Skill increasing feats worth it?

[The Souljourner]

I'm planning a 3.5 ranger and thinking about the skill enhancing feats (skill focus, and all the 2 fers). Do people think they're worth it in general? I'm starting at third level as a human, and it would be kinda cool to start with +5 to hide and move silently (stealthy and skill focus hide and move silently), but it also kinda seems like a waste. I'm also considering alertness and athletic instead of the skill foci.

I want a commando type of ranger. I don't expect to be ridiculously good in battle, but decent strength and dex, fighter BAB, and the archery feats should do the trick for most of it, so I don't think I'll need a ton of fighting feats. Maybe just something like expertise. I'll probably be going buckler and longsword, with a bow on his back.

I'm thinking of him being almost rogue-like, but with better BAB and without the sneak attack. So... it would be cool if my character were exceptionally skillful, but I'm just worried I'll get to 10th level and think "you know, these feats are useless".

Has anyone taken these skill increasing feats? Are they worth it, in your opinion?

-The Souljourner

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I haven't taken them but I've thought about it.

In my view, there are two uses for them (other than qualifying for prestige classes):

1. You're a dumb character who doesn't have skill points. My friend had an 8 int dwarf cleric who got one skill point per level. He took Combat Casting so that he could have both a decent chance of casting defensively and still have skills other than concentration. I wouldn't normally recommend Combat Casting but I think his was a wise decision.

2. You've already maxed a skill but want that extra bump so that you can succeed when taking ten. Or because that extra bump will make it practically impossible to fail. Or because the extra bump will let you pull off difficult tricks (like taking the -10 to hide for moving at full speed and still succeeding).

So, for instance, a 12 int 6th level rogue with a +12 disable device (9 ranks, 1 int, 2 mwk tools) could invest in Nimble Fingers for a +14 or Skill focus for a +15. That would pump his skill high enough that he'd just need a heroism and a guidance spell to disarm a glyph of warding while taking ten. If he's starting to run into magical traps, that's probably worth it.

Similarly, a sneaky character who's already done everything he can to maximize his hide and move silently but regularly still runs into foes who can spot him if he rolls poorly and they roll well might take the feats so as to have a better chance of sneaking when he needs multiple rolls to succeed. (Sneaking past a gate guarded by 8 sentries for instance--especially if he needs to cover 60-90 feet in order to do that. (In that case, even if his hide/move silently is 16 points better than his enemies' spot skills, he's still only got just over a 50% chance of succeeding). The character might also do it so that he will usually stay hidden and silent even when taking the -10 penalty for moving full speed. (Even a 9th level ranger with a 20 dex, mithral chain shirt, max ranks, and elven cloak/boots would only be at +12 to hide/move silently after the -10 penalty. And that means that he'd only have a 40% chance of sneaking past 8 guards with a +1 modifier. Adding another +2 makes that a 65% chance).

The first case obviously doesn't fit your ranger.

The second will only fit your ranger if you plan on either LOTS of sneaking or sneaking at full speed.

 

[Particle_Man]

I had a rogue that took skill focus in search and in disable device. I have no regrets. There are other characters that can fight, but I am the only guy that can do traps. I had better be very good at them, then.

I would say that it is another choice. If a couple of skills are part of your character concept (being really good at hide and move silently) then I don't think it is a waste.

Of course, the ultimate in skill synergies, racial bonuses and feats are the convergence one can get on diplomacy in the 3.5 phb.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Personally I think they are horrible. I´ve never taken them, and I probably never will, unless for a PrC.
I think they are only worth it in extreme cases, like the example above of the 8 int Cleric with Combat Casting, or anything like it. Except for that I think they are completly worthless. There are always better feats to take, for spellcasters and for fighters.
IMO, if your a spellcaster, get wondrous item and make a skill item (2500 in 3.5). If your a fighter type, get a combat feat, there are always options. If your a Rogue or something alike, take a combat feat or something else. Except for fighters, everyone has few feats. Make them count, and get feats that will keep you alive, a Rogue doesnt need a skill feat because he gets 8+int skill points, not even a Ranger with 4+int needs them.
My 2 cents are: if your getting skill feats and dont need it for a PrC, then you havent read all the feats avaliable (Dont forget splat books).

 

[Styracosaurus]

You give up a lot of options when you select a skill increasing feat. For classes without bonus feats, you deny yourself access to really good stuff like Spring Attack or Improved Two Weapon Fighting.

If you are going to be good at a skill, then eventually your skill ranks will make the skill-boosting feats less important.

My houserule is that the skill bonus feat gains a +1 to one of the applied skills every four levels (alternating each 4th level). That provides a little more benefit.

So for Alertness, at 12th level, you could have a +4 to Spot and a +3 to Listen. Or if you selected Skill Focus (spot), you would have a +6 bonus to just the one skill.

If Alertness was a prerequisite for a really cool feat like Spider-sense, that would be nifty.

 

[The Souljourner]

The thing about rangers is that they do get bonus feats. With the archery feats I'll be just as good as a generic archer guy when the target is further than 30' away, and not in melee. And if he's closer than that, I should be attacking with a melee weapon anyway.

By 11th level, I'll have 5 bonus feats... that's only one less than a fighter (of course, two are track and endurance), plus a few spells and favored enemies and other special abilities... do I really need to worry about a few more feats for combat? The only ones I might really consider would be feats that are good all by themselves, like combat expertise or blind fight or close quarters fighting.

-The Souljourner

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The thing about rangers is that they do get bonus feats. With the archery feats I'll be just as good as a generic archer guy when the target is further than 30' away, and not in melee. And if he's closer than that, I should be attacking with a melee weapon anyway.

Maybe your game is very different from mine but my experience is that it's one arrow in ten that's is fired at a character who is not in melee. I'd say Point Blank and Precise Shot are essential for any effective archer. (And if you plan on spending all your close quarters time in melee, you're not an archer).

By 11th level, I'll have 5 bonus feats... that's only one less than a fighter (of course, two are track and endurance), plus a few spells and favored enemies and other special abilities... do I really need to worry about a few more feats for combat? The only ones I might really consider would be feats that are good all by themselves, like combat expertise or blind fight or close quarters fighting.

-The Souljourner

I'd say that you really ought to spend at least two or three of those feats on combat. (And if you're serious about switching to melee when things close to 30', you should pick up at least a couple of melee feats). The nice thing about archers is that you really only need three feats (Point blank, precise shot, and rapid shot) to be a decently effective archer (weapon focus, specialization, and manyshot help make you more effective).

 

[Taurren]

As the rules are written, aside from RP purposes, a character is usually better off if he focuses on the Feats that improve everything else other than skills, unless its a feat for a PrC.

In my game we have a House Rule that at the start of a game or campaign that the players gets a free +2 / +2 Feat but has to justify and name that Feat based on the character concept of the character.

Then we have created "Greater Skill Feats" that add +3 / +3 which can stack with all other feats that improve skills.

In this way, the potential bonuses to skills are significant enough that my players are forced to make a real choice about improving their skills or maybe getting another feat.

 

[The Souljourner]

Maybe your game is very different from mine but my experience is that it's one arrow in ten that's is fired at a character who is not in melee.

Ahh, but you see, that's the same as my experience, but only because the archer guy is so totally focused on ranged attacks that he's better off doing 5' steps back and continuing to shoot rather than ever pick up a welee weapon. I actually play an archer who doesn't even carry a melee weapon. However, that's not what I'm building here. I'm not building your typical "only ever uses a bow" guy. He'll use a bow when the situation demands it, but not if it would be more advantageous to go into melee.

I'd say Point Blank and Precise Shot are essential for any effective archer. (And if you plan on spending all your close quarters time in melee, you're not an archer).

I never said I was going to be a pure archer. I am going to have some damn good archer feats, though. At 11th level with improved precise shot, manyshot and rapid shot I'll be damn good against anyone not in melee. Have you never had people shooting at you from far away, or inaccessible spots, or just from flying guys?

I'd say that you really ought to spend at least two or three of those feats on combat. (And if you're serious about switching to melee when things close to 30', you should pick up at least a couple of melee feats).

Well, I plan on picking up a couple melee feats. I'm not saying I'm spending all my feats on skill improving stuff, but 3 feats on skills means I still have 5 feats left for combat (since I'm human).

The nice thing about archers is that you really only need three feats (Point blank, precise shot, and rapid shot) to be a decently effective archer (weapon focus, specialization, and manyshot help make you more effective).

I get rapid shot and manyshot as a ranger, that's the thing. The only other one I really want is precise shot, and spending two feats to get it... I think I'd rather just charge into melee.

I think your problem is that you're assuming someone has to be either pure melee or pure archer, and I'm going for someone who will be decent but not spectacular in both.

Taurren - yeah, I wish the skill increasing feats were more significant. +2 to two skills is almost unnoticible, even at first level. It's a mere 10% difference, which is usually overshadowed by the d20 roll. Maybe I can talk to my DM and see what I can do to make them more attractive.

-The Souljourner

 

[Al]

When building NPCs, I find skill-boosting feats most commonly on non-combat type archetypes. Non-combat rogues get a lot of mileage, and being able to outstrip your counterparts on key opposed rolls is useful- given the non-combat emphasis, I find that social skill boosters are the most common. I also use it for experts, professionals and academics.

For your ranger, I'm inclined to think that they would be less useful. The 'commando' ranger is a nice idea, but can be replicated very easily at the higher levels with magical items or spells- Invisibility squashes Skill Focus: Hide absolutely flat. In terms of effectiveness, your character would almost certainly be more effective taking other feats...of course, if it's purely a flavour decision, go ahead- but you will almost certainly lose out in terms of raw power.