Death or Glory (feat)

[Stacie GmrGrl]

From Ultimate Combat is this Feat, Death or Glory, that, at least from the wonderful folks on rpg.net, feel that this feat is like one of the worst feats ever designed.

My question is... Is this particular Feat really that bad? I am not a number cruncher or anything but I was wondering what people over here thought about it instead of the raping that Ultimate Combat is getting over there because of this feat. (and I guess a lot of people over there don't really like the Gunslinger and the gun rules either, hence the raping of the book on that site).

Just wondering...

 

[Shisumo]

The short version: it's a full-round action to get a single attack at a BAB requirement that guarantees you could already be getting multiple attacks. So for the cost of a feat, you get the ability to take only one attack (and not move!) with a not-that-impressive attack and damage boost, instead of just taking a standard full attack - and then the target gets to hit you. For free.

The costs are extremely high. The benefit is very low. It is not a good feat.

 

[enrious]

You forgot the horrible editing, something like 20% of the book was devoted to magic spells when they said in Ultimate Magic that, "Also, unlike the present book, Ultimate Combat focuses on nonmagical matters," the introduction of mechanically questionable subsystems (also known as Chapter 5), a chapter of rules detailing something that could have been done in one page because there aren't enough rules in Pathfinder as it is (Chapter 4), and loltastic archetypes (Hi, Pirate!).

Now all that aside.

Yes, Death or Glory makes you worse than if you hadn't taken/used it and gets you punched in the face.

 

[enrious]

and then the target gets to hit you. For free.

The target gets to hit you more easily than if you hadn't used this, doing more damage than if you hadn't used this, and should the target crit, having a better chance to confirm the crit than if you hadn't used this.

It should be named the P.T. Barnum feat.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You forgot the horrible editing, something like 20% of the book was devoted to magic spells when they said in Ultimate Magic that, "Also, unlike the present book, Ultimate Combat focuses on nonmagical matters," the introduction of mechanically questionable subsystems (also known as Chapter 5), a chapter of rules detailing something that could have been done in one page because there aren't enough rules in Pathfinder as it is (Chapter 4), and loltastic archetypes (Hi, Pirate!).

Now all that aside.

Yes, Death or Glory makes you worse than if you hadn't taken/used it and gets you punched in the face.

Basically this. UC is a pretty terrible rulebook through and through. Very poorly thought out, poorly edited, and a ton of stuff that will literally make you roll on the floor laughing it's so blatantly pathetic/weak. Overall, I'd say 75% of the material is underpowered to the point that no sane person would take it, 20% is actually decent/good, and 5% is utterly broken/overpowered. If you want to see the PT Barnum of archetypes, btw, look no further!

Honorable mention goes to Empyreal Knight Paladin, just for this: "At 2nd level, an empyreal knight learns to speak and read Celestial, if she could not already. This ability replaces divine grace."

 

[enrious]

Let me stop you there, Stream.

All I know is that when I play a paladin, nothing says role-playing like being able to speak the language of Heaven, when I'm not dead from poison, sickened from ill-kept food, mind-controlled, dead from a fireball, turned to stone, actually make that dead from almost anything granting you a save. But hey, at least my paladin is set to impress when he's at the next level of existence, 'cause he knows the language. My next paladin will be an Empyreal Knight, named "Lovin' McPlaya", 'cause that's what he'll be with the divas.

Ultimate Combat? Heck, this book is Ultimate Role-Playing.

 

[Shisumo]

Actually, I'm going to step up here and defend the empyreal knight. It is pretty much the absolute best example so far printed for Pathfinder that you cannot look at an archetype in the context of only one of the abilities it swaps. Because look at what else it gets:

a 9th level spell as a spell-like ability.

And not even a sucky one. The summon monster line is generally accepted to be pretty good, and who cares if you're giving up lay on hands when you can summon a bralani who has cure serious 2/day?

And while you're not rocking the awesome divine grace bonus at level 2, at level 3 you get 5 points of energy resistance each against acid, cold and electricity, at 6th you've got a +4 bonus against poison, and 12th you're actually immune to petrification. It's a different set of defenses, but it's not like you're getting completely stripped.

It's hardly the best archetype ever, but I think it gets a lot worse a shake than it deserves.

EDIT: Actually, you can't summon azatas with the ability, which is not as cool.

 

[enrious]

Heh, you made me run to look though

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Actually, I'm going to step up here and defend the empyreal knight. It is pretty much the absolute best example so far printed for Pathfinder that you cannot look at an archetype in the context of only one of the abilities it swaps. Because look at what else it gets:

a 9th level spell as a spell-like ability.

And not even a sucky one. The summon monster line is generally accepted to be pretty good, and who cares if you're giving up lay on hands when you can summon a bralani who has cure serious 2/day?

And while you're not rocking the awesome divine grace bonus at level 2, at level 3 you get 5 points of energy resistance each against acid, cold and electricity, at 6th you've got a +4 bonus against poison, and 12th you're actually immune to petrification. It's a different set of defenses, but it's not like you're getting completely stripped.

It's hardly the best archetype ever, but I think it gets a lot worse a shake than it deserves.

EDIT: Actually, you can't summon azatas with the ability, which is not as cool.

This is why it was only an "honorable mention." It does get stuff that's better than what it loses...maybe... later on. IMO, it's still weaker than regular Paladin by a fair margin and the benefits aren't nearly as cool as they look at first glance, though not the train wreck you imagine from the first archetype feature, I admit. But that one swap looked at on its own, you have to admit, is riotously funny. And I have long been a proponent of having alternate class feature swaps being roughly equal in what you gain and what you lose on an individual level by level basis, rather than...well, look at Empyreal Knight for a perfect example of how NOT to do it.

 

[enrious]

And I have long been a proponent of having alternate class feature swaps being roughly equal in what you gain and what you lose on an individual level by level basis, rather than...well, look at Empyreal Knight for a perfect example of how NOT to do it.

This. Remember the whole brouhahha over 3.x classes being front/backloaded?