Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herzog" data-source="post: 5096237" data-attributes="member: 25696">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.).</blockquote>

Verification