Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 2009918" data-attributes="member: 3854">I was intrigued by the idea of Ultimate Feats: a compilation of feats from multiple sources. Though I understand this book does not draw from *every* d20 game book available, there are supposedly over 1,000 feats listed here. Unfortunately not every feat is worthy of re-publishing. For every feat in this book that was well written, balanced, and potentially useful, there was another feat that was poorly conceived and/or badly presented. And it doesn't help that apparently the listings were not edited to all follow a standard format of explanation. I'll address this in more specifics later.Overview of the Whole BookYou can see the cover in the image on this review page. The book is 256 pages, most of which are two columns. All the images throughout the pages are black-and-white, and though most are decent, few are particularly striking. And even fewer of the images represent any feat or text on the page. Some of the images seem to be a visual depiction of some action or event, but they have no real connection with any feat listed near them. Some others seem to be just filler images of an adventurer posing for a portrait. On the whole, the images have a feeling of a random collection without purpose on the pages.Some pages have a watermark image of the cover "medal". This watermark is too dark and makes reading the text over it difficult. All the pages have an image stripe down the outside border showing the same assortment of weapons and paraphanelia page after page after page. Normally I don't mind border images, but after a couple hundred pages of the exact same pair of images, it gets monotonous. It might have been easier on the mind and eyes if the border image was lightened or faded out a bit so the repetition didn't stand out so much.This book does have an index, which helps tremendously. And the last two dozen pages are charts of the feats and their prerequisites for quick reference.IntroductionAs this chapter name implies, this is a short (less than one page) introduction to the book and its purpose. Is it an ominous sign when the very first paragraph of a reference book has an editing error: ". . . while a wizard can learn to make create magic items. . ."?Using FeatsThis chapter discusses the concept, purpose, and use of feats. It breaks feats down into the catagories this book uses for grouping the listed feats: feats of the arcane - for arcane spellcasters; feats of arms - for combat; feats of blood - race specific; feats of crafting - for magic item creation; feats of the divine - for divine spellcasters; feats of the mind - for psionic characters; feats of the monstrous - for monsters; feats of power - metamagics; feats of skill - skill bonuses; feats of song and stealth - for "rogue-type" characters; feats of today and the future - for modern-day characters; feats of the unliving - for necromancers and the undead. Feats of . . .Is it another ominous sign when the very first feat listed in the book has either a typographical error or a design error: "Prerequisites. . . Cha 14+"? It is a standard design element in the d20 rules for feats to use odd numbers for ability score prerequisites instead of even numbers. And unfortunately this error shows up in a number of feats. This is either poor proofreading or poor design understanding.I'd estimate that about half the feats listed throughout the book are basically balanced, logical, and useful at least to some character concepts. But the other half have problems of one sort or another. Some feats are so complicated in their mechanics that you say, "huh?" after reading it even a second time. Some feats have illogical or unnecessary prerequisites. Some feats just mimick other feats with more or less restrictions or allowances. Some feats reference other feats not in this book with no explanation or footnote on where to find the other feat.For instance:<Note: I don't want to break any copyrights by listing out full feat descriptions below, so these examples will be somewhat vague.>Arcane Understanding has "Int 16+" as a prerequisite. It breaks the design rule on using odd numbers for ability score prerequisites, and it has no function for a wizard without at least a +3 intelligence bonus anyway. Arcane Birth Gift (for elves only) gives a 0-level druid spell to elves with the prerequisite "Wis 13+". Druid spells are not arcane, and elves naturally prefer wizard spells over druid spells (wizard is the favored class for elves).Divine Fist (divine feat) works exactly like Divine Might (in WotC's Defenders of the Faith, but UF doesn't mention where to find it) but only for unarmed attacks. The book even admits this fact with a special note at the end of this feat listing. So why not just take Divine Might for the same bonus without the restriction?In the Dwarven Feats section Goblin Slayer and Pixie Butcher have the exact same benefits. Rat Hacker and Sprite Fender also are identicle to each other. And the feats in this section are not in alphabetical order as in the other sections.In the Feats of Skill chapter, bonus terminology is all mixed up. Some skill-improving feats give an unnamed bonus (like with Alertness and Skill Focus of the core d20 rules), some feats give a competence bonus, some give an aptitude bonus. There is no such thing as an "aptitude" bonus in the d20 rules.Thrifty Wizard has only "Int 13+" as a prerequisite, and it reduces the number of pages required for each spell in a wizard's spellbook. But War Wizard Tactics has "arcane spellcaster level 1+" as one of its three prerequisites, and it lets you use your intelligence modifier for an attack instead of strength or dexterity. One is obviously useful only for certain arcane casters, but doesn't have arcane spellcaster as a prerequisite; the other could be useful to anyone with high intelligence, but it requires an arcane spellcaster level. Eyes of the Hawk increases "the range increment and spotting distance of all ranged weapons by 1.5". What is the "spotting distance" of a ranged weapon? And how is this feat different than Far Shot of the core rules?Amazing Agility allows you to take 20 on balance checks as a free action. The designer of this feat has no understanding of Take 20 mechanic or free actions.These are but a few . . . awkward . . . feats that I found by randomly opening the book to a few pages and checking. And I'm not even commenting on the power level of the feats. You may not think the above feats are really all that problematic, but when you see so very many quirky prerequisites or benefits one after another, the snowball turns into an avalanche.Now, even at a 50/50 ratio of solidly designed and written feats to poorly designed and written/edited feats, this book still presents about 500 good feats. Some of the bad feats could be salvaged by a player and DM willing to put some thought on them to figure them out and settle the issues. ConclusionQuantity-wise, this book comes as close to its "Ultimate" namesake as reasonably possible. But $35 is a heavy chunk of change for a book with so narrow a focus. The bad feats should have been reworked or cleaned up to allow DMs and players to immediately trust them for game play. Unfortunately it reads as though the individual feats were just copied and pasted from the various sources without any editing to correct errors or unify the format. Internal consistancy is missing.I give this book 2 stars. It truely has a LOT of feats, but I really expected better attention to format consistancy and design principles for the price. Quality is as important as quantity. Personally, I want to return this book to the store for a refund, because with the systemic problems of balance, consistancy, logic, and general usability it just is not worth anywhere near $35. For that price the reader/DM/player shouldn't have to pencil in notes, tweaks, and corrections himself.Quasqueton</blockquote>

Verification