The changes you're recommending would negate a wizard. No quicken spell for a free action spell, unable to cast defensively, 10' reach so they can't 5' out of range anyway with no adjacent deadzone, which doesn't matter since they'll just follow you AND get an AoO against you.
Ignoring the range of defensive options a wizard has at his disposal, of course, which include mirror image and flying and various other such spells. But the point was to render the wizard gravely imperiled when within the fighter's reach, as it should be.
And in Pathfinder, bonuses to attack and damage are already so prevelant and so high that if you don't see the harm in adding a single feat--with the only pre-req being proficient in the chosen weapon group--that gives a scaling bonus on both attacks and damage, then I feel sorry for you, sir. It would become a must-have feat posssessed by any character who ever planned on swinging a sword, a hammer, a mace, a box, an ex, a staff, or a fist. And if a feat is no longer an option, but something EVERYONE must have in order to keep pace with everyone else in the game, then it is by defination too good of a feat.
If it offends thee, pluck it out. Or I could simply make the benefits of the feat scale based on fighter levels.
Not when the fighter standing next to him won't let him cast defensively, and hits him for enough damage he loses the spell. And +4 damage on that attack is similar to a -20% chance of success on the concentration check.
You're going to freak when you hear this, but in editions prior to 3e, even a single point of damage would disrupt a wizard's spell. And those spells had casting times of longer than a standard action. And wizards had fewer hit points.
I have a masochistic streak a mile wide, so I'm going to go through a number of the Pathfinder feats and "update" them so they aren't so terrible anymore. First things first, I'm going to remove all of the following feats:
• Quicken Spell.
With that being said, let's go through the feats in no particular order.
• Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization. These feats give powerful disrespect to the fighter. Powerful disrespect, I say. +2 to attack and +4 damage? For a single weapon? Pathetic.
1st level: +1 on attack rolls.
Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each time you take it, it applies to a new weapon group.
• Power Attack/Deadly Aim. Boy, do these two irritate me. If you want to do your fightan thing, you need this feat to do damage. Now, the game pretends there's a trade-off because you're taking a penalty to damage, but you're almost always going to want to use PA/DA. In 3e, with the "slider" method of Power Attack, there was an illusion of choice, but that's completely gone in Pathfinder. Why are we even bothering pretending that this feat is anything other than free bonus damage with a penalty to attacks that pretends to balance it out? Might as well make it easier to use.
• Iron Will, Great Fortitude, and Lightning Reflexes. They just aren't that great. +2 to a saving throw? That's just not that good, especially not when a cloak of resistance hands out a +5 bonus to all three of them. Best suggestion I have is to combine them with other, less-than-stellar feats.
• Vital Strike. Lots of potential but it was ruined by a crappy feat chain. Also the mechanics of the feat itself are wonky.
+6: +2d8 damage (melee), +2d6 (ranged).
If you are wielding a weapon in two hands or two-weapon fighting, you do +1 damage per die rolled.
Special: You may use this ability with the melee attack at the end of a charge.
• Armor & Shield Proficiency feats. Is there anything more useless? Chances are that anyone who wants to use these feats can't cast in the armor anyway.
• The above also goes for weapon training.
Martial Weapon Training
Exotic Weapon Training
• Skill Focus is terrible. Pathfinder attempted to make it better but didn't really.
Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each time you do, you choose two different skills.
• The two-weapon chain is awful, just awful. Too many feats at once with a ridiculously high stat prerequisite.
In addition, once you have +6 BAB, you can make a second attack with your off-hand weapon at your full attack bonus (though you still take the penalties for fighting with two weapons). (This replaces the TWF, Improved TWF, and Two-Weapon Defense feats.)
• The various combat maneuver feats. Huge waste of resources.
Improved Combat Maneuvers
• Cleave, Greater Cleave, Cleaving Finish, etc. How ridiculously lazy is it that Paizo reprinted 3e Cleave as Cleaving Finish? Shameful.
Whenever you drop a target (typically by reducing it to 0 or fewer HP), you may make a melee attack at your highest attack bonus against an enemy within reach. If you hit and drop that enemy, you may continue to make melee attacks until you miss or an enemy survives your onslaught.
• Shield feats. The shield fighter needs some love, but he ain't getting it with Paizo.
• Step Up and Step Up & Strike. So close, yet so far away.
• Improved Critical I would like to simplify.
• Run and Fleet both suck.
Fleet of Foot
• Diehard and Disruptive are unrelated aside from starting with the letter D, and yet they are both terrible.
In addition, your minimum negative hit points are equal to -10 - your Constitution score. If that makes sense.
• Some more random feats drawn from a hat.
5th level: DR 5/any.
The fighter is supposed to be the fightingest class that ever was or is or ever shall be, so why does everyone else get full BAB next to him? He should have the most attacks and the most accurate attacks. Drop every other class that is full BAB to 3/4 BAB and every class that is 3/4 BAB down to half (take that monks) and watch the tears flow.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I personally find it annoying when my clients try and tell me how to do my job better (they're nearly always wrong). If they began with an opening gambit of wishing me violence, I'd be even less inclined to engage with them.
The hell do I care? It's not like they're going to suddenly learn how to do math or care to produce a quality product.
Also, their forum interface is terrible.
From the perspective of melee classes (and especially fighters):
1. It requires 13 Int. Enjoy sacrificing a number of more important stats so you can burn a feat that you're unlikely to use.
2. It sucks. Both the Pathfinder and 3e versions suck, but the Pathfinder version angers me more. In 3e, you could at least take a -1 penalty to get the benefits of the feat if you wanted. In Pathfinder, you have to suck down the whole penalty. I imagine whoever rewrote this thing looking like this picture except saying, "WE TOLD THEM IT WAS AN OPEN PLAYTEST."
But at high levels, you're looking at a -4 to -6 penalty on your attack rolls. Given that all the fighter does is damage (and even then, he does it poorly), he'd damn well be putting out major hurt every round. Instead, you sacrifice your fighting prowess...to avoid being hit. Good job.
I mean, if you could do something like take a -2 penalty on attack rolls and get a +4 bonus to AC, I'd say it would be decent. That would be nice. But you don't get to do that because you are a fighter and you stupidly thought you would get nice things.
3. It's a feat tax. Not only is it a worthless ability, but you have to go through this junk feat as a sort of gatekeeper. Did you want to trip or disarm an opponent? Haha, piss off, waste another feat that could have been better spent on something mediocre like Iron Will or Lightning Reflexes. Even Skill Focus would be better than this turd.
I hate this feat and every single feat that requires it. I seriously saw a feat that let you shine light in your opponents' eyes to temporarily blind them. Except you dazzled them, not blinded them. And it was for one round. And what feat did that crappy feat have as a prerequisite? COMBAT EXPERTISE.
Every feat that requires CE is junk, prove me wrong.
Bob Loblaw is obviously unfamiliar with the Rule 0 Fallacy: THE RULES AIN'T BORKEN IF THE DM FIX THEM DURRRRRRR.
Best way to fix the fighter: give them more skill points and class skills. Even if the fighter is junk compared to everyone else, just letting him do things outside of the combat encounter is the best way to balance him.
Monks are awesome for the following reasons.
1. MAD is just another way of saying that every stat that you increase makes your character better. (Does the fighter get an AC bonus when he bumps up his Wisdom? Didn't think so!)
2. They get a boost to their attack bonus when they make more attacks. (Let's see the fighter do that!)
3. Four skill points a level, baby!
4. They have full BAB with their combat maneuvers. (Most classes are worse when they attempt a combat maneuver, but not monks. They're the masters of disarming!)
5. They're really fast. (Can't stop what you can't catch!)
6. They have special class-specific weapons that nobody else can use. (Good luck with your greatsword, fighter--monks have shuriken and sais!)
7. Their weapon damage increases with level. (The fighter's stuck doing 2d6 damage throughout the game. The monk eventually goes up to 2d10--that's up to 20 damage per attack!)
8. With a prime stat of Wisdom and Perception as a class skill, they can see anything. (Rogues? Invisible wizards? You ain't got nothin' on a monk!)
9. They can make the most attacks in the game. (Nine in one round? Hells yeah!)
10. They can take a vow of poverty and get class bonuses. (They don't need no stinkin' magic items to fight!)
11. Bonus feats. (Hah! Read 'em and weep, fightard! Monks are stealing your show.)
Sebastian, I realize that you're not used to being challenged. In fact, I can see you as the wisened greybeard GM at the table who pats his heavy belly and proclaims a ruling, and the players take it as gospel, because that's just how it's going to be. Unfortunately, it just makes you look foolish when you display your own insecurities by responding to an argument with "WELL YOU'RE JUST A JERK AND NOT PLAYING THE GAME RIGHT AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS ANYWAY."
Just because math isn't your strong suit doesn't mean that the rest of us need to pretend it doesn't exist. Certainly, we could all be like you, quivering with irritation, chins shaking at the thought of a player optimizing. We could just dismiss mathematical analysis and trouble with a lofty wave of the grease-stained hand and a bold proclamation of "IT WORKS GOOD FOR EVERYONE ELSE, SO YOU MUST BE PLAYING IT WRONG" punctuated with a spray of saliva and processed food particles.
But that would be lazy. Like I said, I realize math isn't your strong suit. School probably never was. And you're lashing out in embarrassment at the thought of your chosen game being imperfect. That's okay if you want to play the game as if the numbers don't mean anything. But when someone like me--who is good at math--comes on and starts discussing mathematical probability, it would be doing everyone a favor if you would stop pouting and lashing out. Perhaps post in a different thread discussing fluff rather than crunch? I'm sure there's a thread about changing the oracle's name that has your number written all over it.
I just don't get it. Even the 4e developers managed to produce a badly-done game that is mostly balanced (even if their product is a grotesque mockery of traditional D&D). The Pathfinder developers, however, have had all the opportunity to learn from 3e D&D's mistakes and yet they continue to repeat them.
For instance, we KNEW that Two-Weapon Fighting was bad in 3e. It required a huge feat and stat investment to make it work, and it was worse than simply using Power Attack with a two-handed weapon. And yet the TWF feat chain was unchanged. There was a little support added for it, but nothing to make it not suck enough to consider worth taking. Likewise, the Vital Strike line is a good idea, but it's not worth three feats to use, especially when you can't even use them on a charge. And then there's the Weapon Focus/Specialization line. A ridiculous waste of feats. A +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +4 bonus on damage rolls for FOUR feats? And it's available ONLY to fighters? That's awful.
So why is the majority of Pathfinder content unbalanced garbage when even 4e--a product developed, shilled, and sold at the behest of a retarded megacorporation whose main success is Magic: the Gathering--managed to create balanced content?
Since there's been a lot of talk about monks on these forums, I've decided to create a thread dedicated to discussing how to fix them.
1. Monks add their Wisdom bonus to attack and damage rolls with monk weapons in place of their Strength modifier.
2. Monks get full BAB all the time. Ignore the clunky "but but but the monk can use his monk level as his BAB on a flurry and for his CMD" mechanical failure. (No, I don't care that it breaks the BAB/HD rule.)
3. Pretend that the Paizo vow of poverty doesn't exist.
4. Wholeness of Body is a swift action that heals 3d8 + monk level hit points. (None of this "standard action, low healing" junk. The ability doesn't need to be super powerful, but making a swift action with a slight boost in healing ability makes it worthwhile to use for 2 ki points.)
5. Quivering Palm: as a standard action, make a single melee attack. If the attack hits, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 monk level + the monk's Wisdom modifier) or die. Consumes 5 ki points. (No reason to make it a random 1/day ability when the spellcasters are throwing out save-or-loses all day long from a range of 50 feet or more.)
6. Empty Body lasts 1 minute per monk level. (Seriously, 3 ki points to go ethereal for 1 minute? Lame.)
7. Nevermind, as Paizo apparently fixed this.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Part of his schtick is that the summoner can do adventures solo because he CAN conjure an army. As in, "my GM is going to run a solo campaign for me, I'm going to play a summoner because he's especially suited for it."
Why would you even design a class around this concept?
Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that the summoner shouldn't use his class abilities because it's discourteous? If those abilities are going to break the game, then they shouldn't be given to the class.
That's like saying that wizards in 3.5 shouldn't use save-or-dies because they might one-hit the BBEG and that's not fun.