So, what are the "400 actually useful" feats?

[Rkhet]

I think WotC should do this somewhat across the board.

Examine all of the feats and come up with a mechanism (i.e. set of metarules) for "weighing" their utility. If they have a few similar feats which are basically worthless, combine them into one more worthwhile feat and then state that this feat supercedes the previous ones and if the previous one was required for a given PrC, the new feat now meets that prerequisite.

A lot of PrCs are balanced by requiring the PC to take crappy feats, though. Making the prereq a feat that is actually worth taking will unbalance some things.

 

[starwed]

Feat points (such as proposed by SKReynolds) are probably a better idea for weighting feats. Its kind of silly to force every feat to be exactly as useful as every other.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

dont we all wish we could take spring attack and whirlwind attack as ones level 1 feats.

 

[starwed]

Feat points

D'oh, got an error the first time, but it posted anyway.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Often bad designers have attempted to make something into a feat which should actually be a straight option, forgetting that most PCs have a very limited number of potential feats over their lifetime.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, two things cause this. The first is that IMO designers don't contemplate the idea of introducing new rules (such as a new standard or move action you can take). For example, instead of just providing the new rule that anyone can choose to take -1 penalty on attacks and obtain +1 on damage, you need a feat. Not bad perhaps, but the feat is not the only option. The second thing is that it seems to me that the number of new feats is a marketing gimmick. All too often I see things like, "The Book of ___ contains N new prestige classes and M new feats!" Truly creative design has taken a backseat in some cases to marketing gimmicks, which sucks.

A lot of PrCs are balanced by requiring the PC to take crappy feats, though. Making the prereq a feat that is actually worth taking will unbalance some things.

Probably true. However, I don't think the root problem is in the feat, it's in the PrC. Even more likely IMO, it's in the OTHER PrC's that this one needs to be balanced against.

 

[KarinsDad]

A lot of PrCs are balanced by requiring the PC to take crappy feats, though. Making the prereq a feat that is actually worth taking will unbalance some things.

Will it?

That's like saying that an extra feat or two in the game will unbalance the game.


If there are a lot of PrCs like this, name 5 of them.

 

[Deset Gled]

If there are a lot of PrCs like this, name 5 of them.

I'm at work, so I don't have my books, but the quick answer that I can give you is "any class with a full spellcasting progression that doesn't require multiclassing to enter".

 

[Jarrod]

Well, any PrC that requires Skill Focus to enter. Archmage springs to mind, as does the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (Woo... greater spell focus abjuration!).

More seriously, any full caster progression class, epecially arcane, can _only_ be balanced through skills and feats. It's not like sorcerers or wizards give up much else.

 

[Shade]

I'd add to the list:

Large and In Charge: A wonderful feat for creatures with reach.

TWF, ITWF, GTWF, PTWF, Oversized TWF: Whether you are a fan of TWF or not, these feats work for that niche.

Devastating Critical: Some of the prereqs are suboptimal (Overwhelming Critical), but the feat itself rocks on toast.

Improved Toughness: 1 hp/level is better than standard Toughness, since it grows with you. It is suboptimal from levels 20-30, as the Epic Toughness (Complete Warrior version) grants 30 hp.

 

[Henry]

I'd love to see, myself, a list of the 100 best feats and 100 WORST feats. That would give players something to look out for when character creation time comes around. And knowing this community, the debates and arguments over who the 100 top and bottom were would forge the contents of the list like adamantine from a magic crucible.