant who only has one big weapon that he is far less dangerous without, and obviously it's a lot better with adamantine weapons.

You don't take a feat for something that comes up once every level, and even then is still inferior to doing a full attack.


Endurance is just fine.

Name one thing Endurance actually does.

Assassin89
2009-01-03, 12:08 AM
Name one thing Endurance actually does.

Lets you take Horizon Walker, prevent nonlethal damage

Blood_Lord
2009-01-03, 12:19 AM
Lets you take Horizon Walker, prevent nonlethal damage

It only does one of those. It doesn't stop non lethal damage from someone punching you in the face, just saves you from non-lethal if you feel the need to jog for more then 8 hours straight. And in a world of teleport, and horses for god sakes, that doesn't mean anything.

KKL
2009-01-03, 12:19 AM
Lets you take Horizon Walker, prevent nonlethal damage

Skill Focus lets you get into PrCs and you don't see anyone calling it good.

Harperfan7
2009-01-03, 03:46 AM
My mistake, Great Cleave cannot be used with whirlwind attack and you can only make one overrun attempt per round.

I forgot they changed wounding in 3.5, it used to cause 1hp damage per round.

You retain your dex bonus to AC with Run. It's good for ranged weapon users who don't rely on close range for precision attacks (like sneak attack and favored enemy), but as I mentioned earlier, you should have a high speed to make it truly effective.

...and hey, endurance keeps you alive:smallsmile:.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-03, 06:53 AM
Defensive feats get a bad rap b/c people tend to underestimate defense,
The best defense tends to be pounding your enemies into the ground.


and skill feats do too b/c not only are they situational, most games under-use skills.
No, that would be because the skill feats make too little of a difference.


That feat is as valuable as con.
Except that you get very few feat slots over 20 levels (except if you're a fighter), and con can be boosted in numerous other ways.


Would Toughness be balanced if it granted 2+1hp/HD? At 1st level, you'd get 3 HP as before, but it still scalesas you level.
"Balanced", not really. But somewhat better, yes.

The point is that feats that give you additional abilities (e.g. Power Attack) tend to vastly overshadow feats that give you a small bonus to something you could already do (e.g. Weapon Focus). Incidentally this is why 4E removed all the feats that grant abilities.

only1doug
2009-01-03, 09:31 AM
This is what I'm using. It still wanes a bit in usefulness as levels come up, but that's more of a factor of damage increasing much more. Still, 2+HD or "3 or HD, whichever is higher" both work just fine, and I've got positive play experience with both. As I said, our campaign uses the former, but the difference between it and the latter is really quite small as on level 3-5, the 2 HP don't end the world anymore. Also, it gives the Tarrasque a nice bunch of 300 extra HP or so.

If we are discussing house rules then i'll tell you how our group handles toughness / improved toughness.

our houserule has made toughness the pre-requisite for improved toughness (obvious really) and as we play using the wounds / vitality point variant extra wound points from toughness are very desireable.

Assassin89
2009-01-03, 09:39 AM
It only does one of those. It doesn't stop non lethal damage from someone punching you in the face, just saves you from non-lethal if you feel the need to jog for more then 8 hours straight. And in a world of teleport, and horses for god sakes, that doesn't mean anything.
You missed a few descriptions.


You gain a +4 bonus on the following checks and saves: Swim checks made to resist nonlethal damage, Constitution checks made to continue running, Constitution checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march, Constitution checks made to hold your breath, Constitution checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from starvation or thirst, Fortitude saves made to avoid nonlethal damage from hot or cold environments, and Fortitude saves made to resist damage from suffocation. Also, you may sleep in light or medium armor without becoming fatigued.

Not only does endurance resists non lethal damage, it can also be used to automatically stabilize when reduced to negative hit points through the diehard feat.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-03, 09:44 AM
...and hey, endurance keeps you alive.

Name one situation ever in which Endurance would keep you alive, while not having Endurance would result in your death.


You missed a few descriptions.

Not only does endurance resists non lethal damage, it can also be used to automatically stabilize when reduced to negative hit points through the diehard feat.

I know what Endurance does. It just doesn't do anything meaningful. All of those are useless. If you need to go swimming, you have the Wizard cast Water Breathing on you. If you need to go somewhere fast, you get a horse. If you need to eat, you bring food or make survival checks. Endure Elements.

None of those things are even remotely useful. And it's only a +4 to a check, when you could remove all that from the game for 400gp.

And you are confusing what the Diehard feat does with what Endurance does.

If I declare that Toughness is a pre-req for all feats in the game, that doesn't make Toughness worth taking, that means I force people to take worthless feats. And Diehard itself ain't so great.

woodenbandman
2009-01-03, 10:04 AM
This whole sunder argument is wayy out of hand. It's like a player wanting to disarm, but all the enemies wield two handed weapons with a pair of locking gauntlets, or when a player wants to trip and all the enemies are enlarged tauric dwarves or gelatinous cubes, or when a player wants to grapple, and all the enemies are gargantuan creatures with freedom of movement...

Really, it is being punitive. Why would finding more treasure ruin your suspension of disbelief? You haven't seen ahead into the dungeon magically, you don't know where the DM put the treasure chests. What ruins my suspension of disbelief is when a character encounters a guy with a giant evil greatsword and his first thought is "I want that giant evil greatsword." No, you don't, idiot, you want to live through the fight involving said greatsword. And if that means breaking it, so be it.

Seriously, let the guy use his tactic. And if you think that he's being "cheap" or "destroying your world," that's proof that you're not good enough at building challenges to vex your players. I know personally, I've been guilty of this myself, but now I realize that if a player brings a wizard, then I have to step up the game. Maybe throw more wizards at him, rather than fighters. That's just how the game is.

Eldariel
2009-01-03, 10:35 AM
This whole sunder argument is wayy out of hand. It's like a player wanting to disarm, but all the enemies wield two handed weapons with a pair of locking gauntlets, or when a player wants to trip and all the enemies are enlarged tauric dwarves or gelatinous cubes, or when a player wants to grapple, and all the enemies are gargantuan creatures with freedom of movement...

No it's not. Both of those are the DM actively screwing the player. You don't need to do anything to screw a Sunder-player; he did it himself and either you pamper his baby ass and go out of your way to fix the damage he does to the party, or do nothing and let him wreck the party's wealth.

Either way, you don't need to actively do anything to make him useless; you need to actively do something to make him useful. There's a huge difference there.

woodenbandman
2009-01-03, 10:38 AM
Not creating fights that use players' skills is the same as creating fights that specifically defeat players' skills. Would you throw a 400 foot wide gorge with archers pinging them from the other side at a group of melees?

Eldariel
2009-01-03, 10:48 AM
Not creating fights that use players' skills is the same as creating fights that specifically defeat players' skills. Would you throw a 400 foot wide gorge with archers pinging them from the other side at a group of melees?

Possibly. Then they'd at least realize that it's a f*cking bad idea to play an all-melee party; they'd probably also realize that sometimes it's a really good idea to run. If they wouldn't, woe be them.

But really, I have a campaign and it has encounters planned out. Normally I don't need to worry about what the party can do; I know what abilities a certain level is like to have, and I know how tough encounters they can take. Now, I throw a campaign at them...and first playtime, a player tells me he took Improved Sunder. That's not the same as him telling me he's a Wizard or that he has Improved Trip or anything else.

No, now I'm going to have to rewrite the whole ****ing adventure for this one tool who really wanted to break things; alternatively, I'm going to have to just accept that they're going to die soon enough because they'll be about a level below their assumed WPL. This is a very different scenario from anything else. That's the difference between Sunder and everything else; nothing else requires me actively changing things to accomodate one player. And well, there's no way in hell I'm going to; if they break loot, they'll be under WBL. Anything else means negating player actions' effect to the campaign, which just sucks 'cause it's supposed to be a collaborative effort between players and the DM and that means, players' choices should be just as visible in the game as the DM's work.

woodenbandman
2009-01-03, 11:10 AM
Possibly. Then they'd at least realize that it's a f*cking bad idea to play an all-melee party; they'd probably also realize that sometimes it's a really good idea to run. If they wouldn't, woe be them.


There's a difference between playing to a party's weakness and punishing them because they made a dumb choice. Hitting a cleric with a low reflex save with web isn't the same as hitting the all cleric party with an antimagic field. One of them is a standard tactic for anyone to use, while the other one is just asserting your ability to say "Rocks fall, you die." The DM can defeat any player. Ever. There's no way that a DM could possibly lose to any player because the player has set statistics. The DM? He has no statistics. He can kill you with anything at any time. I once got a planetar thrown at me and the party was level 12. Holy wtf bbq, it was a planetar. The only reason we lived is because he "failed" his save against the NPC cleric's spell that kills outsiders, whatever it was.

That's what you're doing. You'd be putting the PCs into a situation where the only way for them to survive and remain competitive is to do things exactly the way that you envision them.

What's the big deal with this tactic anyway? Magic items are the least of their problems. It's casters that are the trouble, and you can't sunder a caster's greatsword. They're defeating the enemy in the most effective way, and when they do that, you're giving them less money than they would have gotten by defeating them in the way you wanted them to. It's like giving the adventurers less money for the dragon because they stopped it from killing a few more family members which could have created more grieving widows with nothing to do with their husbands' money except pay the adventurers for killing the dragon.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-03, 11:20 AM
Not creating fights that use players' skills is the same as creating fights that specifically defeat players' skills.

The thing is that there is no fight where Sunder is good:

1) The enemy is unsunderable. Sunder sucks.

2) The enemy has a magic weapon, sundering it results in not obtaining that loot.

Seriously, your statement that it makes more sense to have the same amount of treasure when you break some is stupid.

If your players build a giant Pyre and burn everything they own are they going to find exact WBL over the next hill?

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-03, 11:24 AM
It's a DM's responsibility to make the game fun, and if the game isn't fun then the player should leave. If the DM thinks that a certain feat won't be fun in his game he should either forbid it or accommodate for it.

if a player takes a feat to destroy items (improved sunder), forsake items (VoP), forsake killing (VoNV, VoPeace), or even playing a paladin. then the player accepts that he will have some adversity because his feat is based on destorying an opportunity. the dm needs to compensate for that to an extent (if players want to play a paladin, no great heist campaign unless doing it from the police side), but a player who makes such choices accepts his character concept is based on cuttign off one opportunity or another.

and one poster was right ou dont choose a feat for situational use, you choose it because it fits what you want your character to be. if he is the guy that ca break weapons, he should have mproved sunder. if he is some destroyer of goods, a sundering weapon needs to be made for him. (cuz odds are he will sunder it if someone is carrying it).

on topic: extra spell sucks. so does heads up from the dragon magazine compendium

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 11:33 AM
I once got a planetar thrown at me and the party was level 12. Holy wtf bbq, it was a planetar. The only reason we lived is because he "failed" his save against the NPC cleric's spell that kills outsiders, whatever it was.
That's just DMPCing. The players are supposed to solve the challenges. NPCs are there to render services and die for their amusement. If a DM sends an unbeatable enemy at you and then kills it himself, that enemy was about as useful as that NPC just standing flexing in a mirror.

Malacode
2009-01-03, 11:34 AM
Can people stop with the argument over Sunder already? We get it, some people like it, some people don't. The freaking point has been made. No amount of arguing is going to make the other guy/side change his/their mind.

Also, on a Bad Feat note, Extra Turning if you're in a Core only game/aren't facing hordes of undead/are unaware of Divine Metamagic. Even outside these situations, its easier to buy a Nightstick.

Eldariel
2009-01-03, 11:37 AM
There's a difference between playing to a party's weakness and punishing them because they made a dumb choice. Hitting a cleric with a low reflex save with web isn't the same as hitting the all cleric party with an antimagic field. One of them is a standard tactic for anyone to use, while the other one is just asserting your ability to say "Rocks fall, you die." The DM can defeat any player. Ever. There's no way that a DM could possibly lose to any player because the player has set statistics. The DM? He has no statistics. He can kill you with anything at any time. I once got a planetar thrown at me and the party was level 12. Holy wtf bbq, it was a planetar. The only reason we lived is because he "failed" his save against the NPC cleric's spell that kills outsiders, whatever it was.

Of course enemies are going to use efficient tactics. Every adventuring party is going to encounter every kinds of challenges regardless of the make-up. It doesn't matter if there're 0 or 4 casters in the party, they'll face AMFs. It doesn't matter if there're 0 or 4 ranged characters, they'll encounter a chasm sooner or later. It doesn't matter if there're 0 or 4 trippers, they'll encounter large opponents at some points. It doesn't matter if there're 0 or 4 high-spot characters, they'll encounter small opponents at some point. It doesn't matter if there're 0 or 4 sunderers, they'll face characters with valuable weapons and if they break them, they'll have less money than if they didn't. It's the same as using consumables; if you use one, you'll have less money than you would've, but you'll get easier time in one encounter for it. Sunder is the same; an encounter will be easier, but they'll have less WBL later.

You seem to think that I try to kill the party; I don't. I seek to give them a world in which they adventure and that world is going to contain both, hazards that are easy for them and hazards that are hard. Their party make-up doesn't matter, nor how they spend their resources; the only factor is how many, what level of optimization and what average party level is in question.


That's what you're doing. You'd be putting the PCs into a situation where the only way for them to survive and remain competitive is to do things exactly the way that you envision them.

Que? If the all-melee party came up with a means to cross the chasm unseen, or used UMD and a teleport scroll to surprise the archers, I wouldn't lift a finger. It's an encounter, they'll deal with it however they please. If they really don't come up with anything, they can still run. I don't see how it's a problem; I'm not there to make the answers for them, I make the questions and see if they find answers.


What's the big deal with this tactic anyway? Magic items are the least of their problems. It's casters that are the trouble, and you can't sunder a caster's greatsword. They're defeating the enemy in the most effective way, and when they do that, you're giving them less money than they would have gotten by defeating them in the way you wanted them to. It's like giving the adventurers less money for the dragon because they stopped it from killing a few more family members which could have created more grieving widows with nothing to do with their husbands' money except pay the adventurers for killing the dragon.

I'm not giving them anything, I'm giving them the same amount of money regardless of what they do. If they "spend" some of it by sundering equipment, then so be it, their choice. And no, it's again not the same. Sundering a weapon is a choice in combat that makes the combat easier, but costs you long-term; like using a consumable.

Choice to let a Dragon steal a bit more and kill people when you could've stopped it is exactly as bad as killing those people and stealing their belongings yourself. There're no similarities between breaking a weapon and letting a dragon rampage.

Eldariel
2009-01-03, 11:38 AM
That's just DMPCing. The players are supposed to solve the challenges. NPCs are there to render services and die for their amusement. If a DM sends an unbeatable enemy at you and then kills it himself, that enemy was about as useful as that NPC just standing flexing in a mirror.

Sometimes little lightshow is necessary to both, remind the players of their mortality and the fact that there's always someone more powerful. It's a great way to reign in players corrupt by the fact that they can solo an entire city's army alone.

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 11:50 AM
Sometimes little lightshow is necessary to both, remind the players of their mortality and the fact that there's always someone more powerful. It's a great way to reign in players corrupt by the fact that they can solo an entire city's army alone.
Yes, but if they a) know they can't beat it and b) have an NPC to save them just stand there, they know it's not a threat. Without said Cleric, they'd have to try hard, but a Planetar's only CR16, they could still take it if they tried hard, and that near-defeat would teach them more than having their asses saved by fiat ever would.

Harperfan7
2009-01-03, 12:29 PM
I think this is why most people think wizards are the best. Just because a character can be the best at something, doesn't mean he is going to be. Just because a wizard *can* prepare a spell that is the best solution to a problem doesn't mean he will.

You don't always have the right spell, enough spells, a spell, the right gear, or a way to defeat an enemy without taking any losses. Sometimes you are poop out of luck and have to survive it without what you usually have.

Few people take endurance because it'll make them better at winning, same for run, or even improved sunder. They do it to get rid of weaknesses and help deal with uncertainty. Not many people want to break the big powerful expensive weapon when it's just as easy to kill the person wielding it and take it themselves. They do it because they'll probably die if they don't. Same with endurance and run. You don't always have the upper hand in battle, even the most min/maxed powergamed character is going to find himself in an unexpected bind sooner or later, and if he can't get out of it, he's dead.

Although, if you have to sunder a weapon to survive, you probably don't want that weapon existing anyways (A paladin would destroy an unholy sword, not sell it - Same for an elf with an elf bane sword).

I'm getting away from myself. If you think Core feats suck, you've lost the point of the game. I've made my point, I'm done.

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 12:31 PM
I think this is why most people think wizards are the best. Just because a character can be the best at something, doesn't mean he is going to be. Just because a wizard *can* prepare a spell that is the best solution to a problem doesn't mean he will.
Except for the entire school of Divination, that would be correct. Since it exists, however, sorry.

Harperfan7
2009-01-03, 12:41 PM
I'm going to post a thread concerning that in a minute.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-03, 12:41 PM
Few people take endurance because it'll make them better at winning, same for run, or even improved sunder. They do it to get rid of weaknesses and help deal with uncertainty. Not many people want to break the big powerful expensive weapon when it's just as easy to kill the person wielding it and take it themselves. They do it because they'll probably die if they don't. Same with endurance and run. You don't always have the upper hand in battle, even the most min/maxed powergamed character is going to find himself in an unexpected bind sooner or later, and if he can't get out of it, he's dead.

Although, if you have to sunder a weapon to survive, you probably don't want that weapon existing anyways (A paladin would destroy an unholy sword, not sell it - Same for an elf with an elf bane sword).

I'm getting away from myself. If you think Core feats suck, you've lost the point of the game. I've made my point, I'm done.

And if you take a worthwhile feat like Shocktrooper, you won't need to run away. If you actually build your characters right, then Run and Endurance are not going to provide any benefit at all.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-03, 12:51 PM
how about open minded, 1 feat=5 skill points?

then why doesnt a fighter get a feat every level to be on maybe par with a rogue?

blessed by tem-et-nu-because we all need to turn or rebuke hippopotomi.

brachiation. unless you are tarzan or bionic comando joe, you dont swing that often

Epiphanis
2009-01-03, 01:12 PM
The reason Endurance has so many different applications is because each will be useful so rarely; otherwise, they would have feats like "Hold Breath" or "Long-Distance Runner." However, one feat to address a large number of low-probablity contingencies makes it a sensible enough choice, particularly for armored combatants.

As with so many of these "this game aspect is gimped" arguments, it all depends of the situations the DM throws at you -- and there really is no Detect Today's Best Possible Spell Selection in the wizard's spell list. If you really can't foresee a situation in which your character might need to hold his breath or not be allowed to sleep for an extended period, you don't have much imagination.

Realms of Chaos
2009-01-03, 01:18 PM
If it hasn't already been said, Blessed by Tem-Et-Nu (Sandstorm)
First of all, you need to have beaten a hippo in single combat just to get this feat, which usually means that you have gone out of your way to get this piece of trash.
Then, we have what it does. Hippos cannot attack you unless compelled, you can rebuke and control hippos if you can turn or rebuke undead, you get +2 ac vs. chaotic fire creatures, cleric is an additional favored class for you, and you gain an aura of law.
To top things off, if you lose favor with the obscure deity Tem-Et-Nu, you not only lose the feat's benefit but take damage.

If nothing else, this is the most random feat ever created...ever.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-03, 01:39 PM
The reason Endurance has so many different applications is because each will be useful so rarely

Well, yes, but the endurance feat is essentially trying to do what the constitution attribute already does. And con is pretty darn narrow already.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-03, 02:12 PM
The reason Endurance has so many different applications is because each will be useful so rarely; otherwise, they would have feats like "Hold Breath" or "Long-Distance Runner." However, one feat to address a large number of low-probablity contingencies makes it a sensible enough choice, particularly for armored combatants.

As with so many of these "this game aspect is gimped" arguments, it all depends of the situations the DM throws at you -- and there really is no Detect Today's Best Possible Spell Selection in the wizard's spell list. If you really can't foresee a situation in which your character might need to hold his breath or not be allowed to sleep for an extended period, you don't have much imagination.

Except that if you want to hold your breath, you can do so for 50+ rounds without Endurance, and 54 rounds with. Yeah, I really care.

Endurance doesn't even help you go without sleep for longer, it only lets you sleep in armor. And helps forced Marches, but forced marches are only if you personally need to walk the whole way, which is why it becomes obsolete at level 2 with a horse, or 5 with Phantom Steed, or 9 with Teleport.

I have played D&D for a long time, I have made a check that would have been modified by endurance 0 times ever.

Endurance's real name is Improved Sleep in Armor. And that's not worth a feat.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-03, 02:28 PM
If it hasn't already been said, Blessed by Tem-Et-Nu (Sandstorm)
First of all, you need to have beaten a hippo in single combat just to get this feat, which usually means that you have gone out of your way to get this piece of trash.
Then, we have what it does. Hippos cannot attack you unless compelled, you can rebuke and control hippos if you can turn or rebuke undead, you get +2 ac vs. chaotic fire creatures, cleric is an additional favored class for you, and you gain an aura of law.
To top things off, if you lose favor with the obscure deity Tem-Et-Nu, you not only lose the feat's benefit but take damage.

If nothing else, this is the most random feat ever created...ever.

But... but... rebuke and control hippos!

chiasaur11
2009-01-03, 02:38 PM
But... but... rebuke and control hippos!

And if your DM ever uses Hungry, hungry hippos in a campaign...

You'll be ready.

MickJay
2009-01-03, 02:44 PM
Come now, it's perfect for African-like settings that feature large rivers (not the "sand, sand everywhere" one).

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-04, 12:54 AM
If it hasn't already been said, Blessed by Tem-Et-Nu (Sandstorm)
First of all, you need to have beaten a hippo in single combat just to get this feat, which usually means that you have gone out of your way to get this piece of trash.
Then, we have what it does. Hippos cannot attack you unless compelled, you can rebuke and control hippos if you can turn or rebuke undead, you get +2 ac vs. chaotic fire creatures, cleric is an additional favored class for you, and you gain an aura of law.
To top things off, if you lose favor with the obscure deity Tem-Et-Nu, you not only lose the feat's benefit but take damage.

If nothing else, this is the most random feat ever created...ever.

forgot the hippo bite in the feat.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-04, 12:55 AM
Endurance's real name is Improved Sleep in Armor. And that's not worth a feat.

many a paranoid player has died without their armor in their sleep. a good nights rest is worth a feat

monty
2009-01-04, 12:56 AM
many a paranoid player has died without their armor in their sleep. a good nights rest is worth a feat

Rope Trick.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 08:41 AM
many a paranoid player has died without their armor in their sleep. a good nights rest is worth a feat

You should probably look up the word Paranoid. Only careless people die in their sleep.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-04, 08:51 AM
You should probably look up the word Paranoid. Only careless people die in their sleep.

no they die in their sleep then become paranoid.

and sleeping watchperson can happen to anyone.
of course this goes back to my point on another thred about alarm being he low level party saver.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 09:01 AM
no they die in their sleep then become paranoid.

and sleeping watchperson can happen to anyone.
of course this goes back to my point on another thred about alarm being he low level party saver.

No, sleeping watchperson can't happen to anyone. At all.

only1doug
2009-01-04, 09:53 AM
many a paranoid player has died without their armor in their sleep. a good nights rest is worth a feat

the presence or absence of armour will have no effect on a coup de gras while the PC is asleep.

KKL
2009-01-04, 10:04 AM
If it hasn't already been said, Blessed by Tem-Et-Nu (Sandstorm)
First of all, you need to have beaten a hippo in single combat just to get this feat, which usually means that you have gone out of your way to get this piece of trash.
Then, we have what it does. Hippos cannot attack you unless compelled, you can rebuke and control hippos if you can turn or rebuke undead, you get +2 ac vs. chaotic fire creatures, cleric is an additional favored class for you, and you gain an aura of law.
To top things off, if you lose favor with the obscure deity Tem-Et-Nu, you not only lose the feat's benefit but take damage.

If nothing else, this is the most random feat ever created...ever.

You forgot the part where if you lose the benefit of the feat, a Hippo breaks through space time, bites you, and then rebreaks space time to leave.

RandomLunatic
2009-01-04, 11:19 AM
Extended Life Span. Like that ever comes up.

Piercing Cold.

Wizard #1: Look! I can make cold spells so cold they even damage those normally immune.
White Dragon: Unless I have the 'Cold' subtype, in which case I still remain immune, B***h!
Wizard #2: I just cast fire spells for half again as much damage, no level adjustment, and I saved a feat so I can throw Sudden Maximize on it.
White Dragon: AUUGGGHHH!!! IT BURNS!!!
Wizard #3: LOL n00bs! Batman FTW!
White Dragon: *thud*
Wizard #1: [bleep] you all.

Searing Spell. See above, but at least you can damage fire creatures with it.

The Glyphstone
2009-01-04, 12:00 PM
Searing spell is actually decent for a blaster-caster, particularly at high levels where everyone and their grandmother is Immune to Fire. But that is solely because it allows the damaging of things with the [Fire] subtype. Piercing Cold has no excuse whatsoever.

RandomLunatic
2009-01-04, 12:14 PM
Searing spell is actually decent for a blaster-caster, particularly at high levels where everyone and their grandmother is Immune to Fire. But that is solely because it allows the damaging of things with the [Fire] subtype. Piercing Cold has no excuse whatsoever.

Or, since you are only doing half damage anyway, use the feat and +1 adjustment to prep something else instead that will be more effective.

Spiryt
2009-01-04, 12:15 PM
I have played D&D for a long time, I have made a check that would have been modified by endurance 0 times ever.

Endurance's real name is Improved Sleep in Armor. And that's not worth a feat.

Well, I DM a D&D short time, but group ranger already benefitet from Endurance few times.

I guess it totally depends on DM. If one cares about damage from unfriendly climate and general enviromental adventures, Endurance is slightly better.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 12:31 PM
Or, since you are only doing half damage anyway, use the feat and +1 adjustment to prep something else instead that will be more effective.

Or you energy sub something you have Arcane Thesis on into fire, then use Searing spell, then a bunch of other stuff to make a death weapon.

That's it's only use.

Also, more feats increase CL for fire spells.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 12:32 PM
Well, I DM a D&D short time, but group ranger already benefitet from Endurance few times.

I guess it totally depends on DM. If one cares about damage from unfriendly climate and general enviromental adventures, Endurance is slightly better.

No, it depends on the players. If they are too clueless to use Endure Elements and horses, Endurance comes up. Otherwise, it's useless.

Morty
2009-01-04, 12:44 PM
No, it depends on the players. If they are too clueless to use Endure Elements and horses, Endurance comes up. Otherwise, it's useless.

How about when, I don't know, their horses get stolen, killed or they can't take then wherever it is they're going? I won't claim Endurance is a good feat to take, but insulting players because they don't use horses isn't the way to go.

Fredthefighter
2009-01-04, 12:58 PM
I do not get the point of the Improved Turning Feat, Wow, you count as one level higher when turning undead, suddenly that level 1 Cleric counts as a level 2 Cleric while turning undead, like that makes a difference.
And here is the feat:
IMPROVED TURNING
Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures.

Benefit: You turn or rebuke creatures as if you were one level higher than you are in the class that grants you the ability.

Assassin89
2009-01-04, 01:01 PM
I do not get the point of the Improved Turning Feat, Wow, you count as one level higher when turning undead, suddenly that level 1 Cleric counts as a level 2 Cleric while turning undead, like that makes a difference.
And here is the feat:
IMPROVED TURNING
Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures.

Benefit: You turn or rebuke creatures as if you were one level higher than you are in the class that grants you the ability.

That feat is more useful for a paladin than a cleric because a fourth level paladin can turn undead as a second level cleric rather than a first level

Innis Cabal
2009-01-04, 01:02 PM
Extended Life Span. Like that ever comes up.

Piercing Cold.

Wizard #1: Look! I can make cold spells so cold they even damage those normally immune.
White Dragon: Unless I have the 'Cold' subtype, in which case I still remain immune, B***h!
Wizard #2: I just cast fire spells for half again as much damage, no level adjustment, and I saved a feat so I can throw Sudden Maximize on it.
White Dragon: AUUGGGHHH!!! IT BURNS!!!
Wizard #3: LOL n00bs! Batman FTW!
White Dragon: *thud*
Wizard #1: [bleep] you all.

Searing Spell. See above, but at least you can damage fire creatures with it.

Even if they stay immune they still take damage regardless, thats the point of the feat. Its not for wizards either, its for Sorcerer's who focus on cold spells.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-04, 01:07 PM
Even if they stay immune they still take damage regardless, thats the point of the feat. Its not for wizards either, its for Sorcerer's who focus on cold spells.


exxcept piercing cold says specifically that cold subtyped beings only notice its colder but are still immune to the damage. that is why searign is strickly better sicne it can be fire hot enough to burn fire.

Eldariel
2009-01-04, 01:07 PM
Searing Spell is a bit better since Fire-spells have Scorching Ray which has the highest damage/level threshold and thus you have a reason to use it against even immune opponents.

hotel_papa
2009-01-04, 01:27 PM
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Sai.

I don't care if this is given to you as a class feature, for free because you're running a ninja turtles campaign or just given to you because the DM thinks you're cute. The sai is one of the worst weapons in 3.5.

It's a light, bludgeoning d4 weapon that grants a +4 bonus to disarm. Light weapons take a -4 bonus to disarm. Net bonus = 0.

The free, simple prof., two weapon-able, power attack-able d6 quarterstaff provides a +4 by virtue of being two-handed. Net bonus = +4

Damnit, Raphael... what did they do to you?

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 01:43 PM
How about when, I don't know, their horses get stolen, killed or they can't take then wherever it is they're going? I won't claim Endurance is a good feat to take, but insulting players because they don't use horses isn't the way to go.

I'm pretty sure if your horses get stolen it's your fault. And if your horses are stolen and you need to be somewhere urgently and you are lower level then 5, and that place is more then 40 miles away, you might, possibly, make an Endurance check for a forced March, except, not really, because unless everyone in the party can make it, it's slower to forced march.

Also, the Wizard could just cast Mount. But if your party is incompetent enough to get horses stolen then they probably lost the Wizards spell book too, Oh and the Sorcerer is dead, and the Cleric, and the Druid.

Morty
2009-01-04, 01:48 PM
I'm pretty sure if your horses get stolen it's your fault. And if your horses are stolen and you need to be somewhere urgently and you are lower level then 5, and that place is more then 40 miles away, you might, possibly, make an Endurance check for a forced March, except, not really, because unless everyone in the party can make it, it's slower to forced march.

Also, the Wizard could just cast Mount. But if your party is incompetent enough to get horses stolen then they probably lost the Wizards spell book too, Oh and the Sorcerer is dead, and the Cleric, and the Druid.

So... if the party isn't 100% thief-proof, they're incompetent morons and can't do anything right? That's new.

nightwyrm
2009-01-04, 02:01 PM
So... if the party isn't 100% thief-proof, they're incompetent morons and can't do anything right? That's new.

Any NPC powerful enough to steal the PC's stuff and get away with it is prolly strong enough to just kill the PCs anyways.

Unless it's DM fiat, in which case, whatever. So the DM proved he can do anything he wants to the PCs. *Shrug*

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 02:17 PM
So... if the party isn't 100% thief-proof, they're incompetent morons and can't do anything right? That's new.

What Nightwyrm said.

If you aren't watching your horses, that's your fault. If you choose to take all your stuff, throw it on the ground in a big pile, then walk a mile away and go to sleep you'll probably lose your stuff. If one person stays awake and watches the stuff, and you are right around it, then nothing get's stolen.

This isn't rocket science. If you don't watch something it gets stolen, if you do watch something, the only way to take it from you is to beat you in a fight.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 02:28 PM
I'm pretty sure if your horses get stolen it's your fault. And if your horses are stolen and you need to be somewhere urgently and you are lower level then 5, and that place is more then 40 miles away, you might, possibly, make an Endurance check for a forced March, except, not really, because unless everyone in the party can make it, it's slower to forced march.

Also, the Wizard could just cast Mount. But if your party is incompetent enough to get horses stolen then they probably lost the Wizards spell book too, Oh and the Sorcerer is dead, and the Cleric, and the Druid.
The Wizard, who apparently is the only person still alive, could sit on the Monk and ride like that. Finally, the Monk is useful.

Spiryt
2009-01-04, 02:31 PM
Horse and enviroment is one thing.
There are other uses of Endurance.

Endurance is logical for someone whose wanderer without ability/cash for constant endure elements scrolls for him and horse.
For someone who does a lot of marching/swimming etc. it makes a lot of sense.

Still it doesn't make it very good feat, I was just saying that classic dungeon crawl with four people who slay monsters and noone worry about enviroment /stuff isn't the only way of playing.

Sometimes someone is drowning, sometimes someone must walk a forced march
(forest which can't be passed with a horse/ killed horse/ he don't have horse at all beacuse it's too much burden in the wild)

And all stuff.

Still, of course, if campaign isn't so wild adventure oriented, Endurance is indeed quite terrible feat, from optimisation perspective.

Eldariel
2009-01-04, 02:33 PM
Endurance is one of those NPC feats, just like Run and Toughness. It's incredibly rare for PCs to want them, but for many random NPCs, they can mean the difference between life and death.

nightwyrm
2009-01-04, 02:49 PM
One of the cardinal rules is to never take a feat for some ability that can easily be duplicated with a spell or money (item). It's all about the opportunity cost. Feats are rare, spells and money isn't.

Heck, levels are cheaper than feats. If your character needs proficiency in a weapons, say for a PrC, you're better off taking a level in a class that gives you that prof rather than spend a feat for it.

If you're taking a feat, it should either be for going into a PrC, or for an ability that isn't offered by a class or can be compensated for by a spell or item.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 04:02 PM
Horse and enviroment is one thing.
There are other uses of Endurance.

Endurance is logical for someone whose wanderer without ability/cash for constant endure elements scrolls for him and horse.
For someone who does a lot of marching/swimming etc. it makes a lot of sense.

Still it doesn't make it very good feat, I was just saying that classic dungeon crawl with four people who slay monsters and noone worry about enviroment /stuff isn't the only way of playing.

Sometimes someone is drowning, sometimes someone must walk a forced march
(forest which can't be passed with a horse/ killed horse/ he don't have horse at all because it's too much burden in the wild)

And all stuff.

Still, of course, if campaign isn't so wild adventure oriented, Endurance is indeed quite terrible feat, from optimisation perspective.

No, see none of those are situations in which Endurance is actually helpful. If you need to get through a forest, or your horse died, or anything, you don't Force March, because there is never any reason in D&D to force march.

Nor is a scroll of Endure Elements needed, since you can literally spend 1000gp to get constant effect. If you could buy Point Blank Shot for 1000gp, would you? Of course, same for Rapid shot, Quicken Spell, ect. IE feats you might want to take. But that's a purchase straight up better then Endurance, because it's actually an automatic success instead of +4 on a check, and yet still people don't care about it.

No one is ever drowning for the 40 rounds it would take before Endurance would actually be useful, so no one ever actually uses it for that.

Look, Endurance checks don't come up, because it is the easiest thing in the world to completely protect yourself from all of them for a cost less then that of a single feat.

koldstare
2009-01-04, 05:02 PM
The Wizard, who apparently is the only person still alive, could sit on the Monk and ride like that. Finally, the Monk is useful.

I thought the Wizard is the only one left alive.... did he raise the monk as undead? Then it would lose it's class abilities therefore have a crappy move speed. Might as well have zombie horses.

JonestheSpy
2009-01-04, 05:29 PM
If you need to get through a forest, or your horse died, or anything, you don't Force March, because there is never any reason in D&D to force march.


So, you're saying that you've never been on adventure where you've had to be somewhere in a hurry?

Endurance is useful in all sorts of situations, especially if the campaign world is not one where anyone can walk into the magicmall and simply get any damn thing they want if they have the money.

Horses aren't going to be all that useful in the mountains or deep forest - a person on foot would leave someone trying to guide horses through such terrain behind. That's just one example - the idea that players can always have horses available unless they're incompetent seems just unimaginative.

As for sleeping in armor - here's a scenario that shouldn't sound all that umplausible: Your party is asleep somewhere, you've got watchmen, and you're attacked. Your watch is alert enough to wake everyone up, but you're in melee immediately. If you're a fighter or cleric, that means you're probably out of armor and lacking most of your AC bonus. Sucks to be you.

Oh, and regarding Run, if players don't occasionally encounter foes who they're better off running from, the DM is giving them a cakewalk, IMHO.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-04, 06:02 PM
No, see none of those are situations in which Endurance is actually helpful. If you need to get through a forest, or your horse died, or anything, you don't Force March, because there is never any reason in D&D to force march.

Clearly your DM has never thrown a "You have two days until the orcs reach the village. Get there in time to save them. If you get there fast enough, you get to build fortifications" scenario at you.

Also, why does no one ever seem to remember that Teleport can´t take you to a place you´ve never seen?

Glooble Glistencrist
2009-01-04, 06:22 PM
If we're using the PH II, you can take those feats that are only useful at early levels, like Dodge, Weapon Focus, and Toughness, and retrain them into something more useful. Which makes the feats themselves "useful" even if that only means "useful for surviving until you can take more useful feats.

nightwyrm
2009-01-04, 06:32 PM
Clearly your DM has never thrown a "You have two days until the orcs reach the village. Get there in time to save them. If you get there fast enough, you get to build fortifications" scenario at you.

Also, why does no one ever seem to remember that Teleport can´t take you to a place you´ve never seen?

It's not like you can't force march if you don't have endurance. Force march only deals 1d6 nonlethal for each hour you fail your con check, and you heal nonlethals at a rate of lv/hour. In any case, the party always move at the rate of the slowest person. The feat doesn't do anything if only one person takes it.

Re: Teleport, that's what scry spells are for. Or just use greater teleport.

People should read the feats they're talking about. Endurance just give you a +4 to some checks, and lets you wear medium armor when sleeping (melee types can always just buy some chain shirt as pyjamas). Run just lets you run at 5x normal speed instead of 4x when you use run. If you can't get away at moving at 4x your normal speed, you're probably boned anyways. Seriously, physically running from a fight would just gets you killed anyways since anything that's stronger than you will probably move faster than you too.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 06:43 PM
Clearly your DM has never thrown a "You have two days until the orcs reach the village. Get there in time to save them. If you get there fast enough, you get to build fortifications" scenario at you.

Also, why does no one ever seem to remember that Teleport can´t take you to a place you´ve never seen?

Actually, I have, and like any good Wizard, I cast four Extended Phantom Steeds, and we flew there at 960ft a round. And got there much faster then trying to forced march at 60ft per round.


So, you're saying that you've never been on adventure where you've had to be somewhere in a hurry?

I've need in lots of adventures in which I needed to be somewhere in a hurry, and in those situations, I've used actually fast methods of travel, instead of trying to forced march for no reason.


Horses aren't going to be all that useful in the mountains or deep forest - a person on foot would leave someone trying to guide horses through such terrain behind. That's just one example - the idea that players can always have horses available unless they're incompetent seems just unimaginative.

Horses, as per the rules of D&D, are going to make you go faster over any long land distance. Not matter how rough or whatever. And since you've never ridden a horse cross country, let me tell you that the fable mountains with one tough pass that horses have to be led through don't exist. You can seriously go places really easily on a horse, and no matter where the start and end destinations are, you get there faster by horse then foot.


As for sleeping in armor - here's a scenario that shouldn't sound all that umplausible: Your party is asleep somewhere, you've got watchmen, and you're attacked. Your watch is alert enough to wake everyone up, but you're in melee immediately. If you're a fighter or cleric, that means you're probably out of armor and lacking most of your AC bonus. Sucks to be you.

Oh noes, for one fight you have 8 less AC if you wear full plate! Oh wait, Endurance doesn't let you sleep in full plate either! HAHAHA.

What happens is you wear the sleeping Chain Shirt, and your AC is 4 less then in you were wearing full plate. Oh noes, the world is coming to an end.

I don't know why you think AC is even meaningful in the first place. Get concealment.


Oh, and regarding Run, if players don't occasionally encounter foes who they're better off running from, the DM is giving them a cakewalk, IMHO.

The Run feat doesn't help you run from your opponents. Nor does the run action. See, your average dragon at CR 12 has a fly speed of several hundred feat a round at poor maneuverability.

Which one is more likely to help you escape:

Running 120ft in a straight line as a full round action.

Casting a spell, or running around a corner.

Monsters are faster then PCs, spending you action running isn't going to make them lose you, they just charge you, hit you, and keep following.

Lycar
2009-01-04, 07:33 PM
Any NPC powerful enough to steal the PC's stuff and get away with it is prolly strong enough to just kill the PCs anyways.



What Nightwyrm said.

If you aren't watching your horses, that's your fault. If you choose to take all your stuff, throw it on the ground in a big pile, then walk a mile away and go to sleep you'll probably lose your stuff. If one person stays awake and watches the stuff, and you are right around it, then nothing get's stolen.

This isn't rocket science. If you don't watch something it gets stolen, if you do watch something, the only way to take it from you is to beat you in a fight.

Uh hu. So the scenario of, say, some humanoid with actual ranks in Hide and Move Silently managing to sneak up on the camp of the PCs, while a PC with Spot & Listen as cross-class skills (and thus, normally 0 ranks in it) is on watch and just, like, stealthyly untying the ropes of the horses, then swinging him/herself onto the back of one of the horses and galloping off into the night, possibly while mocking the 'dumb humans' is totally impossibly for you to imagine?

And before you bring up the Alarm spell, remember that a 20' radius isn't that large and you have to keep your horses real close for that to work.

Or cast two Alarm spells I suppose.

Hand up whoever had that happen in their games?

Oh and by the way, where do you get the notion that 'No, sleeping watchperson can't happen to anyone. At all.'? :smallconfused:

Just because there are no actual rules in the PHB or elsewhere I'm aware of have rules for falling asleep on a watch doesn't mean a GM can't or won't houserule a few Fortitude saves after an exhausting day of travel or adventuring.

Something else where Endurance might be helpful, incidentially.

Lycar

Ethrael
2009-01-04, 07:44 PM
All the ones which just give +2 to skills.

I actually find weapon focus really pointless, unless you're counting it as a prerequisite. (+1 on a weapon?!?)

Eschew Materials however I find as very useful. There are too many times when material components are extremely rare but of no cost IMO...

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 07:52 PM
Why is a person with 0 Spot on watch? Why are skilled, high-level Rogues tracking them just to steal a horse? Why did they make their position known to begin with, when they could have concealed where they were? Why aren't your horses bound as well as tied to a tree, as is a very common thing to do? Why are your horses idiots and don't notice a stranger approaching? Why is your DM trying so hard to gimp the party just so a single feat would be slightly less worthless? Why didn't the Rogue or Ranger set a few traps of his own if there's no Alarm?
Elves only sleep half the time, and have Low-light vision. Half the PC races have Darkvision. Quite a number don't sleep at all, either. A few classes get special mounts that aren't going to leave them. Other classes can cast Fly, Phantom Steed, Teleport or any number of other ways to travel quickly.

So, let us recap. Endurance is only useful when your DM hates you by giving you a highly specific task and taking away your means of completing it, you're awful at setting up camp, and you never bothered to make any sort of precautions in case of such a contingency. And apparently you've all been stricken with Hiss of Sleep and Feeblemind. By the same logic, Whirlwind Attack is great if a crowd of 300 Commoners are using the narrow spaces rules to squeeze next to you and try to grapple you while the rest of them Aid Another.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-04, 08:01 PM
Uh hu. So the scenario of, say, some humanoid with actual ranks in Hide and Move Silently managing to sneak up on the camp of the PCs, while a PC with Spot & Listen as cross-class skills (and thus, normally 0 ranks in it) is on watch and just, like, stealthyly untying the ropes of the horses, then swinging him/herself onto the back of one of the horses and galloping off into the night, possibly while mocking the 'dumb humans' is totally impossibly for you to imagine?

Are you by any chance familiar with the rules for Hide/MS, you need to have cover an concealment. And as soon as someone spends their surprise round action cutting your horses tether (because you don't hobble your horses at night? Yeah, it's totally not your fault it got stolen.) You then roll init, and you chase them down, or you cast a spell that stuns or nauseates the horse, or you knock the guy off the horse, or you kill him because, yes I am totally serious, anyone worth having in a party is going to be able to disable a horse in a single round.

Seriously, if you hobble all your horses and tether them, and put a light source up, it requires a minimum of 8 people, none of whom fail a hide check to steal four horses.

That's not a good system at all, I think they'd fight over who gets to ride the horse, since the other four are martyring themselves.

And why would you ever have some on watch with bad checks, you should have at least two people with full ranks in those skills, and you only need two people to watch the whole night.


Oh and by the way, where do you get the notion that 'No, sleeping watchperson can't happen to anyone. At all.'? :smallconfused:

Just because there are no actual rules in the PHB or elsewhere I'm aware of have rules for falling asleep on a watch doesn't mean a GM can't or won't houserule a few Fortitude saves after an exhausting day of travel or adventuring.

Something else where Endurance might be helpful, incidentially.

Incidentally, if you make things up, and then declare that Endurance gives benefits to those made up things, it's a better feat.

For example, I rule that Endurance adds +100 to all saving throws for anything, so lots of people take it in my game.

Glooble Glistencrist
2009-01-04, 10:02 PM
I once spent an entire adventure trying to gather the (worthless) components to cast greater invisibility. The party had been overpowered by Wizards several levels above them and were enslaved in a mine with hundreds of other humanoids. All our stuff had been taken, including the Wizards components and spell book. There was a black market, and the party had to perform all sorts of crazy stunts just to get a bit of gum arabic.

Eschew Materials would have made things easier.

Our 'useless' monk really came in handy too, when we had to escape the guards using only improvised weapons.

KKL
2009-01-05, 12:09 AM
As for sleeping in armor - here's a scenario that shouldn't sound all that umplausible: Your party is asleep somewhere, you've got watchmen, and you're attacked. Your watch is alert enough to wake everyone up, but you're in melee immediately. If you're a fighter or cleric, that means you're probably out of armor and lacking most of your AC bonus. Sucks to be you.

Crystal of Restful Sleep. Less than a thousand GP and it lets you sleep in whatever armor you're wearing and not be exhausted.

Heck, I think the Crystal is like what, 500 GP?

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 12:53 AM
Crystal of Restful Sleep. Less than a thousand GP and it lets you sleep in whatever armor you're wearing and not be exhausted.

Heck, I think the Crystal is like what, 500 GP?

Ooh. So instead of being able to duplicate except better most of the effects of Endurance, you can actually do better on all of them.

500gp for Crystal
1000gp for constant Endure Elements
50gp for a horse

0gp, having a Constitution score of 14, and therefore being able to swim the English Channel entirely underwater without coming up for breath without even making the DC 11 Fort check once.

So, Endurance, the feat is worth significantly less then 1550gp. Because of course, each of those items provides something straight up superior to what Endurance provides.

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 01:13 AM
I read a great sig (JaxGaret's) today that would seem to be relevant here:

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 01:17 AM
I read a great sig (JaxGaret's) today that would seem to be relevant here:

I know that people hate hearing it, but every once in a while, there actually is a right answer. There is an absolute truth, and it is that Endurance sucks giant donkey balls.

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 01:25 AM
I know that people hate hearing it, but every once in a while, there actually is a right answer. There is an absolute truth, and it is that Endurance sucks giant donkey balls.
Who am I to argue the wisdom of Nietzsche against that of Blood_Lord. :smallbiggrin:

chiasaur11
2009-01-05, 01:38 AM
Who am I to argue the wisdom of Nietzsche against that of Blood_Lord. :smallbiggrin:

Hey, DnD wasn't around in big N's time. If he played, he'd agree.

JonestheSpy
2009-01-05, 01:41 AM
It sounds like 'Blood Lord', KKL and others play in campaigns where they can amble over to WalSpell to buy any old magic item or spell they want at any time, and the DM only presents challenges with 8 hour warnings so they can prepare the exact spells to overcome said challenges. Must be very convenient, but really strikes me as rather boring.

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 01:54 AM
Hey, just for the record, I tend to agree that Endurance isn't much good for anything other than a prereq. But I just hate seeing people bludgeon others with their opinion as if it were immutable fact. :smallwink:

It sounds like 'Blood Lord', KKL and others play in campaigns where they can amble over to WalSpell to buy any old magic item or spell they want at any time, and the DM only presents challenges with 8 hour warnings so they can prepare the exact spells to overcome said challenges. Must be very convenient, but really strikes me as rather boring.
Indeed - one of the reasons that clear cut "right and wrong" choices in D&D are so difficult to espouse via the internet is that you generally have no idea exactly what type of play style that person's group and DM uses.

But in this day and age of gigantic player entitlement, most people will reply "OMFG, your DM doesn't allow everything from every book to be bought in every town you enter! He is teh suxxorz!" :smallredface:

JonestheSpy
2009-01-05, 01:55 AM
Hey, just for the record, I tend to agree that Endurance isn't much good for anything other than a prereq. But I just hate seeing people bludgeon others with their opinion as if it were immutable fact. :smallwink:

I rather think it depends on the nature of the campaign and the type of challenges the DM throws at you whether it's a useful feat or not. Come to think of it, it's probably the feat that most depends on context to judge it's usefulness out of all of them.

KKL
2009-01-05, 01:57 AM
It sounds like 'Blood Lord', KKL and others play in campaigns where they can amble over to WalSpell to buy any old magic item or spell they want at any time, and the DM only presents challenges with 8 hour warnings so they can prepare the exact spells to overcome said challenges. Must be very convenient, but really strikes me as rather boring.

No, my DM is a giant jerkass and plays to kill. I can count the times he's pulled punches on one hand.

PROTIP: Drop your attitude of fake superiority where you try to make everyone else sound like [DATA EXPUNGED] powergamers with spineless DMs if they prove that some feat is terrible. Also, having an intelligent Wizard who uses his downtime wisely (PS: The Wizard is putting his huge INT to work here.) isn't a cardinal sin. Wands and scrolls for utility spells, spell slots for the killswitches, useful items for the party. This should be basic knowledge. And since I play with pricks who can exert self-control, the group doens't have a Wizard that outshines the party on a constant basis, just a Batman who hangs back and isn't a glory hog.

DMs do not come in black and white. They come in every shade in between and shades of completely different colors.

Toliudar
2009-01-05, 02:06 AM
Content removed.

KKL
2009-01-05, 02:09 AM
KKL, I really don't understand your use of the word "homosexual" in your post. Can you explain?

I don't think you really don't understand.

Toliudar
2009-01-05, 02:10 AM
You're right. I guess I was fishing for a retraction.

KKL
2009-01-05, 02:13 AM
You're right. I guess I was fishing for a retraction.

I actually would retract if you took it out of your post. :D

PS: Thank you. I need a stupid checker for my posts sometimes.

Toliudar
2009-01-05, 02:17 AM
Thanks for that.

Charity
2009-01-05, 06:54 AM
PS: Thank you. I need a stupid checker for my posts sometimes.

I got one of them. (I check everything myself)

and, hey Tol long time no see

on topic
http://www.neonbubble.com/neonimg/1/feet2.jpg

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 11:33 AM
It sounds like 'Blood Lord', KKL and others play in campaigns where they can amble over to WalSpell to buy any old magic item or spell they want at any time, and the DM only presents challenges with 8 hour warnings so they can prepare the exact spells to overcome said challenges. Must be very convenient, but really strikes me as rather boring.

Epic Cow Crap is Epic.

I'm sorry you don't know any of the actual rules to D&D, but there is this thing called crafting, so if for some reason no one in the entire world had a cloak of endure elements+resistance, despite it being the most logical item for commoners to have, then you could, instead of wasting a feat on endurance (wasting four feats, because everyone would need to take it before you could survive harsh temperatures) you could take Craft Wondrous Item, and make some cloaks. Then instead of having a +4 bonus to stuff that never comes up, you'll be completely invulnerable to it.

And don't even get me started on waiting 8 hours. I actually know how to play the game, so unlike you, my Wizards have competent spell sets that allow them to face any encounter.

You on the other hand probably need those eight hours, since your level 6 Human Wizard has Toughness, Endurance, Toughness, Iron Will, Maximize Spell as his feats.

Malacode
2009-01-05, 11:42 AM
Oh for f***'s sake, drop it already. If youget this riled up over matters of personal opinion, I can't imagine what you would be like to game with in real life. Now both of you, settle down and get on with the freaking thread! It's been established for QUITE A WHILE that you dislike Endurance, Blood_Lord, and I think we all know JonastheSpy's stance just as well. Suggest a new feat to fight over already.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 11:44 AM
Oh for f***'s sake, drop it already. If youget this riled up over matters of personal opinion, I can't imagine what you would be like to game with in real life. Now both of you, settle down and get on with the freaking thread! It's been established for QUITE A WHILE that you dislike Endurance, Blood_Lord, and I think we all know JonastheSpy's stance just as well. Suggest a new feat to fight over already.

Or, instead of commanding obedience from others with no reason to obey you, and insisting that this internet forum is not for talking about D&D related material, you could contribute positively to some subject.

Malacode
2009-01-05, 12:05 PM
I'm going to say one more thing on this, because I reaally don't want to be drawn into a fight between us. I don't want to create bad blood, you know? And I most definitely do not want to see it happen in front of me (Well... In front of me in the sense that it's on my screen, at least)

This is a public forum. If you want to fight over a feat with someone publicly, then I suppose this is the thread to do it. If you want to annoy people who aren't involved in the conflict, and who just want to learn about new feats and new perspectives on said feats, then fighting with someone publicly in this thread is the way to do it. I'm not saying that either of you are wrong, I'm not trying to attack your opnions, but I -am- saying that the method in which you continue to present them is annoying and not needed. I'm sure both of you are well aware of eachothers stances, so why bother continue badgering one another? You aren't going to change eachothers minds.

Useless feat: Anything from Dragon. Not due to the feat itself, just due to the fact that it's probably going to be a battle to get it past your DM. I know it is with mine.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 12:35 PM
...If you want to annoy people who aren't involved in the conflict, and who just want to learn about new feats and new perspectives on said feats... so why bother continue badgering one another? You aren't going to change eachothers minds.

1) I believe that it is possible for people to change their minds when they are wrong. Not always, not immediately, and certainly not admitting it in the thread. But I myself have on more then one occasion realized the error of my ways.

2) There are people, few as they may be, who might come to this thread and falsely believe Endurance to be worth taking ever by anyone, based on Jones' argument. I consider a bonus that continuing this discussion, may possibly help those people, an I consider helping one such person to be a huge benefit, worth far more to me then that I might annoy people who are pathologically opposed to conflict of any kind.

3) Did you read the title? This thread is called feats that suck. No one is here to learn new perspectives on feats. Learning new perspectives on feats is not something worth anyones time. The only thing to learn about a feat, is it's worth to every possible character concept. And if your character has either magic items or vow of poverty, and isn't going to take Steadfast Determination, then the Endurance feat has no value whatsoever.

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 04:01 PM
3) Did you read the title? This thread is called feats that suck. No one is here to learn new perspectives on feats.
Then why bother badgering people ad infinitum with your "my way is the only right way" attitude, if you don't think anyone is going to be swayed? :smallconfused:

monty
2009-01-05, 05:24 PM
Then why bother badgering people ad infinitum with your "my way is the only right way" attitude, if you don't think anyone is going to be swayed? :smallconfused:

Because this is the Internet. Didn't you get the memo?

Lycar
2009-01-05, 05:34 PM
Right, wehre to start...

Oh yeah, let's spoiler it, got too damn long... again... :smallsigh:



Are you by any chance familiar with the rules for Hide/MS, you need to have cover an concealment.

True. Amply provided by, well, trees or high grass or, since we are talking about a night camp, darkness. Or at least, shadowy illumination.

Dwarves have darkvison. Elves have low-light vision. Humans don't have squat. But even Dwarves can be snuck upon when there is other cover available. because, you know, that clearing you set up your camp is only so large, ever.

About illumination:

A) You make your campfire so large that it seriously illuminates the entire clearing.

- Benefit: You get full illumination on the entire clearing.
- Drawback: Your holy beacon shines so brightly, you attract attention
from miles away. Also, needs obscene amounts of fuel.

B) You make your campfire small and in a hole in a gorund not to attract attention.

- Benefit: Someoen has to pass by close by chance to spot the glow.
- Drawback: Not much illumination past the immediate surrounding of the
fire pit.

Chose one. Yes, there are actually campfires that fall between these two extremes, but since you've shown to have such a binary logic before...



And as soon as someone spends their surprise round action cutting your horses tether (because you don't hobble your horses at night? Yeah, it's totally not your fault it got stolen.)

Okay. Tying down your horses and hoblling them. paranoid adventurers. You know, I'll just let that fly.

So you did bring feed for the horses then? And feedbags? You better did, because if you didn't your horsies wont last long.

You know, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I always like to learn new things, but so far I was under the impression that hobbling was meant to allow your horses to roam around a bit, without being able to run off if spooked to, you know, graze. As in: Feed themselves.

Which they can't if you tie them to your tent. So you need to provide the feed. If you do that, fine, moving on...

NOBODY needs a 'surpise action' to cut ropes if they haven't been spotted. Smart enemies would just abort the raid if they were detected before thy could untie/cut loose the horses.

Okay, maybe goblins or whatever aren't that bright, but still...


You then roll init, and you chase them down,...

You mean... you chase down the poeple riding off on your horses on.. what?
Sorry, I'm obviously too dumb to get that...


...or you cast a spell that stuns or nauseates the horse,..

... because any batman wizard worth his salt has memorized spells/stored away scrolls for just such an occasion. Right. No comment.


or you knock the guy off the horse, or you kill him because, yes I am totally serious, anyone worth having in a party is going to be able to disable a horse in a single round.

Okay, you don't like fighters, I get it, sheesh...

So the ranger ought to be able to shoot the raider in the back. Agreed. That's why he's a ranger. That's what rangers do. Or a fighter with a bow. Or a crossbow. Or a spell.

Yes, if they do that, congrats, you avoided having your horses stolen. The encounter has been sucessfully overcome, have xp, sleep eventless till next morning. That sounds about all right.


Seriously, if you hobble all your horses and tether them, and put a light source up, it requires a minimum of 8 people, none of whom fail a hide check to steal four horses.

Theoretically, it only requires 1 (!) person who knows what he's doing to pull this off. Granted, tying yout hobbled horses rigth to your tent makes things somewhat more difficult but... uhm.. so.. your guard spends his entire watch only staring at the horsies? Really?


That's not a good system at all, I think they'd fight over who gets to ride the horse, since the other four are martyring themselves.

If you can't see what is wrong with that statement...


And why would you ever have some on watch with bad checks, you should have at least two people with full ranks in those skills, and you only need two people to watch the whole night.

How many people does your party have, 4? How many of them have

A) Dark- or low-light vision?
B) Are elven spellcasters who only need 4 hours continuous sleep to regain spells?
C) Have Spot and Listen as class skills?

Okay. Let's see...

1) Elven Wizard. + needs only 4 hours sleep, + has low-light vision, - Spot,Listen are cross class.
2) Dwarven Cleric or something. + has darkvision. - Listen/Spot cros class, - needs 8 hours uninterrupted sleep, only available for first and last watch (assuming a 12 hour rest with 3 4 hour watches. If you only rest for 8 hours, not available at all).
3) Rogue of sorts. + let's assume he's got low-light vision or whatever. + Spot/Listen are class skills. Our best sentry so far. Takes a thief...
4) Some warrior type. + Half-orks get low-light..., - Spot/Listen cc, + doesn't need uniterrupted sleep to regain spells.

Yeah okay, what's your party setup then? Please enlighten me.


Incidentally, if you make things up, and then declare that Endurance gives benefits to those made up things, it's a better feat.

For example, I rule that Endurance adds +100 to all saving throws for anything, so lots of people take it in my game.

Fair enough, but don't you think that a +1 (or maybe +2) to Fortitude saves would be more balanced?

And while we are on the topic of 'making things up...


Epic Cow Crap is Epic.

Yes. That's why it's Epic. It is also still Cow Crap. No argument here. You just don't see that this still makes it Epic Fertilizer. :smallwink:


...there is this thing called crafting, so if for some reason no one in the entire world had a cloak of endure elements+resistance, despite it being the most logical item for commoners to have,


Uhm, dude? Hold your horses for momet there, okay? Yes, having a cloak would be awesome, everyone would want one.

HOWEVER, in economics, Demand is NOT what people WANT, it is wat they WANT AND CAN AFFORD!

1) Take a look at what this thing costs.
2) Take a look at what a 'commoner' actually makes, income-wise.
3) Weep.



then you could, instead of wasting a feat on endurance ... you could take Craft Wondrous Item, and make some cloaks. Then instead of having a +4 bonus to stuff that never comes up, you'll be completely invulnerable to it.

Sure. Never use a feat on something you can buy with gold. But still.. cloak slot... Cloak of Resistance anyone? :smallconfused:



And don't even get me started on waiting 8 hours. I actually know how to play the game, so unlike you, my Wizards have competent spell sets that allow them to face any encounter.

*sigh* See, that's the point where we just have to disagree.

In my not-so-humble-opinion, you know how to play the RULES. Not the GAME.

But there as many different opinions about what exactly the GAME is, as there are players palying it...


You on the other hand probably need those eight hours, since your level 6 Human Wizard has Toughness, Endurance, Toughness, Iron Will, Maximize Spell as his feats.

Naa... Toughness on lv1 is nice. Makes it much more likely to actually live to lv2 and all that. Battlecaster isn't so bad. Wear some enchanted light armour, save a spell slot on Mage Armour and you can wear it day and night. Just get a 3/day item of Prestidigitation. For staying clean and stuff. Yeah sure, by RAW it doesn't work for Wizards, only for Battlemages and Bards and such. Ask your GM about it.

Maybe he likes the idea better then, say, making every thrice-cursed magic item ever being printed in some Gygax-forsaken 3rd party publication available to you, just because you insisst on it.

Mirror of Grooming, cast Prestidigitation or Mending 3/day. 960 gp, round up to 1000, make it a real nice and shiny hand mirror. Done.

Iron Will, ohh... good one. Never can have enough Will save. You see, until you live to see those higher levels that make that irrelevant, having a 10% higher chance to not die (or suck) is... nice.

Of course, if you are a Sorceror (or Bard) Force of Personality is soo much cooler (and better).

Alacritous Cogitation is nice if you want to have a Joker up your sleeve. Too bad it only works once a day. Bummer. Still neat.

The Fey/Fiend Heritage line of feats is also fun. Although more for Bards/Sorcerors then for Wizards.

Chain Spell is usefull.

Delay Spell and Explosive Spell are barrels of fun.

Still don't see where I'm getting here? I want to have fun playing that GAME. For me, that includes having a fun and memorable character. That doesn't neccessarily mean the most powerful. But damn, even if he's not Batman or what have you, if I have fun playing this guy, the game is a success for me. Fortunately, my gaming buddies (mostly) agree.

Sure, we can't take out encounters 4 levels above our challenge rating. So what? Seriously, so what the hell? If a fight between us and, say, 10 bugbears almost, almost wiped us out, but we prevailed, against the odds, we are going to look back to that fight much more fondly then to, say, 'the time we pownzored that dragon'. Because then the victory actually means something to us.

We had an actual adventure, with a perilous, life threatening fight in between. We didn't go and reduces a set of hitpoints to 0, just because of our leet rulez mastery skillz.

Yes, for some of us out there, THAT is what the game is about.

Not being Batman.

And that is why sometimes, we WANT to have Endurance. Because our guy CAN march all day without keeling over. Because he CAN swim the channel, even in a frigging storm.

That is not mechanically powerfull. It is just cool, awesome, flavorfull, whatever you call it.

Endurance is not a bad feat because it is useless. Far from it.

It is only not as good a choice, mechanically, as about 200+ other feats of the 2000+ feats out there (depending on your party role, charcter concept or 'build').

And since you only ever get 7(8) feats in a lifetime, possibly less, since most games won't go epic, it is just so sad that you usually can't afford to take them.

That is just sad.

But if your GM offered you to, like, 'take 3 free feats. But no fighter bonus feats or metamagic feats. Just something to add some flavour to your character' , and you can see Endurance as being one of it, for the merit of being 'cool to have' (even if only for free in this case), then it is not without merit in the eyes of the powers that be.

And the powers that be, are we, the players.


Lycar

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 05:46 PM
Then why bother badgering people ad infinitum with your "my way is the only right way" attitude, if you don't think anyone is going to be swayed? :smallconfused:

1) Did you not see the part above where I said that I do expect people to change there mind? Where I demonstrated that for someone with no knowledge of the feat in question me informing them when they read my posts is enough to justify posting?

2) There are two major bits of verbal trickery to deal with here.

First, have I ever said, "my way is the only right way"? Of course not. Because it is not my way. There are good feats, and there are bad feats. Endurance is a bad one. There is no way about it. It is very possible for an opinion to be wrong. Having an opinion does not automatically create a second Endurance feat that is worth taking.

Second, there are no "perspectives" on feats. There are feats. There is information about what the feat does, there is information about synergies, there is information about uses, there are no "perspectives" on feats.

The "perspective" that +4 to checks to hold your breath is valuable doesn't actually mean anything. It's still not valuable. It's still worthless.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-05, 06:11 PM
1) Did you not see the part above where I said that I do expect people to change there mind? Where I demonstrated that for someone with no knowledge of the feat in question me informing them when they read my posts is enough to justify posting?

2) There are two major bits of verbal trickery to deal with here.

First, have I ever said, "my way is the only right way"? Of course not. Because it is not my way. There are good feats, and there are bad feats. Endurance is a bad one. There is no way about it. It is very possible for an opinion to be wrong. Having an opinion does not automatically create a second Endurance feat that is worth taking.

Second, there are no "perspectives" on feats. There are feats. There is information about what the feat does, there is information about synergies, there is information about uses, there are no "perspectives" on feats.

The "perspective" that +4 to checks to hold your breath is valuable doesn't actually mean anything. It's still not valuable. It's still worthless.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/7/71/Internet_argument.jpg

Now, will everyone stop telling each other that they run their campaigns wrong?

Assassin89
2009-01-05, 06:23 PM
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/7/71/Internet_argument.jpg

Now, will everyone stop telling each other that they run their campaigns wrong?

I agree with your conclusions and as a result...

*stabs entire thread*

Now can we stop continuing this senseless argument about running campaigns and focus on which feats are not worth using?

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 06:28 PM
1) Did you not see the part above where I said that I do expect people to change there mind? Where I demonstrated that for someone with no knowledge of the feat in question me informing them when they read my posts is enough to justify posting?
assumption [uh-suhmp-shuhn]

–noun 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power.
5. arrogance; presumption.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Ecclesiastical. a. (often initial capital letter) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary.
b. (initial capital letter) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.

2) There are two major bits of verbal trickery to deal with here.

First, have I ever said, "my way is the only right way"? Of course not. Because it is not my way. There are good feats, and there are bad feats. Endurance is a bad one. There is no way about it. It is very possible for an opinion to be wrong. Having an opinion does not automatically create a second Endurance feat that is worth taking.

Second, there are no "perspectives" on feats. There are feats. There is information about what the feat does, there is information about synergies, there is information about uses, there are no "perspectives" on feats.

The "perspective" that +4 to checks to hold your breath is valuable doesn't actually mean anything. It's still not valuable. It's still worthless.
opinion [uh-pin-yuhn]

–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

only1doug
2009-01-05, 06:47 PM
I know there are plenty of people who will disagree with me about this but in my opinion Improved Initiative is terrible.

I believe I.I. sucks because wasting a feat on a small (20%) improvement in initiative order gives little tangible benefit. If you have a build that allows you to kill your enemies in one round if you win initiative then your GM is going to kill off your character (or just ban the character build). If you aren't reliant on killing your opponents within the first round of combat then initiative order becomes less relevant.

I've never had a character where I was willing to waste a feat on slightly improving my chance of going first.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 07:07 PM
True. Amply provided by, well, trees or high grass or, since we are talking about a night camp, darkness. Or at least, shadowy illumination.

Dwarves have darkvison. Elves have low-light vision. Humans don't have squat. But even Dwarves can be snuck upon when there is other cover available. because, you know, that clearing you set up your camp is only so large, ever.

About illumination:

A) You make your campfire so large that it seriously illuminates the entire clearing.

- Benefit: You get full illumination on the entire clearing.
- Drawback: Your holy beacon shines so brightly, you attract attention
from miles away. Also, needs obscene amounts of fuel.

B) You make your campfire small and in a hole in a gorund not to attract attention.

- Benefit: Someoen has to pass by close by chance to spot the glow.
- Drawback: Not much illumination past the immediate surrounding of the
fire pit.

Chose one. Yes, there are actually campfires that fall between these two extremes, but since you've shown to have such a binary logic before...

If only there were some light source that you could place wherever you want and would emit light in an area around it. Something like a Light that continued indefinitely, or a Torch the burned forever, then you could hang that over above the horses, and have your own campfire (or not) separate. And you would be able to see anyone approaching the horses, and they would have no cover or concealment.


Okay. Tying down your horses and hoblling them. paranoid adventurers. You know, I'll just let that fly.

So you did bring feed for the horses then? And feedbags? You better did, because if you didn't your horsies wont last long.

You know, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I always like to learn new things, but so far I was under the impression that hobbling was meant to allow your horses to roam around a bit, without being able to run off if spooked to, you know, graze. As in: Feed themselves.

Which they can't if you tie them to your tent. So you need to provide the feed. If you do that, fine, moving on...

Yes, you hobble your horses and tie them up in a line. (Not against your tent, because you don't even have a tent anyways.) This way they are easy to watch.


NOBODY needs a 'surpise action' to cut ropes if they haven't been spotted. Smart enemies would just abort the raid if they were detected before thy could untie/cut loose the horses.

Well then they'll always abort the raid, because they'll always be detected before the get to the horses.


You mean... you chase down the poeple riding off on your horses on.. what?
Sorry, I'm obviously too dumb to get that...

You don't have to chase them down, because they aren't riding away, because you'll see them long before they get the horse cut free.


... because any batman wizard worth his salt has memorized spells/stored away scrolls for just such an occasion. Right. No comment.

He should have one of the seven hundred spells that cripple things, because that's what he prepares normally. Trees? Web that horse. Not going anywhere. Glitterdust? it moves at half speed and can't take the Run action, ect.


Theoretically, it only requires 1 (!) person who knows what he's doing to pull this off. Granted, tying yout hobbled horses rigth to your tent makes things somewhat more difficult but... uhm.. so.. your guard spends his entire watch only staring at the horsies? Really?

And all it requires is one person to hang a continual flame torch over your horses head to prevent him from ever doing that.


A) Dark- or low-light vision?

All four.


B) Are elven spellcasters who only need 4 hours continuous sleep to regain spells?

Well, none are elves, but we do have a warforged non-spellcaster who watches every night.


C) Have Spot and Listen as class skills?

Three of us have spot and listen as class skills, though only 2 have actual ranks in them. Including the Warforged.


1) Elven Wizard. + needs only 4 hours sleep, + has low-light vision, - Spot,Listen are cross class.

Except he's also got a racial bonus, a second check or aid another action from his familiar, alterness when his familiar is near. So he's actually got a higher bonus then most rogues of any level where you actually still use horses. (Because of course, later he's just casting Phantom Steed.)


2) Dwarven Cleric or something. + has darkvision. - Listen/Spot cros class, - needs 8 hours uninterrupted sleep, only available for first and last watch (assuming a 12 hour rest with 3 4 hour watches. If you only rest for 8 hours, not available at all).

Except he doesn't need that much sleep, because Clerics don't require rest for their spells. In fact, any cleric of level 3 or higher can, at the cost of a single second level slot each day, never sleep again.


3) Rogue of sorts. + let's assume he's got low-light vision or whatever. + Spot/Listen are class skills. Our best sentry so far.

Well, not as good as the Wizard, but whatever.


4) Some warrior type. + Half-orks get low-light..., - Spot/Listen cc, + doesn't need uniterrupted sleep to regain spells.

You mean a Druid with an extra check from AC, Wisdom as a main stat, and full ranks in both Listen and Spot?


Yeah okay, what's your party setup then? Please enlighten me.

Well, my current party is a Warforge Dragonborn Totemist, Mongrelfolk Dragonborn Dragonfire Adept, Gnome Dragonborn Bard, and Something Dragonborn Crusader.


Fair enough, but don't you think that a +1 (or maybe +2) to Fortitude saves would be more balanced?

I think that no matter what number I make up, it has just as little bearing on horse thieves as the made up stuff by Jones, which is to say, none.


Uhm, dude? Hold your horses for momet there, okay? Yes, having a cloak would be awesome, everyone would want one.

HOWEVER, in economics, Demand is NOT what people WANT, it is wat they WANT AND CAN AFFORD!

1) Take a look at what this thing costs.
2) Take a look at what a 'commoner' actually makes, income-wise.
3) Weep.

Except not all commoners are level 1, and they have NPC wealth, enough to get this cloack, not that it matters, see crafting and shops catering to adventurers.


Sure. Never use a feat on something you can buy with gold. But still.. cloak slot... Cloak of Resistance anyone? :smallconfused:

And if only you read the item description, you would notice that a cloak of comfort is a cloak of resistance with the added feature for only the extra cost, and no 1.5 crud. Because that was all removed in MiC. But even otherwise, it costs only 1500gp to make an endure elements cloak that still doesn't take up the cloak slot.


In my not-so-humble-opinion, you know how to play the RULES. Not the GAME.

And in your completely 100% uninformed opinion, you are wrong. Big surprise there.


*Incredibly long rant that starts with defending toughness and ends with how everyone who doesn't take Endurance wants to never be challenged*

I think you need a permit to burn a strawman that big. Come back when you have something to say that even remotely relates to something someone has said in this thread.


EDIT: Yes Thurbane, you can quote the dictionary in ways that are entirely tangential to the discussion at hand. Have a nice day.

If you think that Endurance is worth taking, perhaps you'll make an argument for that. Oh but wait, it isn't, so you have no argument for it.

Your "argument" is that right and wrong do not exist, nothing is absolutely true, and a bunch of other postmodernist crap that doesn't mean anything and is just a method of pretending to superiority over those evil people who think things are either true or false.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-05, 07:27 PM
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/7/71/Internet_argument.jpg

Now, will everyone stop telling each other that they run their campaigns wrong?

Please. And if you refuse, can you at least discuss a more interesting feat than Endurance? Seriously, it´s nice in campaigns involving a lot of overland travel and wilderness survival, especially at low levels and if you don´t have much money. It´s worthless in high powered campaigns. It´s not as useless as Skill Focus (basketweaving). Can we move on?

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 08:13 PM
EDIT: Yes Thurbane, you can quote the dictionary in ways that are entirely tangential to the discussion at hand. Have a nice day.

If you think that Endurance is worth taking, perhaps you'll make an argument for that. Oh but wait, it isn't, so you have no argument for it.
Well, I've actually already said that I don't personally believe Endurance is a particularly good feat.

But it's interesting that you use the word "argument", because that's exactly what it would be, an argument of opinions.

Your "argument" is that right and wrong do not exist, nothing is absolutely true, and a bunch of other postmodernist crap that doesn't mean anything and is just a method of pretending to superiority over those evil people who think things are either true or false.
Absolutely incorrect. There are plenty of absolutes that are right and wrong. Opinions about what are and aren't good feats aren't among them, any more than arguing that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.

You've given plenty of examples illustrating situations where various feats can be supplanted with magic items or other substitutes. But unless you are privy to every D&D game in the world, you simply cannot say that these other options will always be superior. In the vast majority of cases, you are probably correct, but to tell someone that they are wrong because they disagree with you is drawing a conclusion without all the facts.

You have every right to believe various feats suck, as do I and everyone else here. But your continued insistence on arguing opinions as if they are facts is, quite frankly, staggering...

monty
2009-01-05, 08:30 PM
It´s not as useless as Skill Focus (basketweaving).

Some people might disagree with you on that part.

Thurbane
2009-01-05, 08:33 PM
Apologies to all for contributing to the derailing of this thread into an ad nauseum debate about the nature of opinion vs. fact. :smallfrown:

Blood_Lord
2009-01-05, 09:07 PM
Well, I've actually already said that I don't personally believe Endurance is a particularly good feat.

But it's interesting that you use the word "argument", because that's exactly what it would be, an argument of opinions.

Well since you like definitions so much, perhaps this amazing tidbit will blow your mind:

Main Entry:
ar·gu·ment Listen to the pronunciation of argument
Pronunciation:
\ˈär-gyə-mənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
Date:
14th century

1obsolete : an outward sign : indication
2a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade
3a: the act or process of arguing : argumentation b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c: quarrel , disagreement
4: an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5: the subject matter especially of a literary work6 a: one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b: a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c: amplitude 4


You'll notice nowhere does it say, "Something that automatically means neither side can be right and both opinions are equally valid!"

Probably because that's not what it means.


Absolutely incorrect. There are plenty of absolutes that are right and wrong. Opinions about what are and aren't good feats aren't among them, any more than arguing that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.

You've given plenty of examples illustrating situations where various feats can be supplanted with magic items or other substitutes. But unless you are privy to every D&D game in the world, you simply cannot say that these other options will always be superior. In the vast majority of cases, you are probably correct, but to tell someone that they are wrong because they disagree with you is drawing a conclusion without all the facts.

You have every right to believe various feats suck, as do I and everyone else here. But your continued insistence on arguing opinions as if they are facts is, quite frankly, staggering...

You are wrong. Whether a feat is worth taking is an absolute truth. It either is, or it isn't. And since the situations in which Endurance are worth taking is limited to:

No items, no casters, no horses, no intelligence, always below zero degrees, final destination

It is very easy to say that Endurance is a sucky feat. And that statement is absolutely 100% no questions, no opinions, no exceptions true.

If I have the opinion, that you are a Chinese man from Buffalo who recently went into space by driving his car off a cliff really fast and is now accessing the internet from the center of the sun using advanced alien technology that gives him telepathy, and you had the opinion that you were not. One of us would be correct, the other, incorrect. Because opinions don't mean impossible to be right or wrong, they just mean stupid things people think. And stupid things people think can be wrong.

Assassin89
2009-01-05, 09:23 PM
Looks like the thread has derailed yet again...

*stabs debate over opinions*

I'm starting to think that the mods might become involved if this thread continues to get out of hand.

monty
2009-01-05, 10:09 PM
No items, no casters, no horses, no intelligence, always below zero degrees, final destination

You forgot "Fox only."

Lycar
2009-01-06, 03:00 PM
If only there were some light source that you could place wherever you want and would emit light in an area around it. Something like a Light that continued indefinitely, or a Torch the burned forever, then you could hang that over above the horses, and have your own campfire (or not) separate...

Again: The more light you put up, the more attention you draw. It matters little if you light up with one big light source or many smaller ones.

Usually adventurers try to avoid unwanted attention.

But I do realize that you are, by no means, an usual adventurer.


And you would be able to see anyone approaching the horses, and they would have no cover or concealment.

Youi are 100% wrong.

Hint: Horses are neither translucent, nor do they spend their entire lives standing up. Especially not at night.



He should have one of the seven hundred spells that cripple things, because that's what he prepares normally. Trees? Web that horse. Not going anywhere. Glitterdust? it moves at half speed and can't take the Run action, ect.

{Scrubbed} Is it entirely imaginable for you that, maybe, just maybe your mage, like, used up those spells during the day!?




[Elf Wizard as sentry]
Except he's also got a racial bonus, a second check or aid another action from his familiar, alterness when his familiar is near. So he's actually got a higher bonus then most rogues of any level where you actually still use horses. (Because of course, later he's just casting Phantom Steed.)

*Sigh* Finally a real and sensible argument! Yes, thanks to racial boni and maybe with the aid of a proper familiar, an Elf wizard isn't none too shabby as a guard. At least at the lower levels. See, that didn't even hurt.

I have to ask though: Doesn't dedicating 4 entire spell slots each day for Phantom Steeds hurt mages power? :smallconfused:


Except he doesn't need that much sleep, because Clerics don't require rest for their spells.

Oops, my bad. Our GM always required the divine casters to rest too. But per RAW, clerics don't need to rest to learn spells.

Still want to get some sleep to avoid exhaustion.

And if you get the feats to not need to sleep anymore, well, that are feats you don't spend on, say Endurance, or DMM. :smallwink:


Well, my current party is a Warforge Dragonborn Totemist, Mongrelfolk Dragonborn Dragonfire Adept, Gnome Dragonborn Bard, and Something Dragonborn Crusader.

*stunned silence* ... you know... this explains a lot...

Do you even play in an Eberron campaign?



*Incredibly long rant that starts with defending toughness and ends with how everyone who doesn't take Endurance wants to never be challenged*

I think you need a permit to burn a strawman that big. Come back when you have something to say that even remotely relates to something someone has said in this thread.

{Scrubbed}

Endurance as a feat has merit if you are interested in the right kind of flavour for your character.

Not 'you' as in 'you Blood_Lord' obviously.
{Scrubbed} There are people who like their characters to follow a certain vision they have about that character. If Endurance happens to fit that description, they will pick it over, say, Jump of the Heavens or Power Attack or Shock Trooper.

Not you obviously but the number of people so inclined is greater then zero (and I dare say, alot greater then 1 even). So, some people like the feat, even if it is not worth much mechanically.

A feat can suck in two ways: It can be not worth the mechanical effect (Endurance for example), or they can have atrocious 'fluff' (Manyshot. One of my friends is an engineer and he just can't get over the two arrows fired at once apparently having the same kinetic energy...).

Most feats are just not as good as several dozen others, mechanically, so you can't 'afford' to take them if you want to coax some extra 'power' out of your 'built'

All I am saying is that a feat that is mechanically inferior, still can have saving graces for people who like roleplay more then rollplay. And are willing to pay the price. You aren't so this is not for you. But you are not the only player in the world. So your vote on the matter is exactly that: One. Vote.

#####

Back on topic: Feats that suck.

Diehard.

Okay, so you are still standing at -1 to -9 hits. Sure, that means you might be able to land that hit that kills the last goblin/ork/whatever.

But if you do go down, you go down hard. As in: You are dead.

You know, in the original editions of D&D you were simply dead once you were out of HP. The rule that you linger on till you drop to -10 was added in AD&D to reduce PC mortality a bit. So you can fight untill you go down without having to roll up a new character every time.

With Diehard however, you can return to the golden age of heroism, where hero wins all fights, except one. And in that one he dies.

Diehard feat for diehard players (or masochists). :smallbiggrin:

Saving grace: If you are playing a fanatical zealot, who would rather die then admit defeat, this is the feat for you! :smallsmile:

Lycar

Jayabalard
2009-01-06, 03:23 PM
You are wrong. Whether a feat is worth taking is an absolute truth. It either is, or it isn't. Nope, it's an entirely subjective question; there isn't a universal answer to whether something has value; it varies depending on who is being asked.

RebelRogue
2009-01-06, 04:02 PM
Hint: Horses are neither translucent, nor do they spend their entire lives standing up. Especially not at night.
Equines may be opaque, but they are indeed able to sleep while standing (and do so most of the time)!

KKL
2009-01-06, 04:05 PM
You still don't get the point, do you? Is it entirely imaginable for you that, maybe, just maybe your mage, like, used up those spells during the day!?
Scrolls, wands?


I have to ask though: Doesn't dedicating 4 entire spell slots each day for Phantom Steeds hurt mages power? :smallconfused:
Scrolls, wands?


{Scrubbed}
Cool unnessecary jab there, bro.


Endurance as a feat has merit if you are interested in the right kind of flavour for your character.
Feats are not flavor. Taking Power Attack does not mean that your character is a reckless fighter, aiming to kill, or a cold tactician who applies the right amount of force as needed to deal the most damage while losing the least accuracy. Taking Power Attack means you took Power Attack.


{Scrubbed} There are people who like their characters to follow a certain vision they have about that character. If Endurance happens to fit that description, they will pick it over, say, Jump of the Heavens or Power Attack or Shock Trooper.

Not you obviously but the number of people so inclined is greater then zero (and I dare say, alot greater then 1 even). So, some people like the feat, even if it is not worth much mechanically.

A feat can suck in two ways: It can be not worth the mechanical effect (Endurance for example), or they can have atrocious 'fluff' (Manyshot. One of my friends is an engineer and he just can't get over the two arrows fired at once apparently having the same kinetic energy...).

Most feats are just not as good as several dozen others, mechanically, so you can't 'afford' to take them if you want to coax some extra 'power' out of your 'built'

All I am saying is that a feat that is mechanically inferior, still can have saving graces for people who like roleplay more then rollplay. And are willing to pay the price. You aren't so this is not for you. But you are not the only player in the world. So your vote on the matter is exactly that: One. Vote.
Great, snippy "rollplay vs roleplay" crap.

Eldariel
2009-01-06, 04:19 PM
Nope, it's an entirely subjective question; there isn't a universal answer to whether something has value; it varies depending on who is being asked.

There's truth in his statement though. Some feats simply give you more returns for the investment of a feat than others. To maximize players' ability to customize the characters, those feats should be equalized. The mentality of "rewarding rules mastery" that snuck into 3.X development is entirely too damaging for many ideas.

Luckily D&D is a game that isn't bound by rigid rules if you want to play for real; the real game is played with your friends. This gives the DMs the tools to fix the mistakes made by the developers and improve upon the given contents for a better play experience. Also, splatbooks of course serve to help this, to customize the play experience and to give players more options to customize their concepts.

TengYt
2009-01-06, 04:25 PM
I haven't read the whole argument, however it seems in one DM's universe there are bands of uber-Rogues able to McGaiver their way around any PC's defenses set up whilst they sleep. They can apparently succeed no matter what, and yet devote themselves ONLY to stealing the PC's horses. Rather that, say, reliving the PCs of their magical items or something.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-06, 04:38 PM
Again: The more light you put up, the more attention you draw. It matters little if you light up with one big light source or many smaller ones.

No, that is not true. First of all, any amount of light only matters if your enemies have line of sight to it. And if they have line of sight, then the amount of light is irrelevant.

Small sources of light, like continual light spells, can be more easily arranged so that they only shed light in the direction you wish, not allowing anyone else to see them.

But hypothetically, if somehow enemies were attracted to your light, you would kill them, because that's what you do when a challenge shows up.


Usually adventurers try to avoid unwanted attention.

But I do realize that you are, by no means, an usual adventurer.

Actually, usually adventurers seek out "unwanted attention" that they want, because they are trying to kill people and take their stuff/gain XP/save the world.


Youi are 100% wrong.

Hint: Horses are neither translucent, nor do they spend their entire lives standing up. Especially not at night.

Hint: horses tied in a line all have their tethers on the same side, plainly visible to anyone looking.

Also, maybe you should wiki some horse facts.


You still don't get the point, do you? Is it entirely imaginable for you that, maybe, just maybe your mage, like, used up those spells during the day!?

Is it entirely imaginable that if you have no spells and no HP it doesn't matter what you do because you automatically lose to a single rogue of your level?

If you have spells, you can have encounters. If you don't have spells, your character is either too stupid to live, or you shouldn't have any more encounters.

But all of this is somewhat moot, since the whole point is to target the horses, who fail against almost anything, like a freaking wand.


*Sigh* Finally a real and sensible argument! Yes, thanks to racial boni and maybe with the aid of a proper familiar, an Elf wizard isn't none too shabby as a guard. At least at the lower levels. See, that didn't even hurt.

So in other words, you were completely wrong, I was completely right, and now you are going to act all superior because the only other option is admitting that it is incredibly easy to have one of the 3 high spot/listen people watching the camp at any given time.


I have to ask though: Doesn't dedicating 4 entire spell slots each day for Phantom Steeds hurt mages power? :smallconfused:

Dedicating a few slots, depending on party, and Wizard, does in fact slightly compromise the Wizard's power on the days in which you need to travel in a hurry because X is going to happen in Y time Since that's like once per adventure, it's not that big a deal, and the rest of the time you just walk, and you don't forced March, and it's not a problem.

Of course, since Phantom Steeds are so much faster then horses, you can cast 4+ Phantom Steeds, get there in a hurry, and then rest for 8 hours and still fight the battle/set up defenses before a group riding horses. (And a couple years before the group who all took Endurance and forced marched their way.)


Still want to get some sleep to avoid exhaustion.

You mean to avoid Fatigue, which always comes before Exhaustion, and is cured with a single second level spell once a day. So no, you really don't need to ever sleep again after level 3.


And if you get the feats to not need to sleep anymore, well, that are feats you don't spend on, say Endurance, or DMM.

And if you cast the spell that cures Fatigue once a day, then you have one fewer second level spell each day at the cost of never sleeping.


*stunned silence* ... you know... this explains a lot...

Do you even play in an Eberron campaign?

1) How does that explain a lot? Are you under some false impression that those are powerful characters or something silly like that? Are you scared of the evil super powered Dragonborn race that isn't even that good?

2) No, Ebberon is incredibly immersion breaking and incapable of understanding how magic would actually effect society. Are you going to call me an evil Munchkin because one of my friends plays a warforged in a homebrewed setting?


:smallsigh: You are either unwilling or incapable of getting the point. Perhaps I was just overtaxing your attention span.

Or perhaps I read the whole thing, but it shifted topic for no reason every five seconds and had nothing to do with what I was talking about and everything to do with you making up crap that I didn't say and then attributing it to me.


So, again, this time short:

Endurance as a feat sucks donkey balls if you look for power.

That is correct.


Endurance as a feat has merit if you are interested in the right kind of flavour for your character.

That is incorrect. If you are interested in the right kind of flavor, you can pick an actually useful feat that does the same thing only better. Or you can declare that your character is good at enduring things, and give him higher Con.


But as hard as it is for you to grasp the concept: There are people who like their characters to follow a certain vision they have about that character. If Endurance happens to fit that description, they will pick it over, say, Jump of the Heavens or Power Attack or Shock Trooper.

I know there are such people. Because I am one of them. I like my characters to follow my vision. So if I want them to be good at enduring things, I give them a high Con, and if I want them to be good fighters, I give them feats based on their fighting style, and if I want them to be Wilderness savvy, or self sufficient, I put ranks in Survival and Knowledge Nature.

Because believe it or not, not having Endurance doesn't make you less Enduring. Taking Great Fortitude instead makes you more enduring, not having self sufficient doesn't make you go buy food. You can still kill a boar and eat it.


Most feats are just not as good as several dozen others, mechanically, so you can't 'afford' to take them if you want to coax some extra 'power' out of your 'built'

1) You mean 'build.'

2) Stop putting things in quotes just to condescend to people.

3) Most feats don't accurately represent their names, but some stupid people think that a name is more important then an effect, so they stupidly do things that make their character less like their inner vision, and then insult people who are smart enough to make their characters more like their vision.


All I am saying is that a feat that is mechanically inferior, still can have saving graces for people who like roleplay more then rollplay. And are willing to pay the price. You aren't so this is not for you. But you are not the only player in the world. So your vote on the matter is exactly that: One. Vote.

No it can't. A feat that doesn't make your character stronger is not a feat for a strong character to take. They should take some other feat that actually makes them strong.

Similarly, a feat that doesn't make your character able to endure more, should be ignored in favor of a feat that actually does.


Nope, it's an entirely subjective question; there isn't a universal answer to whether something has value; it varies depending on who is being asked.

No, it's an entirely objective question, and value is measured in objective standards. One dollar is worth less than two dollars. If you intend to make attack roles with the same weapon every time, Endurance is worth less than Weapon Focus. If you intend to make primarily charge attacks with power attack, Shocktrooper is worth more than Weapon focus.

That's the way the world works. Just because you wish there was no right and wrong (probably because you enjoy picking bad feats just to pick bad feats and pretend to be superior to those evil Munchkins) doesn't change that there is.

Ozymandias
2009-01-06, 04:39 PM
A feat can suck in two ways: It can be not worth the mechanical effect (Endurance for example), or they can have atrocious 'fluff' (Manyshot. One of my friends is an engineer and he just can't get over the two arrows fired at once apparently having the same kinetic energy...).

PROTIP:

So here's a thread for what feats suck mechanically and are generally just not worth the feat slot.


(Emphasis mine.)

MickJay
2009-01-06, 05:52 PM
You've just made my day.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-06, 06:07 PM
This thread sucks and is now about skills that suck.

Seriously, when does Forgery ever come up? Even in political intrigue campaigns, whether it works or not is pretty much entirely DM fiat.