Round 14 Is Over

[the Lorax]

Anything that smacks of minmaxing number crunching suggests Twink to me these days - but it might just be the group in question where the behaviour mentioned provoked the returning-to-D&D-after-years-away player to comment about how they couldn't really imagine someone sneak attacking with a Falchion - and comparing it to the days of yore where Thieves were Thieves and used daggers in their backstabs.

You gotta be Nucking Futz. NO 1e/2e Thief EVER backstabbed with a dagger if he could get away with it, Long Sword. Two-Handed Sword if he was a fighter/thief. Short Sword if he was some sort of stunty thief.

In 3.x high level thieves care less what they are sneak attacking with, the majority of the damage comes from the skill not the weapon.

 

[Bansidhe]

(A) In 3.5, with the doubling of damage from two handed attacks, it leads to twinky munchkin behaviour like the party rogue using a Falchion two handed in their sneak attack.
(B) It's only of use in Melee attacks - which reduces it's usability to non melee fighting types - and requires a Strength of 13.
(C) No comparable feat that relies on high DEX to allow you to damage your foes in other ways than just raw brute force
...

I know this is beyond the scope of the vote, but I know that in my game we went to .5/1.0/1.5 on power attack. If you are using a light weapon you get half your power, if you are using a one handed weapon you get normal for your power, and if you are two handing you get time an a half. Seemed like a decent fix to avoid some of the characters that I have seen.
As for your other two arguements Far Shot, Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot are all ways thatdon't work in melee. So that part seems silly, and the fact that no feat that requires a high dex to damage your foes. Well, I think that Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, and the ranged attack feats fit that. But oh well. Just wanted to throw a viewpoint in.

 

[Tolen Mar]

I don't get how so many people find Precise Shot more useful than TWF.

Well for me, its not so much that I find Precise shot more useful so much as I find TWF less useful. (I mean if TWF finally goes away, Ill likely put in a bid for PS, as I dont think it goes far enough in the right direction.) Right now its the lesser of two evils.

Look, to use TWF properly, you need Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Defense...., and you are still limited to a decent weapon in one hand a toothpick in the other. So you get to make an extra attack each round with the toothpick? Yippee!!! another 1d4 + mods damage. The only way to really get past that problem is to be a large character, and you know how often that happens.

At least PS gives me a benefit when I take it.

Sorry Wulf.

 

[Bansidhe]

You obviously consider Power Attack to be an awesomely powerful feat. Doesn't that mean it should be winning this competition, rather than being voted off? To paraphrase Wulf, what planet are you on where Spell Penetration deserves to continue in this comp ahead of the fundamental melee feat?

I agree with you. I jumped in late on this. The problem is that I see from going back to the first round is that it wasn't a vote for most powerful feat or anything. It was if you don't like a feat vote it off. Petty reasons were in fact said to be OK. I didn't notice any type of restriction on what to vote for or reasons. So it seems to me that a lot of people who don't like power attack used against them are voting for it. That is the only thing that I can figure on it at least, who knows I could be wrong. But I don't think that countless numbers of friends and gaming buddies who I know that rip out damage well over 50 while hitting 5 times a round (cuz they generally get to cleave) without any crits are not wrong.

 

[Bansidhe]

Well for me, its not so much that I find Precise shot more useful so much as I find TWF less useful. (I mean if TWF finally goes away, Ill likely put in a bid for PS, as I dont think it goes far enough in the right direction.) Right now its the lesser of two evils.

Look, to use TWF properly, you need Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Defense...., and you are still limited to a decent weapon in one hand a toothpick in the other. So you get to make an extra attack each round with the toothpick? Yippee!!! another 1d4 + mods damage. The only way to really get past that problem is to be a large character, and you know how often that happens.

At least PS gives me a benefit when I take it.

Sorry Wulf.

Actually why don't you try going with a Dwarven Waraxe or Bastard Sword in one hand, a shield in the other and then use armor spikes. Or be a Ranger Monk and use Glaive and unarmed strike. Or if you just want the biggest weapon on the block go for the 2-handed sword or axe and armor spikes as a damage dealing TWF. I have seen all of those used to great effect. The only time that I have really seen the two small weapons used well as a TWF is from rogues, and I would much rather my friend bring his Spiked Chain wielding Strength based Rogue who power attacks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It makes sense for any melee char who decides to take up dual wielding.

Any melee char who decides to take up dual wielding should be a ranger. Or a CW Samurai if you want to keep the heavy armor.

PLUS, TWF requires Dex, which doesn't make sense to have high for any character class with heavy armor....except the Samurai, which doesn't require high Dex.

But I voted for PA, because it's just WRONG that something that focused and narrow is only neck-and-neck with Improved Initiative, which is useful to EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, in EVERY SESSION.

TWF needs to go, spell penetration....I'm surprised it's lasted this long, actually, so I won't be sad to watch it die horribly, either.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Like too many Survivor contestants, this one made it this far by flying under the radar, but its time has now come. I've never seen anybody squander a feat on it, the payoff is too small, and by the time it's an issue, PCs are at such a high level, that they've got bigger fish to fry and better skillets in which to fry them. That's why my vote goes to . . .

Spell Penetration

 

[Gez]

Look, to use TWF properly, you need Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Defense...., and you are still limited to a decent weapon in one hand a toothpick in the other.

It's D&D 3.5, you do not need Ambidex, that feat no longer exists.

Two-Weapon Defense, while cool, is not necessary. It boosts your AC a bit, but doesn't change anything for your attack score.

The toothpick factor isn't a problem when you have a good source of bonus damage, such as sneak attack (or even skirmish, since with an optimized Tumble skill, you can move 10 and make a full attack), or flaming/shocking/thundering etc. enchantment on said toothpick.

You lose two points of BAB, but you get one more attack -- it's a good tradeoff against either mooks (with an AC low enough you'll hit them anyway, but they're plenty of them) and BBEG (with an AC high enough you'll need a 20 anyway, so at least more attacks give you more chances of scoring that nat 20).

 

[Dracomeander]

I have seen every feat on this list used, except Spell Penetration.

Really? Apart from using spells like Assay Resistance instead, Spell Penetration is as close to a must-have feat for any serious mage as it gets.

Bye
Thanee

As someone who consistently plays wizards or psions, I have to disagree. I have yet to take Spell Penetration or Power Penetration for any character, and I have not seen the lack yet. I voted to lose Spell Penetration myself.

Now all you out there voting to get rid of Precise Shot, stop it. Leave me my Precise Shot. It is one of the most useful feats my characters have ever used. It works with ray spells as well as my primary non-spell effect weapons - bows or crossbows. The poor spellcasters do not have enough BAB to be taking an additional -4 penalty to fire around our friendly shield wall. And I know the friendly shield wall doesn't want me hitting him with an errant Ray of Enfeeblement.

 

[atom crash]

Begone, Spell Penetration. It's only useful to a subset of characters (casters) at higher levels where SR is a game staple. And then it's more useful to cast spells that don't allow SR to apply. Hardly a utilitarian must-have feat.