Silly rules question - any feat that just drives you batty?

And I dislike Deflect Arrows too. I think it's rather a bit much to automatically negate an attack once per round. None of my characters have expressed interest in it, though, so I'm not worried about it.
Deflect arrows is for the bad guys.
To take when you got an super archer on the hero team.
"He grabs the bane arrow out of the air and snaps it in two."
Tried it out on a monk Vampire and it worked great.
Originally Posted by Coredump
Well, I disagree. I think sleeping in armour should leave you fatigued, at least.


Try it. This is one of the few D&Disms we can actually try. No magic, no other species, no getting hit by pointed sticks, etc. Anyone (who has properly fitted and padded armor) can sleep in it.

Sleeping in armor, in my real life experience, is far better than sleeping on, say, rocky/ rooty ground, in a puddle of water, or on a slope. It was far from so bad as to incur a mechanical disadvantage the next day, unless you are going to give those for any time you sleep other than in a bed.
I don't like sleeping in pajamas.
And I'm supposed to get a full, good night's rest with 20 kg of metal and leather on?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vahktang said:
I don't like sleeping in pajamas.
And I'm supposed to get a full, good night's rest with 20 kg of metal and leather on?

I wonder how much different it is than sleeping in a good mummy bag. Either way your movement is pretty restricted, and it takes about as long to get in and out of it as a suit of armor ;) My old one that was good for insanely cold temperatures weighed in at around 30 lbs anyway.
 

I just can´t come with a rationalization for the Stand Still feat. You hit the guy with your weapon, hard enough to stop him but without dealing damage (that would be rude)
 

Evilhalfling said:
Improved Trip - No AoO, +4 to trip, free attack

I'm the opposite way on Improved Trip - it's *way* too underpowered for a feat.

Remember that a trip action is strictly a strength check. A 1st level sorcerer with a 14 strength has a better chance to trip a 5th level monk with a 13 strength than vice-versa (which is absolutely ridiculous). Improved Trip does give you +4 on your check, but it doesn't prevent your opponent from attempting to trip you if your original trip attack failed. Not only that, but there is no Attack of Opportunity from the defender if the attacker uses a weapon to trip.

Compared with Improved Disarm, the Improved Trip feat is underpowered.

Feats that I dislike:

Blindsight (from Masters of the Wild): all it requires is the ability to wild shape to dire bat form (12th level druid). The character then gets 120' radius Blindsight at all times. That's a game-breaker right there. For comparison, in Sword and Fist, Blindsight 5' radius requires a 19 wisdom, base attack bonus +4 and blindfighting for prereqs.

Another feat which I am glad they replaced from S&F is the Circle Kick (the CW Roundabout Kick is more in-line). Using this feat (which only requires a prereq of Improved Unarmed Strike), an unarmed character can make an extra attack against opponent #2 within reach if her first attack is successful against opponent #1. This again is a game-breaker, because any monk would be foolish not to take it, and there is no implied limit in the amount of times it can be done in a round (for example, a 17th level monk surrounded by foes can use Flurry of Blows and Circle Kick, getting potentially 10 "to hit" rolls. Even if it was limited to one use of the feat per round, it is still unbalanced. The feat Cleave (which is essentially the same thing for fighter-types) requires 13 Strength, Power Attack, AND dropping opponent #1 (not just hitting him).

One thing to remember when looking at whether some feats are overpowering is to look at the fighter class. Essentially, the only thing the fighter really has are feats. Clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers have spells. Paladins have the same armor and weapon feats as fighters, plus some spells and special abilities (perhaps hampered by their alignment, YMMV on that one). Rangers get some spells, some specific feats (qualification dependent only on their level), and an animal companion. Monks get incredible ki abilities that replace any need for weaponry and the best saves of any class. Barbarians get slightly better hit points, rage ability, and damage reduction. What do fighters get? An extra three feats per six levels and good fortitude saves (barbarians, paladins and rangers get that and more, along with the same attack rolls as fighters). Really not all that much when you consider that many feats don't get directly better as level goes up (a 9th level spell vs. a 1st level spell is a great deal more different than Power Attack at level 1 and level 18). Whirlwind attack is possibly the exception, requiring 4 other feats plus two minimum ability scores (Dex and Int 13) and a BAB of +4. However, by powering it down in 3.5, it's more advantageous to take the Two Weapon Fighting feats (unless your opponents are a bucket full of snails).

If you think a 7th level fighter can have be overpowering by having certain feats, consider a 7th level wizard casting Evard's Black Tentacles. Improved Grapple, Strength 19, BAB the same level as the caster, tentacles cannot be damaged, area of effect is 20' radius...
 

I hate the feats that give you the ability to do the things you should be able to do. I can't remember there names but in the eberon game for example there are like 2 feats that let you use skills in ways that is sort of how they should be used. A feat so I can use my search skill to find evidence, um yeah I need a feat for that isn't that kind of what the search skill does. Or a feat that allows me to research things in a library with knowledge skills or something. I need a feat much less a skill to research things in a library, I realize they may "Not Know The Duey Decimal System" but that's a basic skill any literate person should be able to pull off.

I also hate complete flavor feats, things like the stiched familiar in The book of undead. So its undead, whoopee, it basically has the same HP, same abilities etc as a normal familiar. That shouldn't be a feat that should be a free option. They get way too feat happy and make many things that should simply bee options or rules clarifications a feat.
 

Someone said:
I just can´t come with a rationalization for the Stand Still feat. You hit the guy with your weapon, hard enough to stop him but without dealing damage (that would be rude)

It is just a different kind of Trip where you use less brute strength, but you get a lesser result. I like that feat. Very tactical.
 

Kallius Everstone said:
Another feat which I am glad they replaced from S&F is the Circle Kick (the CW Roundabout Kick is more in-line). Using this feat (which only requires a prereq of Improved Unarmed Strike), an unarmed character can make an extra attack against opponent #2 within reach if her first attack is successful against opponent #1. This again is a game-breaker, because any monk would be foolish not to take it, and there is no implied limit in the amount of times it can be done in a round (for example, a 17th level monk surrounded by foes can use Flurry of Blows and Circle Kick, getting potentially 10 "to hit" rolls. Even if it was limited to one use of the feat per round, it is still unbalanced. The feat Cleave (which is essentially the same thing for fighter-types) requires 13 Strength, Power Attack, AND dropping opponent #1 (not just hitting him).


Whoa, hold on! Circle Kick is a feat which has always pissed me off too, but for exactly the opposite reason -- it's too friggin USELESS!

The problem is, it requires the monk to spend a full-round action to make one attack, and, if that attack hits, he can make only one other attack at the same base attack bonus. And that's it. No, if you have multiple attacks in a full attack, you can't even use them. You can't use it during a flurry. You can't do ANYTHING except sacrifice your full-round action and all your secondary attacks in order to make an attack and hope to make another one if the first hits. Worse yet, this secondary attack can only be used on a different target.
 

Alduk said:
Whoa, hold on! Circle Kick is a feat which has always pissed me off too, but for exactly the opposite reason -- it's too friggin USELESS!

Yup. Circle Kick's a vaguely okayish feat for NPC monks who don't expect to advance any further. For anyone else, it sucks.

-Hyp.
 

I don't have Sword and Fist, but in Neverwinter Nights, Circle Kick didn't require a special action. It was the same as Cleave, except that it only worked with unarmed attacks, and it activated any time you succesfully hit an enemy.
 

Circle Kick is an example of 'too-many-feats' that's going on right now.

Instead of having a "Circle Kick" feat, it's far more reasonable to say that if a character has Cleave and drops a foe with one attack, he can use Cleave to hit another foe. When describing the maneuver, the player (or DM) just say the character hit two opponents with a flying roundabout kick to the head. That's it. No need for yet another feat to cover a single occasion.
 

Remove ads

Top