Worst Feat Ever

[the Jester]

Toughness wins for me. WS (net) isn't something anyone would ever take so I'm discounting it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How about Armor Proficiency for a monk? Or, Improved Counterspell for a non-spellcaster?

 

[Storm Raven]

Spell Focus: Abjuration is pretty useless.

 

[green slime]

"Eagle Claw Attack" as defined in Sword and Fist or Oriental Adventures was completely pointless.

Back then, it allowed the monk to damage objects with his unarmed strike, something that was not prevented in the rules, anyway. There are other similar gaffs, but none quite so irritating to me.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Spell Focus: Abjuration is pretty useless.

yup and they make you take it along with Greater focus and Sfill focus Spelcraft before you become an initate of the seven veils.

it helps with banishing spells - now if one were to HR to help dispel checks - that would at least pull it from the utter dreck pile to the dreck pile.

 

[Daermon]

As far as dodge goes, AC racks up. Sure the first hit might be virtually guarranteed, but how about the 2nd, the 3rd? That's a lot of damage you aren't taking because of more AC. Which translates to less healing needed, so more spells for the cleric, etc.

Eventually it all adds up. The +2/+2 feats are fine for certain types of characters, just because a feat isn't popular doesn't make it bad.

However, combat casting is so horrible because its not really any better than skill focus: concentration. If I want to be good at concentration, I'm taking skill focus: concentration first, no question.

But if you're a human wizard, why not Combat Casting and Skill Focus: Concentration at 1st level? Sure, that +7 doesn't mean much at higher levels, but as a first level caster it's highly beneficial.

Just like Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus.

 

[radferth]

The original question is about as close to unanswerable as one can get. The way any campaign in run is likely to make a few feats useless or nearly useless. If your game is all combat, then many feats are totally useless. I once played in a campaign where the DM would very rarely send anything dangerous to fight us. Thus no one bothered with extra damage or defense, but everyone had improved initiative and various mobile-attack feats, as the focus was not on whether we would win, but who could kill the most bad guys fastest.

Oddly, toughness (a popular choice for worst feat) is written so that it is much better for lower hd classes than higher ones. I once played a sorcerer with a con penalty, so I defintely wanted toughness for him at first level. For a fighter, it is almost useless.

 

[CM]

The +2/+2 skill feats are the weakest in my opinion. Now, if you're playing a game with limited feat availability (such as PHB-only), they start to look a lot more appealing.

FWIW, I house-ruled them to make these feats grant the two skills as permanent class skills. Now my players take them occasionally.

 

[RigaMortus2]

How are the +2/+2 skill feats worthless? Sure, if I was making a combat monkey I would not take them. But they are great for skill-focused characters. If I were a Bard I would definately take one, or maybe even a Rogue. Again, depending on the character build.

I go for Toughness as worst skill EVAR! Even if you make a combat character this feat is kaka.

 

[Infiniti2000]

CM didn't actually say they were worthless, just weakest. No, worthless would be wpn spl (net) or improved counterspell for non-spellcasters.

Btw, the druid IMC once had a combat monkey. A real one.