Feat Survivor ROUND 15 is Over!!

[malchus]

I voted Point Blank Shot

Pointless Blank Shot, more like. "Gateway" feat my Aunt Fanny. I got your "gateway" right here...

... wait, that didn't come out right.

 

[Thanee]

Two-Weapon Fighting, of course.

This poll is so completely random...

Bye
Thanee

 

[sadsam345]

I too joined in the vote against archers crowd. Rapid shoot for me - time to leave the Island.

I actually like rapid shot less than precise shot - however at this stage precise shot looks a goner!

 

[FireLance]

Getting a little difficult to choose, but I've decided to go for quality over quantity. I'd rather have one more accurate attack than two less accurate ones, so I'm going with Rapid Shot. By that reasoning, Two-Weapon Fighting will be next.

 

[Gez]

Getting a little difficult to choose, but I've decided to go for quality over quantity. I'd rather have one more accurate attack than two less accurate ones, so I'm going with Rapid Shot. By that reasoning, Two-Weapon Fighting will be next.

That's a valid reasonning when your opponent is tough to beat, but still in your range -- if you need a 15-20 on your attack roll to hit, say. (Warning: actual number crunching are left as an exercise to the reader.)

But if you're facing someone who's really tough to hit (need a 19-20 or, worse only a natural 20 can hit because the AC is too high), if they have concealment or invisibility, or if they have an AC that is so low that you'll hit anyway...

Then it's better to have more attacks. For enemies that are tough to hit (either because of insanely high AC or because of miss chance from concealment), the more attack rolls, the higher your chance one of them will hit.

For enemies that you will hit anyway, more attacks means more damage -- in that way, TWF (and Rapid Shot) becomes a form of Power Attack that deals double damage for just a -2 penalty on your attack rolls. It's worth it -- much better than Power Attack, actually.

In fact, the reasons to use TWF or Rapid Shot are the same as the reasons to use Power Attack. "I need a nat 20 to hit? Screw that, I take -10 on my power attack, that way, if I do roll 20, I'll inflict 20 more damage!"

Except TWF is better because, contrarily to power attack, you can choose to deal the extra damage on somebody else... With Power Attack, you need Cleave for that, and it'll only work when you get a kill.

 

[JimAde]

Gotta vote Point Blank Shot. It's just so...blah. And while it's a pre-req for other feats, those feats aren't all that powerful. So having to "throw away" a feat on PBS...blah.

 

[Psion]

Why won't POWER ATTACK just die?

C'mon folks. Whining about Two-Weapon Fighting is so 2nd edition.

Power attack is the new cheese of 3.5!

 

[maggot]

Precise Shot

I wanted to vote off Power Attack, but then I realized there were still three archery feats on the list. Three! How can that be? While I like Precise Shot more than PB Shot, one of them has to die this round, so I'm voting with the majority.

 

[Insight]

Improved Init has got to go. Its a 20% bonus to something you roll once a combat, and even then, it might not matter.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Why won't POWER ATTACK just die?

C'mon folks. Whining about Two-Weapon Fighting is so 2nd edition.

Power attack is the new cheese of 3.5!

I love Power Attack-- it's a great feat. But you might have noticed that Grim Tales kept the 3.0 wording! It was great as it was-- it didn't need "improvement" to satisfy the Rainman mathematical min-maxxers out there.

I am late to this process, but my voting preference is to eliminate the feats that I find most useless, not most broken.

I am also surprised that Cleave didn't last longer. It's the one feat missing from the list of those remaining that I almost always consider taking. (Precise Shot being the obvious exception.)

Cleave is a life-saving feat at low levels. A must-have for every melee combatant. You just can't kill goblins fast enough. I can only assume that folks who voted against Cleave have never played through a Necromancer Games module.