D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5 and Pathfinder] feats issues

[Shades of Eternity]

I got to thinking

Which feats in 3.5 and/or pathfinder are badly designed and/or lead no where, in your opinion.

have you and how have you tinkered with them?

For me it's the feat of strike back

I get the conceptual model of it...namely a fighter who waits till a much larger creature takes a swing at him, and then he strikes the attacking appendage.

However
1. It has a very high prequisite, but is very circumstantial in nature.
2. There is also a need to do a ready action to do it. I'm not seeing anything that disallows the ready action from doing something similar in it's writeup. I can just do a ready action to attack him if he comes towards me.

so essentially it's a feat to nowhere.

 

[frankthedm]

I got to thinking

Which feats in 3.5 and/or pathfinder are badly designed and/or lead no where, in your opinion.

have you and how have you tinkered with them?

For me it's the feat of strike back

I get the conceptual model of it...namely a fighter who waits till a much larger creature takes a swing at him, and then he strikes the attacking appendage.

However
1. It has a very high prequisite, but is very circumstantial in nature.
2. There is also a need to do a ready action to do it. I'm not seeing anything that disallows the ready action from doing something similar in it's writeup. I can just do a ready action to attack him if he comes towards me.

so essentially it's a feat to nowhere.

Pathfinder charges a high BAB feat to do this? W.T.F. Talk about a feat that should be a basic combat option...

Strike Back (Combat)
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.

Related issue...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/241065-close-quarters-fighting.html

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow, that's an awful feat! I'd hope most Dms would allow anyone to do that!

I guess the most obvious 3E example of a feat that leads to nowhere is Spell Mastery. It either does nothing or makes the DM more inclined to steal your spellbook at some point, so that the feat isn't a waste. Yippee!

 

[frankthedm]

I guess the most obvious 3E example of a feat that leads to nowhere is Spell Mastery. It either does nothing or makes the DM more inclined to steal your spellbook at some point, so that the feat isn't a waste. Yippee!

Paper burns, stuff can be stolen & Resurrect just needs a piece of the recipient. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a spelbook can be lost.

 

[Herzog]

2. There is also a need to do a ready action to do it. I'm not seeing anything that disallows the ready action from doing something similar in it's writeup. I can just do a ready action to attack him if he comes towards me.

Mmmm. No. You cannot attack a creature when that creature isn't within your reach. You can take a 5 foot step as part of a readied action, so this would be a useless feat against someone with 10 foot reach, but as soon as you pass the 15 foot reach you would normally not be able to attack them (unless you have a reach weapon yourself, of course)

So, not useless, just a feat to overcome a disadvantage.
Highly circumstantial: absolutely.

I agree with Spellmastery, though. A better option would be Eidetic Spellcaster (from Dragon Magazine).
In the same line of useless Feats: Eschew Materials. I know of no DM that pays attention to material components of less than 1 gp anyway, UNLESS someone takes this feat. (of course, if your DM has a habit of taking away all your stuff on a regular basis, these feats become very usefull. But then, maybe there's another solution: don't play a spellcaster with that DM.....)

As a sidenote: there are also Feats that are required to make a certain game mechanic interesting enough to use it.
Prime examples are Counterspelling (which requires 2 feats, to get to Reactive Counterspelling, to make it more interesting than simply readying an attack action to disrupt the spell) and Two Weapon Fighting (which has such rediculous penalties without the Two Weapon Fighting feat that you dare not use it without having that feat, while a 2-Handed weapon deals the same amount of damage without having to spend a single feat to do that.).

 

[pawsplay]

Mmmm. No. You cannot attack a creature when that creature isn't within your reach. You can take a 5 foot step as part of a readied action, so this would be a useless feat against someone with 10 foot reach, but as soon as you pass the 15 foot reach you would normally not be able to attack them (unless you have a reach weapon yourself, of course)

That is an opinion shared by the Pathfinder authors, but not by many 3e players, including myself.

 

[Herzog]

I don't appreciate my interpretation of the RAW being classified as 'opinion'.

The rules state you cannot attack someone when they are outside your reach.
Considering that unrealistic does not suddenly change that rule into an opinion.

That said, I am referring to the 3.5 rules, not Pathfinder.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In the same line of useless Feats: Eschew Materials. I know of no DM that pays attention to material components of less than 1 gp anyway, UNLESS someone takes this feat. (of course, if your DM has a habit of taking away all your stuff on a regular basis, these feats become very usefull. But then, maybe there's another solution: don't play a spellcaster with that DM.....)

I have to disagree with that. Eschew Materials makes it MUCH easier to cast a spell while grappled (otherwise you either need to already have the material component in hand or win a grapple check to get it out). That alone makes it worthy a feat for some.

And of course most DMs ignore components under 1 gp. It's RAW. Spell component pouch says you always have components of trivial expense. Sometimes the fact it's a physical object you have ot retrieve causes problems, though. That's what the feat's for.

 

[frankthedm]

I don't appreciate my interpretation of the RAW being classified as 'opinion'.

The rules state you cannot attack someone when they are outside your reach.

Some interpret the act of making the attack brings them into your reach since squares are just a convenient short hand for placement. Others feel that is a bending of the rules.

If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your
players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider
the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in
the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with
any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact
with you or your space, you may make an attack of opportunity
against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s
contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a
grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could
make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly
coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre
trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke
an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the
greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt).

 

[pawsplay]

I don't appreciate my interpretation of the RAW being classified as 'opinion'.

Life must be very hard for you.