View Full Version : Trainings, Bringing suboptimal feats up to par

Frog Dragon
2009-02-13, 12:29 PM
"If you can't beat them yourself, bring a friend"

Some feats are just so bad you never take them. No one thinks Dodge is a good feat for example. Skill Focuses, Weapon Focus and Combat casting are equally good examples of feats that are just not worth it unless they are a prequisite to some really good stuff. But this should not be the case that some things are only there for prequisites. So here is my system to remedy that.

Trainings are exactly like feats for all other purposes except that there are available two for a feat slot. Each time you get a feat you may select two trainings instead

List of Trainings
Skill Focus (any)
Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Specialization
Simple Weapon Profiency
Martial Weapon Profiency
Exotic Weapon Profiency
Shield Profiency
Heavy Armor Profiency
Light Armor Profiency
Medium Armor Profiency
Deft Hands
Combat Casting
Nimble Fingers


Appraise Magic Value
Combat Intuition

Short Haft
Cometary Collision
Trophy Collector

Unnerving Calm
Shadow Trickster
Desert Wind Dodge


List is not complete so suggestions are taken.
I have included supplemental material from sources I have. I have a rather small library though so I'm unable to do all inclusive lists from all books
Complete Arcane and Eberron Campaing setting are coming in the mail though so I can do them in a few weeks. About other books, I'd be happy if others were willing to take them to checking and post a list.
Thank you

2009-02-13, 12:38 PM
See Half-Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46941&highlight=half-feat).

Frog Dragon
2009-02-13, 04:41 PM
I hadn't run into that, but thanks for the link. Still this is not quite the same, While those are new stuff I didn't see any re-allocations of pre-exisiting feats.

Frog Dragon
2009-02-21, 10:24 AM
Some supplemental material has been included, but my library of D&D books is quite small. So could someone else take some of the supplements I have been unable to include and post a list?

Baron Corm
2009-02-21, 12:14 PM
I would still rather have, say Power Attack, or Pierce Magical Concealment, or Darkstalker, than even two low static bonuses. The three above feats just give huge unique benefits that low static bonuses can't compare against. That's why I think that scaling the feats is a better way to do it.

Frog Dragon
2009-02-21, 12:38 PM
There is one problem with scaling the feats. I have seen Fax's take on it and it works and I am sure it will work great for d20r, but D&D has a megacrapton of feats and stuff WILL get excluded when the work needed for each feat is exponential compared to just filtering them to "Totally sucks" and "Decent or better"
I am well aware that the feats will still be quite horrible against things like Leap Attack, Shock Trooper and Chain Spell just to name a few of the winning feats, but it is undoubtedly better than just leaving things as they are however small the change may be. I think I'll add profiency feats in there as well btw.

2009-02-21, 12:52 PM
The problem with most of those feats is that it doesn't matter how many you get they're still useless in a lot of games. If, OTOH, your DM has a brutal game with lots of environmental hazards, lots of fleeing instead of walking over every encounter and need for night watches, Endurance goes from utterly useless to totally worth a feat. It would be a lot better IMO, to simply stick warning tags on such feats, and/or teach DMs to have more nitty-gritty games.

A couple other feats involve players' extreme misunderstanding of how numbers work in the d20 system, but I'm not gonna get into them here. Most of the feats listed fall under the above.