Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 1343526" data-attributes="member: 2629">The value of these two feats depends upon campaign style and PC choices. For instance, Dodge is more useful in a game where the DM throws one monstwr at the PCs at a time as opposed to a game where the DM tends to throw small armies at the PCs each battle. Mobility is very valuable in games where the DM forces PCs to move constantly during battle, but is next to useless when the DM designs encounters where the foes go to the PCs and keep them locked into place until the end of battle.In my experiences, dodge has been a useful feat (when used wisely.) A 5% average reduction in damage taken against the worst enemy tends to be useful. I have observed it to be true in a variety of games with many different styles of DM.Mobility has also shown to be useful, but not in every campaign and certainly not for every PC. In one campaign I DMed, the PCs often faced off against small armies in wilderness settings with lots of room to maneuver. One PC, a barbarian, tended to make great use of mobility. His mobility feat allowed him to ignore weenie troops and go straight to the main threats behind the army. He also made great use of it while charging a foe with reach. I think that PC got more use out of mobility than he did out of cleave or great cleave.In another game in which I play, the front line fighters tend to form a line and hold off the foe (sometimes using total defense and dealing no damage) while the spellcasters take enemies down with magic. Once the battle begins, the PCs often do not move at all. As a result, mobility would be a joke in that game. Both of these feats have been useful in enough games that I think they are fine as they are.</blockquote>

Verification