ShadeOfRed's page

ShadeOfRed wrote:

Even Microsoft did this with their XBox 360 and the Red Rind Of Death and Microsoft isn't exactly the most customer friendly company in the world. (One of the worst in my, and others I know, experience) (also look at how they decided to do the XBox One, then backpedaled and changed it to what the customers wanted, just saying they fixed it)

I'm not saying a GM can't handle this, they can, but if it's broken, they should take some time to have someone fix it with errata. As a GM I would appreciate it when playing with new players, having to spend time with them disrupting the game and arguing until it is decided they don't fit. It's not fair to the other players at the table to have to deal with stuff like this that can, RAW, be 'abused'.

You don't seem to be listening much do you?

That's just an insult and unneccesary. But I will address it anyway. I am listening. I have made a pretty clear point, even though you edited it out, that I would like to see this and things like this fixed, out of customer service. I'm a customer and spend quite a bit of money on this. I expect a bit of good treatment because...

You point out that the game is breakable. That's correct. That is the unavoidable price of allowing player choice.

I didn't state it was breakable...what I was trying to say is that, Rules As Written, it is broken.

Although the game IS breakable, that happens when people don't follow RAW in 99% of the cases. That or OOC knowledge of an adventure ahead of playing it. So I apologize that I wasn't clear enough.

There is simply no practical way to publish a fix for every possible rules abuse. (and believe it or not, sno-cone wish machine isn't the big number one most wanted that you seem to think it is.)

Absolutely disagree with this. What I feel isn't practical is someone paying for this product, receiving it, finding there are broken parts to it and nothing being done. That is an unpractical means to treating customer service. And I am also aware of the sno-cone wish machine being not the biggest thing. There are many others. But if something as easily fixed as someone typing a simple paragraph stating some solution, (SLA don't copy onto the simulacrum or what have you) as being unpractical, for something this obviously broken, just so I, the customer, don't have to deal with it or other obviously broken things in the time I have to play this game, even if it is only one time ever...I feel that is an unreasonable statement and makes it sound like you think I should not have the right to ask for this from someone SELLING the product to me. I'm the customer, 5 minutes to type a paragraph is not unpractical or unreasonable, and would be appreciated by me and many others. Customer service friend, that's what I'm talking about. This problem and many others.

The game is breakable for players determined to break it. That's the plain fact Jack. The only way to "fix" it to your satisfaction is to remove the primary cause, i.e. the expansion of player choices and revert this game back to either the hard and fixed choices of First Edition, or the homogenised approach of Fourth Edition. If that's what you want, those games and others like them ARE OUT THERE. But the bulk of the folks playing here don't see this as a problem that merits throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, I don't appreciate your hostility...but anyway.

Has nothing to do with player choices...also not what I said at all. Read what I wrote please and don't extrapolate it into something else. I never said what you are saying, if I wanted to go to something else I would have already. And honestly...clearing up things that Rules As Written don't work like they should or as Rules As Intended is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you say.

It's not unreasonable for someone clarify or fix issues with their product. It's customer service. Period.

Rynjin wrote:

LazarX wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.

The "community" needs to learn that it can help itself.

It can. No reasonable GM will allow it.

That doesn't change the fact that, by RAW, it is a possible outcome.

If it requires houseruling to fix, obviously it was broken.

Why not push for an official fix, eh? It won't hurt your game one way or another, and will help the game as a whole. Why gripe about it except to hear the sound of your own typing?

If we asked Paizo for an "official fix" for every possible spell, archetype, game effect that could possibly break a game, then we'd be asking for a FAQ the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There have been breakable things in the game since First Edition. However it was Third Edition with it's emphasis on "builds" and builder tools to serve it which opened up the floodgates. to the kind of nonsese we see here. The answer is not to try to build an incomprehensible list of fixes for excesses, it's for GM's to develop the common sense and discipline to simply say "NO!" to obvious crack monkey moves.

No disrespect to anyone, Paizo, or anyone else on this board. But if you design and release a product you should 'fix' the issues.

Even Microsoft did this with their XBox 360 and the Red Rind Of Death and Microsoft isn't exactly the most customer friendly company in the world. (One of the worst in my, and others I know, experience) (also look at how they decided to do the XBox One, then backpedaled and changed it to what the customers wanted, just saying they fixed it)

I'm not saying a GM can't handle this, they can, but if it's broken, they should take some time to have someone fix it with errata. As a GM I would appreciate it when playing with new players, having to spend time with them disrupting the game and arguing until it is decided they don't fit. It's not fair to the other players at the table to have to deal with stuff like this that can, RAW, be 'abused'.

I would personally shut this stuff down myself. But it would be nice, considering the pretty large investment I have made in books and materials from Paizo to try to be a good GM, that they would save ME the trouble of dealing with these issues.

A good GM can take care of this, I'm good enough to take care of it as a GM too, but as a CUSTOMER I'd like for it to be taken care of so I don't have to.

Rynjin wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .

To be clear, he's good with the Skirmisher archetype then?

And to be honest, your friend seems to be in the vast minority. Most people don't find the Ranger's spells to be too complex.

I'd agree with you personally. . . I find Rangers to have too few spells for what I like, but there's every kind of person and if I put a book on the table that didn't have a class without that kind of features I would never be able to run it and we'd use a previous edition that has normal Fighter in it instead.

I just don't get it.

Does anyone actually think that Paizo or any publishing company is just going to go, "You know that class we made in the Core Rulebook? The Fighter? You can't play him anymore. You have to play this NEW version of the Fighter. Everyone tear up your character sheets NOW!"

Don't call an improved Fighter class the Fighter. It would be called something else and Fighter would still exist. He could play it from now until the end of time and no one could FORCE HIM not to. A new option doesn't make the old one go away, it just gives a new option.

And Anecdotal Evidence is just that. Anecdotal. I've met lots of people who hate casters. Love to play martials. I've never met anyone, myself, that refuses to play anything but Fighters. Or Rangers or Paladins who basically been archetyped into Fighters.

Does that mean your point of view and complaint is invalid? Because it is meaningless to me. Doesn't affect me and won't affect this player of yours. CAUSE THE FIGHTER CLASS WOULD STILL EXIST. The new class called Fighter 2.0 would exist and he would never have to play it.

Hehehe. I dont think that's bad enough to make you evil (although it does lean in that direction), it might bring you towards true neutral (in my humble opinion).

-Addiction thing: evil, not super-evil, but evil nonetheless, more because of the fact people dont know than for the adictive effects.
-Information-gathering: that's legit. What do you think a bartender does? He uses alcohol, you use magic, no big difference.

Still, nice to see someone not being a murderhobo. My current magus character has a buttload of ranks in craft (clockwork) so maybe I should start a side-business...

Yeah guess what is ACTUALLY addictive. Alcohol. I have to play a Paladin that Smites every bartender for being evil.

ShadeOfRed wrote:

In The Ghost King by Salvatore...he has a passage of a high level monk, Danica, falling off a cliff. She does her monk thing of slowing her fall and then backflipping into a large pine tree off the wall, using it to slow her fall the whole way then tries to roll with it and os left near death, broken but still alive. I guess that damage could be somewhat explained like sword damage can be (graze, or small cutd wearing them down). Dunno about the lava though.

Systemic problem, IMO. I think that someone got lazy and decided that environmental damage should be handled with hit points. Lava shouldn't be hit point damage. Falling shouldn't be hit point damage. They should be sliding scales of stat damage and saving throws based on how cinematic you want the game to be.

But hit point damage is what we have, so I just sigh and ignore it. :)

Stat damage. That is actually bloody brilliant. You fall, you take Dex, Str, Wis damage? I'm feeling the table start to build in my head.

Seriously. Awesome. Gonna think about this tonight.

I guess in an effort to get this back on track a bit...

Sounds like people wouldn't mind martials as much if:

1. Feat trees were reduced to one feat that scaled or just gave you the benefit of the whole tree. Greater Cleave from the start, instead of Cleave, and overwriting with Greater Cleave etc...

2. Feats stacked and were usable with most everything. Vital Strike with Spring Attack for example...

3. Martials got more skill points. I agree with this a lot.

4. Some of the Feats came earlier to compare with a comparable magic spell. Dazing and Stunning Assault, sooner than 11th and 16th for example.

5.??? Got anything to add here?

I would be okay with Martials and what they currently CAN get...if they worked together. I don't expect to be able to Whirlwind Attack+Lunge+Vital Strike+Power Attack+Trip+Disarm+Sunder...But maybe some of those at least working together.

Oh yeah...guess people want also:

6. Crane Wing like it was.

Um...do you realize giants don't have the great to hit roll against an armored opponent. If they are separated, he flies to each one and kills them one at a time using them as cover.

Okay. Now do it with and equal EL of kobolds. Just try it. See if that great Fighter or whatever he is can win that fight. He can't. A wizard can.

GM Fiat? Giants aren't the most intelligent creatures. What exactly were you expecting them to do? They engaged him. He cut them down in hand to hand combat. GM Fiat had nothing to do with it. Do you play giants as these master tacticians spreading out in battle to perfectly surround the fighter as they assume the smaller warrior can beat them? I don't play them that way. He certainly isn't set up to be easily hit by ranged attacking giants.

Which giants aren't intelligent? Many are very much so. At least as smart as an average human battlefield commander, able to realize that we don't get close to that guy. Everyone throw rocks.

Again, do this with an equal EL of kobolds. Your Fighter will lose. A wizard would not.

Why would a summoned creature have a better chance? They don't do as much damage as the two-hander fighter, nowhere near as much.

They don't need to. The wizard will be doing more damage than the two-hander and the summons will hold them at bay. Or just all be Lantern Archons and sit way back and blast your giants to death while the wizard sits on a cloud above, trimming his nails and occasionally casting a couple more groups of Lantern Archons to blast the giants some more.

Soldiers acting stupidly? What were their options? Run away? They couldn't stand within this 15 foot reach as he smashed them all.

Whirlwind Attack enlarged with Lunge allows him to hit everything within 15 feet.

Again...they stay back and throw rocks. Your fighter will lose. They will take losses. But it doesn't matter what a range increment is or if you are proficient in a weapon, a 20 hits, a 20 always hits.

Again take that same fighter, put him up against an army of a 1000 kobolds with slings by himself. Feel free to drink as many potions as you want and use all the magic items he has equipped. Not only will the sling stones end him eventually just based on the odds, they will end him just by piling on top of him until he can't breathe.

A wizard on the other hand. No sweat. Invisibility, flight, wind wall. Summon a few monsters. Watch them slaughter the kobolds while trimming your nails. Or get involved and blow them up by the dozens. With fireballs. From 1400ft away.

You sound like you don't have much experience with the high level game. You think a fighter is that lacking in resources at high level? They aren't. He will pick his battlefield. Show up with potions or rings that allow him to do things like fly, haste himself, and move around the field whacking giants out if they want to spread out and try to do him in with ranged attacks.

The fighters I run with don't stand there like idiots either. They are far stronger than the common giant at high level. They are far better equipped. They come in ready to whack giants out. They spread out and used ranged attacks, they die slower, but they still die.

Again try it with an army of kobolds. Your theoretical fighters will die. And be bored while it happens.

The issue isn't that a Fighter can't kill giants. They can. Eventually.

The issue is the disparity. After say Level 10, you don't need Fighters. Make a new caster at the same level. You'll be more powerful and capable of winning and able to handle basically any eventuality and if you are unprepared, escape easily and come back tomorrow prepared for what ever it was.

A Fighter does not match this level, even a little. A Fighters 'High Level Abilites' are equal to, or worse than a low level spell.

Lunge and Enlarge Person. 6th level feat, 1st level spell. And Lunge is still WORSE.

Whirlwind+lunge+stunning assault vs Dazing Fireball - 16th level + 8 feats, 11th level, one feat. (Also Dazing Spell has no prereqs. You can start dazing people at what...5th level if you want? (Early if you start min maxing feats, traits, racial abilities) 7th is a litte more realistic, unless you just want to daze something. A fighter has to wait until Level 16 and take 8 feats? Level 7 and one feat vs Level 16 and 8 feats...OH WAIT DAZE IS A 0-LEVEL SPELL! Silly me. And you get Daze Monster at Level 3. [sarcasm] So I guess that makes sense. Level 1 you can daze. But hitting someone, HARD, with a club or large piece of iron, won't daze anyone until level 16. Of course![/sarcasm]

DISPARITY. LOOK AT IT. LOOK. REALLY LOOK. If it isn't clear I will try to explain it better.

Now tell me what a Fighter gets that is ever better than something a wizard can do. Hit things you say? True Strike. (basically never miss) Magic Missile. Never miss with multiple targets. THESE ARE 1ST LEVEL SPELLS. AND A WIZARD IS USUALLY TRYING TO HIT TOUCH WHEN THEY DO ROLE. They don't need that much in BAB to hit a Giants Touch AC. Seriously.

Just because a Fighter can eventually accomplish those things, other than the army of kobolds...they can't win that fight. But there is a huge disparity between a Wizard and a Fighter. That is the issue. They don't even need to be equals at Level 20. But if a Fighter starts becoming obsolete at level 6, then a Wizard should only start coming in to his full power at Level 14. They should support and work well together up to then and honestly...a Fighter isn't that much better than a Wizard at Level 1-6. So a Wizard shouldn't be that much better Levels 14-20. Period. That is balance. The balance does not even remotely exist.

ShadeOfRed wrote:

Enlarge person grants you reach...and +damage and +Str for a -2 dex -1 AC and -1 Attack...A 1st Level Spell. One Spell. Can last a minimum of 6 rounds or attacks.

Lunge is on activation, gives you reach and -2 AC. Better. But also a feat I can only get at 6th Level. There is a disparity here. It is better than Enlarge Person...but also comes FIVE levels later.

Enlarge Person is far better than Lunge, because it lasts all round over (and also gives you increased weapon damage). This means you get an AoO for any non-reach enemies trying to attack you in melee, as they close to you.

For a medium-sized human fighter with 18 strength and a greatsword, enlarge person gives:
+1d6+1 damage, -1 init, -2 AC, +2CMB, +1 CMD, 5ft of reach for the full round.
Lunge gives:
5ft of reach on your turn, -2 AC for the full round.

Lunge is worse by far.

You know what. You are absolutely right. In my head I forgot Lunge doesn't last all round. That -2 to AC sure does though. A 6th level feat trumped by a 1st level spell. Disparity.

Anzyr wrote:

So you like playing with level 1-6 abilities on your martials... that's fine Raith Shadar, some of us would like 8+ abilities so we can have a proper foundation. I get that a box is good enough for you because you like martials roughing it, but some of us want that heating and showers that the casters get, since they keep telling us that we have the same income level.

Stunning Assault is a lvl 16 ability. Buidling feat chains generally take longer than lvl 6 though the pre-reqs are lower. Some of the feats like Power Attack scale

Some of the feats like Power Attack do scale. But very few and they all should. Taking 8 feats to get Stunning Assault at 16th level...when a wizard has had access to throwing area effect Dazing Spells since what? Level 7? Off the top of my head, Dazing Glitterdust would be Level 9? Really? That is balanced? Tell me how it is balance for a Wizard to take one feat to start doing area effect Dazing and it should take a Fighter 8 feats...and lets call it Dazing Assault instead of Stunning Assault...so 8 feats and level 11...vs 1 feat for a wizard. I don't want to hear that "Wizards are supposed to do that! Fighters don't Daze people with swords that is only something wizards can do...be thankful you can spend 8 feats to get that at 11th!"

You ever been hit by anything? Not a sword or greatclub...anything...a fist a foul ball? Anything...guess what...you are probably dazed right off. That is reality. I train and smack you with a sword...guess what I have a chance of dazing you...and you have a chance of dazing me. Please don't try to tell me that everyone who trains as a martial is able to resist better getting hit with a sword and dazed a little. You will.

You do realize that fighters get high level class abilities as well?

There is no save against Intimidate. Why should I have a problem with a no save ability that can cause someone to be shaken?

Really? I'm guessing you mean Dazzling Display. A two feat chain...oh wait I need another feat so I can use STR instead of CHA for my intimidate. Make that 3 feats. 3 feats...it better not have a saving throw for that cost.

Now how many feats does it take a wizard to give someone...or better yet...a group of someones the shaken debuff? What level does that happen? When does a wizard get better at doing it than a Fighter ever could? Respond and let me know how a fighter is overbalanced...or how this makes everything else okay simply because a fighter can do this one thing...at close range...'better' than a wizard? I really want to know what you point is. It sounds like you started one and didn't finish.

You sound like you don't play many high level games. Martials do have high level powers through weapons and magic items. Every martial I know has access to a flight item. Generally they wear some pretty nifty armor with some nice abilities that add useful abilities. Their weapons are pretty awesome.

You seem to be attempting to tie everything to feats. The combination of feats, class abilities, and magic items are very impressive and allow characters to do quite a bit.

You are absolutely right. They can do quite a bit.

How much does that flying item you say they all have cost? What level did they get it at? Why does a martial character need to be able to ignore gravity, in your opinion, to be decent? Don't you see the problem with that? Toss all magic items out the window...for wizards and fighters. Tell me what amazing things a fighter can do. Not 'nifty' things. Amazing things. Especially amazing things that cost no feats. Like Fly does for wizards. You are making no point at all really. Also, exactly which class ability that a Fighter gets compares in anyway to ANY high level spell? I bolded your comment so you know what you said that makes me ask.

Now you expect to have as much flexibility as wizards or clerics? You can switch out abilities that do what they can do on a daily basis and use them with no limit? While at the same time having limitless physical damage that exceeds what a caster can do?

Or you going to make the claim that your standard caster can do as much damage as a martial? Which I know from experience is a complete and utter fabrication.

A fabrication? I honestly have no idea how that could be. Please, I am not being snarky or anything at all...I want to know how this is done. I'll even give you a scenario. You pick the CR of the monsters. A horde of 100 monsters...whatever CR you want. On a flat open field. Everyone starts 1000ft from each other. Tell me how the Martial out does the wizard in damage and in number of actions cause I really do want to see how that is done.

Martials can do a lot. The majority of my players prefer martials or martial hybrids. It doesn't bother them a bit that they can't beat a wizard in one on one combat if he is prepared to stop them. They are quite happy with the 200+ point crits and being able to do something every single round without losing a resource. It's fun for them.

Why you feel deprived I have no idea. The martials in the groups I run are satisfied. They rarely have trouble defeating enemies.

Okay...what are they playing? You say martials or martial hybrids. Let me know what they are playing. This general statement doesn't help me understand your point.

It doesn't bother them that they can't beat a wizard one-on-one if he is prepared to stop them. Very well. How does a Fighter, by himself, (this is one-on-one combat after all) prepare himself to stop a wizard from owning him? How many of those preparations have to do with some magic item and nothing to do with their feats or class abilities? I bet all of them. Or another amazing chain of 8 feats to allow it to work maybe. Level 10 vs Level 10. If you can't come up with a way for a Fighter to be able to prepare himself with just his class abilities and feats vs a wizard with his class abilities, feats and spells. There is a disparity. But I'd love to hear how a Fighter can do this and still be viable when the horde of kobolds comes down from the hills.

You say they rarely have trouble defeating enemies. Okay...is that because of their class abilities and feats...or because they have a wizard and cleric buffing them?

Also I honestly want to know how a martial gets a 200+ crit damage attack. Please explain. I'm guessing you mean a full round attack all crits, with a plethora of buffs. Cause I don't see it. And that sounds like a complete fabrication to me. One attack. Not a full round attack. Put everything on equal footing. Damage output and action economy. A wizard can toss two spells a round and walk 30 ft. The fighter needs to do that 30 ft walk too or your example is meaningless.

Per History itself. Spears are one handed reach weapons that you can still strike within 5ft with. Just saying rules is rules and History sometimes makes those rules dumb.

Anzyr, your argument is a semantic one, and one you make too often. You also use False Dichotomy and No True Scotsman.

What I'm talking about is making the game better by getting everyone to think outside-of-the-box of the usual game parameters. How do adventurers solve problems? What sort of conflicts make up an adventure? How do wizards compare to warriors in the arena of conflict? My argument is that casters can solve many immediate problems by being able to bend reality (as you are so fond of reminding us), while warriors rule the land and move the hearts and minds of the people. An expanded role-playing-game would allow for "big picture" thinking, with martial rulers acting as monarchs and heroes, while casters are the powers behind the thrones.

Enough with the "five martials facing five wizards will lose" nonsense. This isn't WoW PvP.

I'm the one who said five martials facing five wizards will lose. It's true. Have a party of 5 wizards fight an equal number of 5 fighters or equal CR and watch the carnage. The result will be wizards selling a bunch of magic armor and weapons.

Also...Mages (Wizards, Sorcs, etc...) are considered not very good if all they do is dump damage...yet are really good at dumping damage. And also are EXTREMELY good at debuffing or buffing.

Martials are not this. They are not that good at dumping damage...because of taking a full attack means you can't move. Wizards can do their big bad blast twice in a round if they quicken one...or use a rod...and then walk away a bit farther so they can try to do it again next round.

Martials can trip, disarm, sunder, etc...but wizards can do the same...do it at range and usually with an area attack. Also what wizards do typically last longer than what martials can do.

At 3rd level, a wizard can toppling spell magic missile and knock prone two people...pretty damn well too. A fighter can't do this. And the wizard is at range. This is just one example.

Metamagic feats have no tiers...usually no prereqs...(I can think of two off the top of my head...and usually no one takes them...Thanatopic and Threnodic)...but Fighter feats do.

There is a disparity...and fighters are okay at what they do...but any day you want to put 5 fighters on the field vs 5 wizards of equal level...the fighters are going to lose. I will grant that if you are looking at Level 1 fighters and Wizards...fighters have the advantage...this goes away at about 5th level though...so 5th through 20th...wizards will win the large majority. I can think of no way to make it work...wizards have battlefield control, status effects, mobility more than fighters...it is despicable. Fighters have status effects...most of their best attacks are full round actions so no mobility...

Disparity. That is my problem. Take the feat trees away...or shorter and smaller. No feat should overwrite the feat you took earlier. (Cleave, Great Cleave...etc) in those cases get rid of the first one no Cleave...just Great Cleave.

If a Level 10 fighter is a CR10 and a Level 10 wizard is a CR10...then it should come out at about 50% every time. It doesn't. Make it closer to 50%. I'd settle for 40%-60% with wizard on top at level 20...but it's not even close right now. That's my issue.

Except that the fighter can only deal damage. The Wizard can shrink lakes and lava in his off time, or catch a snooze in extra-dimensional space, or reshape the terrain, or make the craft skill look stupid, or play 20 questions with the universe, or put his stupid high skill points to use, or...

+1

@shade of red

ok... i agree with the idea of double standards on feats v spells, but i hate that you tried to choose cleave as your base of example when whirlwind is a fighters fireball, lunge+whirlwind+enlarge person is a better threat sphere then a fireball. built correctly, a fighter can out damage a mage in this regard.

a tenth level mage (no metamagic) will deal about 40 damage with a fireball, and has a chance to halve that damage due to a saving throw.

a tenth level fighter with a glave-gusarme glaive can deal over 45-50 points (non crit) against a 25 foot radius. and stunning assult at 15th makes him have a "dazing fireball".

now a mage can better buff this number as you can see with a crossblooded Evoker. the point remains that a fighter can actually deal a good amount of damage.

Let me clarify my points using your post as an example...

I chose Greater Cleave, because you can get that level 4, fireball arrives at level 5. Greater Cleave uses 3 feats. Or in my example...3 spells. Now actually...one of those spells (Cleave) is basically overwritten by another (Greater Cleave) meaning I spent 3 spells...to get 2. Power Attack and Greater Cleave. Whereas Fireball is a single spell. Or Burning Hands if you like...which you get at 1st level.

Using Lunge+Whirlwind+enlarge person....First of all I'm removing Enlarge Person...my point is that is not a feat...it's a spell and part of my issue. Enlarge person grants you reach...and +damage and +Str for a -2 dex -1 AC and -1 Attack...A 1st Level Spell. One Spell. Can last a minimum of 6 rounds or attacks.

Lunge is on activation, gives you reach and -2 AC. Better. But also a feat I can only get at 6th Level. There is a disparity here. It is better than Enlarge Person...but also comes FIVE levels later.

Now back to Lunge+Whirlwind...honestly...I was trying to say that Whirlwind and Spring Attack are good examples of what feats should do. So thank you for supporting that Whirlwind Attack is a good feat and Cleave is not. Even if getting this combo you are talking about takes to at least 6th level to get. And if my whacking something with a longsword ever is equal to 6d6 damage to everyone in a 40 ft diameter that I set off up to 640 ft away...well you tell me how I can get that damage out of it...let alone the range. I know they get a saving throw for half damage...but I also have to roll to hit or they take no damage.

I honestly see no way that you can deal 45-50 points of damage using whirlwind to every target. You do realize you get one attack at each target right?

Anyway...I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WHIRLWIND ATTACK CAN BE PRETTY AWESOME.

Why isn't Cleave even close to that? Greater Cleave is 3 feats received at Level 4...one of which basically disappears into thin air because Greater Cleave overwrites Cleave.

Just Whirlwind attack...without Lunge...is 5 feats...at least none of those overwrite the previous ones...but 5 feats...at level 4. To get part of something awesome. TWO LEVELS later...I can finish your combo.

Your example of Stunning Attack...also...really...at level 16 (Not 15th...prereq is +16 BAB) before I can get this? This is 8 feats in. I also take -5 to hit. A 25% reduction in ability to make this work. Save is 10+BAB...26. Not bad. But not very good at 16th level either. Still 8 spells/feats for one fireball...a repeatable one...but it will not do as much as 16d6 fireball to each creature. This is a 6th level slot for a fireball meaning 3 castings min without bonus spells. Or using their spell focus. Or taking feats/traits that make it lower level and then the casting increases at least to 4. 3 times...how many do you think you really need in an adventuring day? 3 is plenty...and you probably have at least 2 more castings of it from int and spell focus. So now we are talking 5. More than enough usually. 56 damage dealt...saves to deal with...probably a saving throw of at least 21. (10 +3 (SL) +10 (Int)) And most likely more...AND you can stand up to 640ft away, not in the center of all the angry people...AND you can cast it twice legally...AND it isn't a full round action and you can move if you only do it once.

Also...a dazing fireball is good for just about any mage tossing one. Seriously. Don't tell me that for me to be comparable...or god forbid...slightly better than a Wizard...I have to make my fighter using a certain weapon and a certain build. Whereas a Wizard uses one feat and one spell...gets nearly the same effect. A fighter has to take EIGHT feats. 8. And it's a full round action.

NOW I TYPED ALL THIS NOT TO SAY WHIRLWIND IS TO WEAK AND SHOULD BE BUFFED. I typed all this to say Whirlwind Attack+Lunge+Stunning Assault...is actually good. This feels like what martials should seriously have. Maybe a little earlier...maybe for less than 8 feats...but it is probably the best example of what martial classes should be able to get. Seriously.

And it is the ONLY one I can think of. I like the feel of Spring Attack, I think it is a good one for flavor AND utility, and it is used by me to move to where I hope everyone will stay close to for one round so I can lunge whirlwind. Because it's a full round action.

My biggest disparity I see is that if I'm a wizard, I'm guaranteed that every level I get to pick two different spells that allow me to do something amazing. Save-or-Suck, Save-or-Die, straight up kill.

Edit: Also I can make a move action and still toss that spell...at range...and usually hit multiple targets...Fighters often times can't.

Fighters get one feat. Most of the time not that useful.

Fighters can use this feat over and over...if the situation allows, (cleave being an example, the bad guys have to be standing next to each other, and you must hit to make it work)

Wizards can use this new spell several times a day if they choose (sorcerers especially can) it can always be useful in some way...if you decide to use a fireball on one BBEG it still does Leveld6 damage.

As a fighter, the above mentioned feat, cleave, doesn't help you at all with that BBEG.

The fireball can kill several people at once if their are multiple enemies.

Greater Cleave could kill several people at once. But they have to be standing next to each other.

There is a disparity. One level should not make that much of a difference in the power of something. And if I can get 4 super powered spells every 2 levels, and a fighter gets 2 feats between worthless and occasionally, somewhat useful...A disparity.

If I only get one feat a level as a fighter, it should at least be as useful and versatile as ONE spell can be. After all, most adventuring days rarely end with a wizard being completely run out of spells. At least in most adventures, and in most cases where it is not forced by a GM.

If say I at 2nd level could get a sweeping blow that attacks everything in a 15ft cone with a swipe of my blade...then I have a pretty good ability. It doesn't scale number of dice damage with level, I have to make a to hit on every target...but sounds a bit like a 1st level spell I know called Burning Hands. Maybe I can attach Trip to it too as I level...like metamagic feats work...

I guess what I'm saying is that the ONE feat a fighter gets each level should be at potentially as good as ONE of the TWO spells a wizard gets each level. Period. If it's not...then there is an issue.

I think Feats should be giving special style attacks...like Whirlwind Attack or Spring Attack do...and the CMB attacks, Trip, Disarm, Sunder...so on...should be able to be stacked on them...as you gain those abilities...like Metamagic feats can be stacked. And one feat should be at least as good as one spell. And in some manner...scale or get better with levels. Either area effect increases...or being able to add different Metacombat feats on top of it...Then things would be better. Maybe not perfect...but I feel it's a good start to try to make things better.