NeoSamurai's page

A merman might be really great at swimming, but he probably sucks at climbing. With a consolidated Athletics skill, he'd be great at both, thus losing some of the realism that once existed.

that's when the GM applies appropriate circumstance modifiers.

I would've thought it more an issue of scope shift and scalability for both players and DM. Specifically, that at higher levels, the direction of the characters should shift from dungeon delving and fighting small bands of baddies in dungeons to fighting entire tribes/small armies of baddies scouring the countryside to fighting entire armies of evil nations with vile generals/warlords and such.

Maybe something like a "direct communion" that grants the high level cleric their god or god's representative on speed dial for divine intervention/discussion on a percentage roll or something?

I noticed that the prestige classes tend to favor characters with magical inclination. Defender needs to be in there if nothing else but to give an option for non-magically inclined characters who don't favor Duelist, Chronicler or Assassin styles of play.

I guess I don't really see how the wizard getting their bonus feats at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th is that horrifically unbalancing vs. them getting them at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.

I was under the impression that the suggestion was additional feats at staggered dead levels instead of just shifting their feats to earlier levels. My apologies, I misread what was said.

I guess, I can't say anything wrong about that suggestion.

I'm against it. Frequent feat progression would really be unbalancing in terms of wizards being able to equip parties faster with magical gear. (Caveat: unless they're the bonus feats focus on specific meta magic feats such as quicken, silent, eschew materials, empower, etc.)

I think what would be better for a wizard in those dead levels might be a knowledge ability to reflect the amounts of lore wizards should have. Maybe something like the Bard's ability with getting an extra skill point to commit to knowledge skills or something like that.

Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm confused, the benefits of taking sorcerer levels only apply when taking sorcerer levels, if you say prestige out of sorcerer you don't get the class features (you may or may not continue getting spell casting).

That's correct. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have that spelled out more explicitly by saying "sorcerer level" instead of just "level" in the bloodline descriptions. It's sometimes difficult to tell what 'level' a rule is talking about: class level, character level, effective character level, etc.

that's it exactly.

I'm confused, the benefits of taking sorcerer levels only apply when taking sorcerer levels, if you say prestige out of sorcerer you don't get the class features (you may or may not continue getting spell casting).

that's not the impression I got. the way Bloodline is written they get those effects regardless. the only real limitation is they have to choose one at 1st sorcerer level.

My wife's character for example, is a 3rd level (aberrant) sorcerer 3rd level rogue, 6th level arcane trickster. Meaning she only gets the bloodline powers of a 3rd level sorcerer, but has the spell casting of a 9th level sorcerer.

There seperate things.

So what are you going at?

I guess more clarification on when Bloodline benefits are applicable. As it stands they're more comparable to the Domains and Schools, but those are inherently dependent on the level of their class. Sorcerer bloodlines don't have that inherent connection by the text.

And again why should we limit others on how they may play? Let them min/max if they want to, it's their game too.

myabe i shouldn't have phrased it that way. I just think clarifying that sorcererous bloodlines as inherent to the sorcerer class in the same way that domains and schools are implied for their respective classes is a good thing.

To limit min-maxing through dipping, I suggest that the Bloodline benefits require commitment of the sorcerer to awakening the blood in themselves. Essentially, when it refers to levels and their gains from the bloodline, I suggest it read: "Sorcerer levels". Or if that's not acceptable, indicate that the gains of the Bloodline are not retroactive.

Cause I prefer there be some class out there with an ability for sword and boarders.

except psychologically, it's not going to be that way as it is. the efficient utility (i.e. direct use as written) for the ability will be for the divine weapon. sure a divine mount can be fun--but given the option, most PCs can buy a horse and train it over time. and the extra defense/perk of a shield--not really worth it when I could commit all points to making sure I can take the opposition down with a few blows combined with smite.

if you want mount and shield to be better options for characters (beyond stylistically) there need to be designs to showcase effectiveness of those items independent of mystical pushes. as it stands, if you want to see a mount or shield be mystically imbued, I strongly suggest the weapon, shield or mount 2 out of 3 option and just forbid the "dancing" investment into the weapon.

However, if shield is still an unfeasible option trade it out for armor.

NeoSamurai wrote:

oh, I agree that it could take away a bit of the motivational strength of the bard if not handled right (although it has been argued already that spells can do the same thing and might do it better). By making bless a class feature/ability, we can take the spells that don't make sense for mystic morale modifiers and give them to the bard making the class' focus a little bit stronger in that regard. It gives us a benchmark of what to build up if the bard's strengths are truly his motivational abilities.

Actually that's the exact argument I'm making on the bardic musics all along.

Now I see what you mean about transfering them all over to the bard instead of letting the cleric have them, but at that point we can roll them all into the bard's abilities aready becuase that's what the various 'inspires' do, and it breaks backwards compatability to take the spells away from the cleric (which still wouldn't hurt my feelings).

actually, I wasn't thinking of taking the spells away more so than placing them in a class feature for Clerics and Paladins (which really should have such an ability independent of spell slots). At the same time, it provides a foundation for Bards who's specialty is motivational. Basically, if Divine classes get X unscaled ability based on morale bonuses, than Bard should get something higher than the unscaled ability because of their specialization as the super-support class.

I always wondered why the rogue gets the most skill points in the game when you have the bard who is supposed to be the jack of all trades.

I really think the bard's skill point progression should mirror or surpass the rogues.

It's not like it'll make the bard more capable of killing something, but it allows him to be a better jack of all trades and is closer to the conceptual bard (having to spend those points in various craft and profession ranks would really go for role-playing assistance. "Don't tell me--you raised pigs too?!")

I'm fine with divine bond working on shields, but I think it should be as either shield or sword, and you can choose each time what you are summoning it too.

Also I hate animated shield too, Sorry, seen one too many Greatsword wielders suddenly buy an animated shield. It's not that it is bad for the sword and boarder, it's that it means the sword and boarder wasted all of his time as a sword and boarder.

then maybe instead of Shield and weapon or Mount, how about armor, weapon or mount?

Well that's not a bad thought but then the bard is driven a little bit more from being useful or unique as 'everyone' would then have class abilities that buff.

(Not trying to be a downer, it's really a decent idea, but these are the problems I run into when looking at it.)

oh, I agree that it could take away a bit of the motivational strength of the bard if not handled right (although it has been argued already that spells can do the same thing and might do it better). By making bless a class feature/ability, we can take the spells that don't make sense for mystic morale modifiers and give them to the bard making the class' focus a little bit stronger in that regard. It gives us a benchmark of what to build up if the bard's strengths are truly his motivational abilities.

I don't like the changes to Divine Bond. The 30 day mourning period was a very nice control for the gains. I additionally don't like the emphasis on the investiture/communion of a spirit into bonded mount, weapon or shield. If it's a "spirit" of some sort, it becomes fair game to define and kill in one of several thousand ways (and reminds me too much of the "I summon an avatar of my god to fight by my side" abilities for 4th Edition divines. I'd also much prefer that the Paladin get to choose 2 out of 3 of those options for divine bond and have more access to use them.

I've always thought it should be divine aid for just that reason.

I understand why good hope is a morale bonus too, but it doesn't make sense to me to give a class an ability and then two levels later give it a spell that's better than the class ability for another 4 levels.

It seems to me they grab some 'ok' abilities for the bard, then grabbed spells for the bard, and didn't look and see if the abilities and spells were compatable or even comparible.

this might be an issue to explore--remove the spells granting "morale" bonuses and make them class abilities. That way Cleric, Paladin and Bard have a bit more support role abilities through the emphasis on motivational capabilities and the spell casters are trimmed down a bit so they can't do everything with proper preparation and spells/items.

I would really like to see the bonus types from bless, aid, greater heroism, and heroism, and prayer changed to sacred or profane bonuses (with the two types cancelling each other) and morale bonuses being left to the bard.

I disagree with Aid being considered anything but a "morale" bonus. the concept behind it is pretty much morale based. The other's I agree with. They can be argued as more mystical in origin more so than saying: "Hey, watch out for his left!" or a bard singing "Eye of the Tiger" to give a teammate a warm-fuzzy boost. If they're relegated as "morale" bonuses, why the heck are they even considered as spells instead of actual abilities for a class?

essentially, if Bless, Heroism and Greater Heroism are still spells, they should be magic of some sort.

I can see what you are saying Neosamurai, it's just the fact it's there like that irks me, same with the silence spell.

*nods* it's very paradigmic. It's like saying all magical items at the back of the book exist and are fair game when you really don't need to populate any world with them for loot, let alone half of them.

The circumstances are easy to set up:

Party comes charging in just a split second too late to stop a bunch of low level cultists from summoning a balor. The balor has just stepped through the portal, and the portal is still open. At this point the party has several goals:
1. Stop the balor, who is screaming for their blood.
2. Close the portal before more demons come through.
3. Negate the cultists, maybe finding a larger cult/leader has sat them up to summon the balor.

that's when I ask what the heck are the PC spellcasters doing in this circumstances to make the cultists worried about the little old bard instead of the big barbarian with cleave, the ranger with his mass range attacks or the fighter wading through he hoarde?

Which of this group is the PC's going to worry about? The Balor, while those low level cultist, lead by an equally lowly 3rd level cleric stops the bard's music hoping that without it the party will have a harder time, and the cleric knows that he has no hope of surviving without the balor, and anything else that comes through.

I'd question the GM having the evil cleric of a cult of zealots having that particular spell prepared when there are so many more spells that are more effective to control and pacify his people when they're summonning what amounts to a major league demon? instead of any healing spells, cause pain spells or anything that most characters throughout most games for third leveled PCs would typically have? he'd happen to have the spell that would take away most of the abilities of bards and barbarians? As either of those character types might be that regular or frequent enough in comparison to warriors, wizards, clerics, etc.? the cleric should have something prepared for that paladin's aura and smite ability while we're at it.

and this still doesn't negate the resource trade-off of the bard to the cleric's spell. all it takes is the bard to stop once, ally or bard to take an attack on the cleric (I believe a 16th level bard can get magic missile or wands or some other nice trick--maybe something to remove opposition somatics), start again, and keep the bonus going. not much of a problem as you make it--takes the thrd level cleric out the fight so the PCs can focus on the bigger creature.

a 16th level bard will have 16 uses of his Performance abilities per day to that cleric's 1 use of that spell at third level. it's not a problem--even for higher level opposition.

Beyond that even if it something that shouldn't happen, it still shouldn't even be a possibility.

this particulr issue is more a problem of GM style over any inherent problem with this particular system. I disagree with your assessment on this point.

Yeah my problem with this is that a level 3 cleric can kill a level 16 bard's inspire courage with no caster level check or anything.

That's right, a level 3 cleric can take away a level 16 bard's ability to give you a + 4 to hit, skill checks, and damage rolls.

if that circumstance happen, then you might want to smack the GM for such circumstances as to why the 3rd level cleric is more concerned with canceling out a 16th level bard's inspiration bonus instead of worrying about the bard's allies who really don't need that bonus to kill that character.

This one kinda jumped out at me.

Inspire Competence *seriously* needs to be better than Aid Other.

In definite agreement there. It's a special ability that only bards get and shouldn't be inferior to a tactic that everybody can pursue.

It's fine if it starts out like Aid Other (+2 bonus), but affects the Bard and the people he's inspiring, as that's already far superior to Aid Other (which takes away your action and only affects on other person), and progresses to give a +4 or whatever at higher levels (and affect more targets, until a midlevel Bard could be giving a +2 or +4 bonus to Profession (sailor) checks for the entire crew, working alongside them).

Maybe link it to how many ranks a bard gets in perform?

How viable for improvement of the Paladin class would it be if there was a way to trade LoH opportunities for extra uses of Smite and vice versa?

Calm Emotion's effects go away the moment the caster ends the spell/ stops concentration. If the caster wants to tie themselves up for a few rounds with a level 2 spell to negate a bard's morale bonuses, I'd say that's an even trade off. Heck, if I were playing a bard, I'd pause for a couple rounds and start up again to drain the caster of another 2nd level spell and keep the caster busy.

It's a great way to tie up the resources of the opposition. Better an enemy wizard does that than decide to cast a damage spell my character's way.

I have a paladin I enjoy playing with people that don't understand what a paladin can and can't do.

He's a drunkard and enjoy frequently legal bordellos (no worries about diseases). Up most the night drinking and enjoying life, if he sees a fight in progress in a bar or someone about to be mugged he puts a stop to it if possible. However in the morning he's also the one up helping milk cows, cut firewood and weed gardens. He complains the entire time he's doing it though. He understands and feels an obligation to do the right thing, however he would prefer to be lazy if possible (if he can get the wizard to summon an unseen servant to help him with the chores of an old woman he will) but still does it himself if the wizard won't help. Most of his remove disease and such abilities goes to help people in town, the cobbler with small pox, the boy that got a disease from a rat etc. He will watch a robbery for a little bit if he thinks the victim was stupid in getting caught by the robber but he does stop it before it gets out of hand usually with a small amount of preaching to both people for being stupid/not good.

A paladin can be lawful and can be good but still be just an ordinary joe beyond that.

I love that description of your paladin. it reminds me kind of a variation of Andy Griffith from the Andy Griffith show and truly fits my definition of lawful good that I hadn't considered applicable to paladinhood before. I might have to use that for an NPC in my upcoming game.

very awesome.

A LG stable boy can occasionally steal a coin from a saddle bag without losing his alignment.

actually, he can't. "occasionally steal" suggests that first, it's a frequent compromise of ethics to warrant categorization as "regularly" or in "certain circumstances". Stealing tends to be a violation of law/order as it circumvents the established means of obtaining wealth (i.e. performing his job) in order to get something he wants on his own terms (regardless of intent, because convenience plays a big part of "occaisonally stealing"). therefore it is neither a lawful or good action because of the convenience.

however, intent behind the theft can dictate more toward the quality of "good". as long as the coin is used to benefit others with little or no gain for him (on a continuum of actions) it could still be a "good" action.

it still remains unlawful. it is a neutral action as the person performing the deed respects order (the occasional element), but recognizes that law cannot perform the truest good/evil (hence the stealing).

imo, it's a neutral good or true neutral character that would perform such a deed. caveat: a lawful good character could steal, but then would be obligated to turn themselves in or make amends in a way so as not to harm society by his/her actions.

barring restitution for committing a crime, the lawful good character would rather sell something they have to get the money to donate, offer, etc.

That could definitely work too!! I like the idea of getting 2 of the 3.

And if you really think about it, the benefits are equipment/creature dependent (in addition to the Code) which is in itself a built in disadvantage. So that addresses any potential balance problems right there.

And it fits more with being the Champion of faith as it showers more tangible blessings upon a deity's chosen ones.

I think a full double-dip would be too much, but I could certainly see splitting the bonus between them.

I like the idea of the Shield enhancement, but dislike spliting up the bonus. I rather like the idea of giving the paladin access to Shield, Mount or Weapon and having them choose 2 of the 3 options(each at different levels of course). So, I'm for double-dipping as getting a mount or enhanced shield might just give the paladin class the "oomph" it's been needing.

But please, stop buffing the fighter more - he's strong enough as a base class already.

out of curiosity on your playtest (if you still have the data) which PC was the majority of opposition attacks going to? How well did those PCs fare against the opposition? How did mobility and teamwork play in your PCs combats?

I had Bulls Strength cast on me, spend the first round activating my divine sword the first round, the next round casting Divine Favor, and used my smite the third round. What did Tilly do? Took a 5' step.

what were the rest of the bads doing when you were bulking up? why weren't they going after the rogue (or your paladin)?

Alright, how about this for an idea for improving shields.

*A shield can reduce the multiplier of a critical hit by one step. All damage then is treated as a sunder attempt (without drawing an attack of opportunity). If the amount of damage done exceeds what is required to destroy the shield, then any extra damage is dealt to shield bearer. Otherwise, the shield gains the broken condition.

I like that idea a lot. It makes it more important to get rid of shields in a fight and make them more useful.

Yeah I'm not a big fan of the crit hit reduction either, sorry.

especially since right now I play a paladin who uses a pick for that x4 modifier. If every person I fought with a shield negated that x4 then I might as well have gone with a longsword for the d8 damage, and that is what that change to shields will encourage, people ignoring different crit range weapons in favor of always having the highest damage dice because they want to always be effective.

by that logic, everyone and their dog should be attacking your PCs with a pick because of that x4 modifier instead of using spears, axes and swords.

you still need the appropriate shield proficiency or you take penalties to attack. you still need strength or you take encumberance penalties. if you're a spellcaster, a shield makes it more likely to fail a spell-check.

sure, more people will be wanting to use shields with it negating 1 crit hit, but not at the cost of the penalties compared to a 4 in 20 chance of someone scoring a crit with a improved crit weapon that most opposition does not carry.

it won't be as prevalent as you claim. sure a baddie might have it every once in awhile, but the same benefit also applies to a PC.

I don't like the idea of shields limiting critical hits, it doesn't make any sense to me. To my mind, if a critical hit has been scored, that means you've successfully penetrated their defences; the fact you're carrying a shield shouldn't make any difference.

Hitpoints represents partial defensive actions (turning blows, narrow misses, etc.). A critical hit only exhausts that resource to avoid death by maximizing damage for a strike.

A shield is an added defense that currently only modifies AC and can be an awkward weapon. Yet, shield usage establishes a greater capability of turning blows (i.e. through blocking the attack covering a greater surface area) but does not figure into hit points as it should considering the nature of shields.

so, three options exist to make the sheild more viable in that discrepancy:

* Shields can negate one instance of critical damage.
* Shields can add a hit point bonus to its wielder equal to material and size of the shield.
* Shields can reduce damage taken from an attack.

here's another option (though probably won't be liked too much):

* Shields negate critical damage from one attack.
The rationale for this is that Shields give more protection. Instead of just the additional AC bonus, they give a hit point compliment as well. It negates a maximization of damage from one attack (but an onslaught can still surpass it. In doing this, it makes sundering a shield even more important. It's also dramatic and useful.

Giving one class access to all feats they qualify for, ever, is going to create more problems than it will solve.

what about putting the feats that could be traded out into "style/trained" suites (as long as they meet the feat's prereqs) with the limit that this can only be done 1 per day equal to half their level rounded down or something like that (because it is a fairly powerful ability)? They could only trade out feats in the training suite they possess which they can only select 3 times through out the class (maybe at 5, 10 and 15 or whatever). Additionally, I'd suggest giving them additional bonus to performing these feats depending on the suite they choose.

For Example (all open to discussion of course):

Quick/Finesse Fighter (Preq: Dodge)
* +2 AC bonus
Smart Fighter (Preq: Combat Expertise)
* +2 bonus to perform Disarm, Feint, Trip Combat Maneuvers
Mounted Fighter (Preq: Mounted Combat)
* Attack Bonus equal to half level in Ride skill rank rounded down. (yeah it looks powerful on paper, but seriously--how often does it come up that there will be mount combat?)
Shield Fighter (Preq: Improved Shield Bash)
* +2 AC bonus
Savage Fighter (Preq: Power Attack)
* +2 to Damage
Two-Weapon Fighter (Preq: TW Fighting)
* + 2 to Attack when fighting with two weapons
Archer (Preq: Point Blank Shot)
* When making a ranged attack, can negate one attack of opportunity targeting this fighter.
Hand to Hand Fighter (Preq: Improved Unarmed Strike)
* +2 to Damage when fighting hand to hand

Here's an idea to add simplicity to the fighter feat build while providing some inherent features or kick to the class up a bit. Use feat combos to form "style builds" to trigger "fighter technique" mechanical benefits of the Fighter class. Essentially, once the Feat Requisites are met, the Fighter learns the Technique.

Some examples follow:

The Trained Archer
Feat Requisites: Point blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot
Technique: Once per combat, a trained archer can add half his level rounded up (to a minimum of 1) to the arrow's damage.

The Swashbuckling Disarm
Feat Requisites: Two-Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense or Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm
Technique: Once per combat, the fighter can lock-up (one of) his opponent's weapon(s) with a disarm maneuver while inflicting damage equal to half the fighter's level rounded up.

The Force of Will
Feat Requisites: Iron Will, Intimidating Prowess, Persuasive
Technique: Once per combat, as a free action, this character can attempt to shake one opponent with an Intimidation skill check. The intimidating character adds his Will Save modifier to his skill check.

But if we wanted to change it up a bit, i'd give the same treatment to Pallys that Barbarians got. Give them a "Holy Point" pool to spend from, letting them spend it on lay on hands, smiting, and auras. Combining all these abilities into a point system would hurt backwards compatibility, but i think would adress alot of the cleric/paladin foot stomping thats going on.

I considered that as an option as well. Wasn't sure how effective it would be in comparison.

This is something Paizo will have to adress, what they see as the purpose of the class is. But to me, the Paladin has always been a roleplay heavy class. It has the most restrictions and such of any core class an requires a much stricter view of gameplay. It even started out as a prestige class, which i think shows that it was supposed to be roleplay heavy. So on those grounds I think it is perfectly fair for it to have abilities that play to that roleplaying ideal more than the dungeon delving ideal. If you want to dungeon delve, dont take a class that has roleplay aspects (the special mount comes to mind as well here). Pick something more suited to dungeon delving.

First, I agree with you that the Paladin is a role-play heavy class. The problem then becomes: does a Paladin encourage the type of play that it's designed for?

I'd argue it doesn't. Druids can pull off the Holy Fighter-Priest thing better than Paladins. Clerics do Priest-healer better and can beef up fighting capability with spells.

As a holy warrior,imo, the Paladin suffers from lack of complimentary abilities. The Aura of Good doesn't assist in courtly situations and barely offers benefits in a fight. Their fighting ability is less than inspirational or legendary and subpar for smiting the evils they're said to smite.

players playing paladins should want to throw their character at unabashed evil partially because its the right thing to do, but also because they can do something about it. or if not in a fight, the Paladin character should be able to let his piety speak for him in some fashion. essentially the player should have an incentive to play those aspects up instead of leaving it just to role-play motivation imo.

It wouldn't top a similarly focused barbarian in a rage, which is what the better comparison is here, since it's a limited-use effect. Even if it did slightly, though, the fact that it is only useful against evil opponents - and there are a lot of non-evil opponents at low levels, what with dire rats and spider swarms and the like - weakens it further.

I don't like the idea of the Paladin becoming THE boss killers in most games and that's what this variant on Smite will probably do. Nevermind its extra uses or the bonus damage.

I do agree Paladins need more "oomph". I'm just saying this doesn't look like it, imo.

Maybe a variation of smite that allows the channeling of the charisma bonus into AB or Damage, player's choice.

That is an excellent suggestion. I mean EXCELLENT suggestion!!!

To me, that makes more sense than trying to add alot of extra smites for the day.

I was thinking of an attack bonus instead of damage as well, but my only concern is that it's too powerful at early levels. For most players, that will probably end up a +2 or +3 Cha bonus that could top up the starting AB to +5 - +7 (assuming maximization of Str for the fighter build as well). That's a very big attack bonus for a level one character.

Could we better simulate the divine support provided to the paladin by allowing him to spend multiple lay on hands charges for restoring hitpoints in a single round, but only when healing himself?

I actually like that because it also resembles the renewal/affirmation of faith that a Paladin could get just when he needs it the most to polish off the bad guy in a very dramatic fashion.

Though I would hesitate to require him laying his hands on himself to perform this act in combat. Something about "touching himself to feel better" just appeals to my sillier side.

I know that was how it was done in 3.x, but it really makes me giggle at the thought of a Paladin of Bast trying to heal himself inn battle against the evil warlord.

"I will destroy you and your--What are you doing? Ew! Gross! I surrender!"

I am seriously confused by this idea. In what way do you see Paladins as jacks of all trades?

Paladins fight. They generally fight evil. They also tend to have a large force of personality. I don't see paladins that are skillmancers - or spell slingers. You could make a much better argument that Rangers are jacks of all trades - at least they have the skill points to back that claim up, though their spellcasting is just as ineffectual as the Paladin's. The difference in party role between a fighter and a paladin is a difference in flavor - not in general role.

Paladins are fighters without the fighter's flexibility of fighting style, and with defensive capabilities/staying power added via to save bonuses, immunities, and healing.

They're a combination of Cleric and Fighter classes the same way a bard is a combination of Fighter, wizard and rogue. Granted they have different thematics--but the mechanics in place make them a spread class.

rangers could kind of be said to be the same except for the incorporation of abilities and capabilities largely independent of other classes (of which only spellcasting is the only one). skill functions (note: Hide and Move silently are technically available to anyone wanting to invest in those).

I think Paladins should be able to provide meaningful healing in combat but also I dont think a paladin should out heal a cleric in one shot.

I think this is the crux of the matter: What is the expected role of a Paladin vs. what is the expected role of a cleric. I personally wouldn't want a Paladin to outweigh the healing/ turning/ spellcasting of a Cleric as well as I wouldn't want a cleric to become a better natural holy fighter than the Paladin. Paladins are jacks of all trade classes in the same way that bards are. they're good at what they do in dabbling everywhere, but should not be better than the specialist classes.

My main problem though here is that you can no longer charge and perform a cleave, was the removal of this ability really all that necessary?

that raises a couple of questions I have on the nature of how cleave and great cleave work in regards to each attack.

does one use the Cleave feature then proceed to Great Cleave after finishing the second attack or does Great Cleave replace Cleave (which I hope it doesn't)? Changing Cleave to a half action makes cleave and great cleave a bit less confusing imo.

Additionally how would this work on characters with more than 1 attack per round.

does it go:

attack 1: +5
cleave
great cleave
attack 2: +1
cleave
great cleave

or does it go something different?

IMO, Favored class (as written) is a reward for playing an archetype. At the same time it should not be seen as a way to offhand punish player characters for not playing the archetype. Maybe instead of making it a default stat bonus of some type, why not make them professional or social bonuses to interacting with others of X type from their race and class for being paragon reps of their culture and way?

There where a few big threads about this in the Alpha 3 play test. Basically there is a big group of people that would like to see using a shield rock a little more, taking the shield slam tree is a nice option but isn't good for low dex characters or one with few feats.

what about giving a feat that allows a fighter to share their Shield AC bonus to an ally in an adjacent square as a half-action that stack with possibly one given from Aid another (iirc)?

Essentially, it'd play like this:

Billy Bard: Watch your back, Wally Wizard! (Succeeds on Aid Another gives AC bonus--iirc)

Wally Wizard sees really big orc swinging a greatsword at him cringes by Fred Fighter: Aaah!

Fred Shield bashes a nearby opponent and turns to use his Shield to block for Wally.

I don't really care how appealing you found it. Two different fighters in 4th Edition play fundamentally differently in a way that is not the case for 3.5 or Pathfinder. A sword-and-board Fighter taking powers that hit all the enemies around him works around the basic strategy of getting into groups and keeping them on him, freeing up his friends. Meanwhile, the spear-using Fighter is a lightly-armored mobile skirmisher, picking out strong individual enemies and keeping them away from the rest of the party, or positioning them for the party's advantage, while doing damage. And a high-strength, high-constitution dwarven fighter wielding a Maul is tougher and focuses on damage, hammering enemies down one or two at a time, taking them out faster.

Different kinds of Fighter play differently. What's more, any of those Fighters plays differently from other melee classes--the Paladin, a fellow...

I dunno--The Shield Attack feat sort of changes the trappings of the stand and attack model. Nevermind the full-on brute cuisinart which will probably be a bull-rush get surrounded and look really nasty combo. nevermind the fighter with a polearm pulling a great cleave on the enemies close to his friends. now I do agree fighters need stuff to compliment the feats so that the brute cuisinart does not need to charge in, but can draw the opposition toward him (akin to PHBII Knight's challenge ability).

While I love the changes given to Fighter feats, I find the class abilities for the class lacking. Instead of committing some of the "Improved" or tactic-complimenting abilities as Feats readily available to other classes willing to invest in them, why not make some of them specialized Class Abilities. Maybe also include more attack or damage bonus enhancing techniques a bit earlier in the class. This would address some of the issues with subsystem parity.