Uninvited Ghost wrote:
I don't know about everybody else, but I pay for writing, I don't pay for intentions.
That's the context of your response, doesn't it? and that's in this context that I'm responding.
I can rephrase my response: the job of a game designer is to transform intentions into playable stuff. We don't need any game designer to have intentions or ideas; it take less than a 6-second round to formulate an intention: "it would be cool to have an alternate magic system, in which we create spells by choosing the target/zone and different effects". It take far more time to transform this intention into a playable rules.
If the rules aren't playable, the job is not done, and my friend don't want to pay. That's true even when the intend is clear.
Exactly - the generalist helps the specialists do their job better - something I mentioned above but that Stephanie inexplicably failed to see, can't think why.
Oh. I see the problem.
You think that "generalist" is the contrary of "specialist". that's not the case: a commoner isn't a specialist, but he's not a generalist either.
To be a generalist, a character must be doing well in many different field of expertise. The monk doesn't. He's mediocre at melee, he's mediocre at skills, he has a high speed but mediocre mobility, and... That's it. "Being mediocre at some task" is not the profile of a generalist.
Justin Franklin wrote:
So by that logic if I dispel a Flaming Sphere any damage that it did goes away, since it has a duration and then is not "permanent".
No. Because non-instantaneous spells can also have non-magical consequences. Like damages.
Flesh to Stone instantly turns you into stone instantly, and was mentioned under the description of instantaneous as a side effect of the magic.
Nothing is mentioned under the description. The effect is no "more" instantaneous than Blindness/deafness or Baleful polymorph, it's just less dispel-able. Stop lying please.
Dennis Baker wrote:
Most people don't want a LAWBOOK filled with piles and piles of mind numbingly redundant text to handle every little rules hack, they want some guidelines for kicking back and hanging out with friends. Yeah, you want things to be as tight as possible, but you also don't want to have to repeat things that are obvious.
My friend want usable content.
They don't want to add a bunch of houserule to have playable content. Because they can create houserules themselves in the first place: they pay Paizo to do this job, but if Paizo fail to deliver... That's why they don't buy splatbooks any more.
Like I said, sometime the intend is obvious, sometime not. We can't even discuss of the broken things with non-obvious intend, because nobody even know what it's supposed to do; the developers themselves don't know (eg: share spell and the synthesist, former FAQ). If the developers were able to create things which work as intended, there would be no problem with non-obvious intend: the thing just does what's written, which make sense.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Nope, I read it properly. He just proved my point, unintentionally. Because clearly by his description of Instantaneous, a fireball is permanent.
Did you actually read the description of the fireball? Or did you chose an instantaneous spell at random, hoping that you're right?
The damages last forever. So does the different secondary effects (set fire, melt metal, etc).
Anyway, where did you see any mention of a duration for flesh to stone? That's the first example I used, and you claim that it prove your point. Please explain.
The wording probably could be better, I might suggest wording be applied to mention it, but from everything in this thread, it seems everyone knows the intent and the way the spell works such that they don't turn a word into a duration into permanent undispellable effects.
Half of the content of the splatbook of Pathfinder doesn't work as intended. Sometime, the intend is obvious. eg: instantaneous WoP, kensai's iaijutsu (the ability to draw his weapon as part of an AoO doesn't work).
Sometime, it's not. And the content is unusable, because nobody know what it should do. eg: the blight hex ("this hex doesn't do anything. Fort negates"), the synthesist. For the later, even the FAQ isn't self-consistent ("the Eidolon have no skill therefore a bonus to skill is applied to the summoner, and the eidolon also has no mental ability and therefore a bonus to mental ability isn't applied to the summoner": WTF ? And the whole "share spell doesn't allow to cast enlarge on an Eidolon" in the first version of the FAQ) and therefore, doesn't help so much.
The first step to get only usable content is that the creators recognize when their new stuff doesn't work as intended. Even if the intend is obvious.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Which means unless it says otherwise in the description it flashes and goes away. If it lasts longer then that it would be in the spell descripton, since there is no mention in the individual words that it does, when the duration is instantaneous the spell comes and goes in an instant.
It's the exact contrary: the default duration of an instantaneous spell is "forever"; if it's not, it's indicated in the description.
No mention of any duration. Flesh to stone lasts forever.
No mention of any duration. this instantaneous effect lasts forever.
The damages last forever; the stun effect lasts only for 1 round.
No mention of any duration. The benefit, including abilities inscrease, lasts forever.
No mention of any duration. The wall lasts forever.
the water lasts for 1 day.
No mention of any duration. The undead lasts forever.
No mention of any duration for the trap: it can lasts forever (eg you don't make any proposition). Max 1 day/CL for the task.
You can look at every single core spell: your interpretation doesn't make any sense. Mine does make sense. Seriously, I can't see how someone can argue something that is proven false by every core spell.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Or maybe I'm not wrong, and you're deliberately trying to interpret a rule in such a way that you get a 9th-level effect (wish, permanent undispellable ability score increase) out of a 2nd-level spell.
It's not a 9th-level effect. Enhancement bonus vs inherent bonus. Permanent enhancement bonus to a stat are nothing special.
Anyway, you're arguing that the spell doesn't work like any instantaneous core spell (eg flesh to stone, planar binding) because otherwise it would be overpowered? Really?
"How the rules work" and "being overpowered" are completely different issues. Slumber and ice tomb are overpowered, and work like any other supernatural ability; eg, a golem who fail his save against ice tomb is unconscious. More precisely, that's because they work like any other supernatural hex that they are overpowered, and that's because the instantaneous WoP work like any other instantaneous spell that they are overpowered.
Pretending the contrary is just a fallacy, or a delusion: "everything's perfect in Pathfinder, we create perfect rules. Because when something is overpowered, we just have to say "it's not overpowered, this thing follows different rules for no raison, we didn't write those rules because it's obvious"". Huh, it's oberoni at the power 10.
. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there may be some builds that make him a better fighter than the fighter, but I'm not aware of them and I think they'd probably require some character investment that would detract from his versatility.
Fighting is about versatility.
The fighter is good for one and only one fighting scenario: there's a visible monster within reach. Because his numbers are higher than anyone else.
That's great, but, huh, anyone can do damages. Bards can do a fair amount of damages, even if it's less than a fighter. Now, let's compare two party.
When there are visible monsters within reach, Party B deals more damages than party A. The bard does a fair amount of damages, and he makes the difference with the fighter by increasing the damages of the cleric and the rogue.
In a more complex situation, he can also help. eg: the bard can dispel a fly spell, stun a flying monster with sound burst, remove a fear effect with remove fear, remove invisibility with glitterdust. In those situation, the fighter can only wait for the cleric or the wizard to enable him.
In any fighting situation, party B is doing better. Since the only difference is the bard, it means the bard is better than the fighter at fighting.
And that's the key idea: fighters aren't good at fighting, they're good at "hitting thing at reach". In my experience, it's not a useful speciality for any scenario more complex than "here is a monster, he doesn't have any weird ability, and you must beat him to death".
Monks [...] are certainly the most mobile characters in the game.
Sorry, it can't be helped when I read "Monk are mobile".
Enhancement bonus to base speed; "enhancement" means it doesn't stack with anything: until level 12, a monk is slower than a barbarian with haste. And after that level, a monk doesn't fly. Which makes his base speed irrelevant. Meh.
Well, let's talk about his mobility before level 10. In a world where haste, phantom steed, and mounted martial characters don't exist, of course. The monk has the highest base speed ever. And what does he do after moving? A single attack at 3/4 BAB for 1d10 damages? A manoeuvre, if the target isn't too large, can be targeted by by the manoeuvre of the monk, and hasn't too much defenses? What is the point of being rapidly in position if you can't do anything relevant? The barbarian moves only at 40 feet per round, but when he swings his greatsword after moving, peoples are dying.
I fail to see how the monk is "the most mobile class". When I imagine a "mobile character who make other melee better", I imagine at least a bard with a phantom steed, haste, inspire courage, and a pointy stick.
They are very defensive against casters and if built for grappling RUIN a caster based encounter.
There's a wizard, Togomor, in the 12-th AP; level 15 (FP 14). Overland fly, quicken invisibility, greater invisibility, quicken DimDoor, Contingency: stoneskin. I didn't create him to counter the monk, he's an actual NPC, the PCs actually fight him in an actual AP.
It's a caster-based encounter, but I can't see anything that a 14th level monk can do against him. Even a monk built for grappling. Even with surprise, he escape the grapple with a the quicken DimDoor ends the grapple and allow Togomor to buff himself and come back.
When I imagine a mage killer, I imagine at least a bard with see invisibility, dispel magic and blindness/deafness. And a flying phantom steed at high level.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Maybe those who think that wish can permanently increase an ability score are incredibly obtuse at how magic works.
Or maybe you're wrong.
Open the boot of your car, see that spare wheel? Is it useless? I mean, it's not attached to an axle, it has no power to it - it's not even in contact with the road! Useless, right? Not if you lose another one it isn't.
You mean that the role of the monk is to wait until some real PC dies? Uh, great role.
Anyway, how is he better at this "role" than any real class?
Very often they are able to bring a few unique (if non-essential) abilities to the party in addition. They will never be as good as the specialists at what the specialists do - that's why the specialists are specialists, of course - but that does not mean that they are by any means useless.
You are aware that bards are better than specialist at social interaction? (lot of skills, Cha-based sense motive, charm, glibness...)
You are aware that bards are better than specialist at sneaking ? (lot of skills, alter self, invisibility - or invisibility sphere - , sculpt sound, low-range scrying, DimDoor...)
Druids are better than specialists at fighting and sneaking, magus are better than specialists at fighting, mobility and skills, etc.
In pathfinder, a class can be a jack-of-all-trade AND be a specialist at the same time. What does a "5th wheel" (aka "a class weaker than non-specialist in all area") adds to the group? Why would you use a monk as a 5th wheel instead of a real wheel like a magus, a bard or a ranger?
People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men.
Your post is even more epic than the post of the barbarian. "George W Bush made a pact with Chtuluh. Your argument is invalid".
Wait, you were serious?
I'll confine my monk role comments to what I've seen out of PF, and try to leave 3.0/5 baggage out of it. In my game, after the first 4 players covered the usual bases (fighter, rouge, divine, arcane), we added a 5th player, and he thought Monk would be a good 5th wheel class alternative to the obvious bard choice(I don't necessarily subscribe to the tradition party model, but my players do).
Are you aware that saying "this class is a good 5th wheel" is just the nice way to say "this class is useless"?
The game is designed to around the 4-PC-party; such a party should be able to handle any kind of challenge. A PC who can only be added to a party which can already do anything, is basically a useless PC.
BTW, the bard is far from a 5th wheel. As a character who's better at fighting than fighter and better at scouting than rogue, the bard is more like a 1st wheel.
So what happens to all of the summoner's good creatures when your opponent casts protection from good?
Protection from good prevents Good summons from attacking. The majority of summons are celestial animals, which aren't Good : protection from good doesn't do anything.
The DM is using all RAW.
Must suck to have a GM hostile to your character.
james maissen wrote:
You are correct, but it is not only a change from 3.5 it's one that doesn't sit well with people.. thus the resistance you're seeing here and the disbelief.
In 3.5, there were no real rules for ability penalty, and under the interpretation "Str penalty affects encumbrance", ray of enfeeblement was a die-no-save spell. Maybe it's a great game-design, but maybe it's not.
Anyway, the origin of this discussion is someone who explained that if a PC dumps Str, he would let the PC do, and then bones him. Thus, I was mentioning that it doesn't work as he want, because that what I would do at a table: if the DM allows dump stats, then the DM allows dump stats, he shouldn't invent some rule to screw the character afterward: if he doesn't want any dump stat, he should simply say "no ability under 10" at the beginning. The DM can try to disbelieve what's clearly written in the book, but he only creates a rule to bone a PC he accepted in the first place.
and anyway, that's (again) a houserule which screw the Fighter in favor of the Druid (and other class witch don't need many stuff), then hey... Even if you like this houserule, you should forget it as soon as possible (except if you plan to play without any non-caster).
You should read the rules. Str damage don't change your Str score: if you have a base Strength of 21 and take 6 point of Strength damages, you now have a Strength of 21 and 6 point of Strength damages. And you look at the same line of the table with or without the Str damages, since your Strength score didn't change.
Your Strength score change only with drain and permanent bonus. Damage, penalty and temporary bonus don't change it, they instead increase an other gauge.
It's not even weird or hard to understand, since it's the same with non-lethal HP damage: taking non-lethal damage don't change your current HP, it instead increase another gauge.
Oh, and that's not JJ's ruling. That's only the rules in the book, that's the second sentence explaining ability damages:
core rulebook, glossary wrote:
Again, there's nothing to argue: me right you wrong.
Anyway, you can houserule as you want. If you ask me, it's far too much bookkeeping.
I'm not clear on why you would ever take Stand Still over Trip?
Because of flat immunities.
In think half of the bestiary is immune to trip (even more if you play a Small character), because they are too large, they don't have legs or they fly. There are probably some other ways to be trip-immune. Nothing is "stand still-immune".
How do you figure? All right, I'll grant you that spellblade is pretty sad, even without infinite 0-level touch spells, but the Staff Magus doesn't give up spellstrike.
Because this combo is more efficient than TWF until high level, and the two options don't stack (spell combat don't allow TWF; a staff magus must use his staff one-handed while using spell combat, the athane can't be use as a secondary weapon while using spell combat).
Oredia Vlaskinov wrote:
Ya...I wouldn't allow that. It's pretty obvious abuse. Arcane Mark isn't a touch "attack" spell. Not that my assessment has any rules backing, just GM fiat.
I won't argue that (though the spell has a range of touch, and indicate the effect on a creature), but I will simply say that a magus can add touch of fatigue in his spellbook. Which is a level 0 touch attack spell.
Let's take a level 2 magus with Arcane mark, Str 18, a longsword, and named Zorro.
He uses Spell combat to cast Arcane mark; since Arcane mark is a touch spell, he use Spellstrike to deliver it. Assuming he success the Concentration check, does his attack sequence becomes: +3 (1d8+4)/+3 (1d8+4) ? Effectively copying two-weapon fighting and double slice ?
Strength controls how much you can lift and thus determines at what point you become encumbered.
There's nothing to argue; that's the rules from the core rulebook.
Core rulebook, glossary wrote:
Do you see any mention of encumbrance ? Me right you wrong.
David Thomassen wrote:
RAI: I would include carry capacity in the list of items to gain benefits/ take penalties from temporary effects.
RAI, they simplified the effect of ability damage to reduce the bookkeeping, and avoid the need of one-hour-computation each time someone cast Ray of enfeeblement or Touch of fatigue.
RAI, Str damages don't affect encumbrance.
You have at best proved that Mule Chords don't work. I would be impressed if everything worked as intended in Pathfinder, but that's not the case. eg (in relation with ability damages): the blight hex does 1 Str damage per day (or 1 Con, or 1 whatever, don't remember); according to the rules, 1 Str damage doesn't do anything, and the creature heal 1 point per day. Therefore, the blight hex doesn't do anything by itself, and is even weaker than an effect which "prevent the target to naturally heal Str damages". I don't think it's intended, but that's how the hex works.
But anyway, isn't the mule chord an item ? Items gives permanents bonus after 24 h. Permanent Str bonus affect encumbrance (as well as Str drains).
No, I noticed that. I still think it would be useful in cases where your main attack only hits on an 18+, say; your second attack would only hit on a 20, anyways.
If you hit a CR-appropriate foe on a 18+ only with your first attack, what are you doing at melee range ? And why did you bother to take such a melee feat in the first place ?
If the CR is overwhelming, I fail to see how a crappy +4 can save you.
After reading that, it's certainly not in the same league as Elephant Stomp (incoherent) or Extra Cantrips or Orisons (obsolete). A +4 (or better) bonus to attack and damage is nothing to sneeze at
You say that because you didn't see the conditions:
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.
In other words: "if you totaly can do two attacks, don't, and get a crappy bonus instead of an attack". Even without the clause "get a free blow coz you like it", the feat is bad. With this clause, it's total crap.
THERE ARE TREES WHO DIED TO PRINT THIS FEAT, and it make me very sad.
Remco Sommeling wrote:
magus 15, can't really get the most out off it since it gets dimension door late, but is otherwise a simple effective build on it's own merrit
Magus don't need the feat. As I pointd out in another thread, at level 15 they are the absolute kings of dimensional skirmish.
With spell perfection, quicken spell and spell combat, their sequence is Teleport-full attack-teleport back. That's a full attack at a distance of 1 500 miles. Add Greater invisibility for lot of fun.
Then take the first feat of the chain at level 11. It allows you to use your remaining actions after a dim door; in conjunction with spell combat, your remaining action is a full attack: it's a bit weaker than dim dervish, but it does the trick.
Or play a summoner-synthesist instead of a magus; you access to dimdoor at level 7, and access to dim dervish at 11.
I guess some of those feats really are worse than Death and Glory, though by a small margin. D&G has a slight advantage over a full attack if your enemy is a single hit away from falling AND you would die next round anyway.
Except the feat has the requirement: "you could totally attack your opponent at least twice". And the effect: "by abandoning all your attacks except one, you get a small bonus (and if that attack doesn't kill your opponent, you die)".
Even without the "you die" clause, the feat would be total crap: you have a better chance to kill him with your normal full-attack sequence than with only one attack and a small bonus. And if you don't, you're not a melee-er, then why did you bother to take this feat in the first place ?
Doskious Steele wrote:
If one only considers the content in the Core Rules, the distinction is fairly clear-cut, I think.
Let's take a very simple capacity : "not provoking an AoO".
In core rules, it can be a skill (Acrobatics), it can be a feat (improved [random manoeuvre]), it can be *something else* (Casting defensively). And maybe we can find a case where it is a class ability.
Even in core-only, I'm completely unable to understand what special capacity should be a class ability, a feat, a skill effect, or something else. If a player ask me "I want my character to cease provoking while firing with his bow; can you create some capacity to handle this?", I'm unable to decide if I should create a feat, a PrC, if I should include this in a skill, if I should use an existing class ability (should it be a rogue talent ?), or something else...
Oh yes, you also have +4 AC against a paralyzed opponent. Sounds much better.
@Atarlost: at least fleet doesn't have two feat as a pre-req. and in order to add insult to injury, one of the two feat is useless (it add some nice bonus to Climb, but since you must be level 8, who cares about climbing ?).
At least, those feat don't harm you (as opposed to death or glory or caustic slur).
Oh, and there's a feat named sling flail. If you take it, it allow you to use your sling as a flail, and it has a better effect if you don't take it: it allow you to do lame puns like "this feat is more useless than sling fail".
Umbral Reaver wrote:
What's that from?
The feat allow you to go into the square of an opponent against whom you made a successful stunning fist. You gain +4 AC against that opponent. And when the "stun" condition ends, the opponent can go away using a 5-foot-step. Oh, you can do an AoO, but since you're a monk, you miss.
The magus is at home, drinking tea with his friends. Suddenly, he wants to kill someone.
6-second 1 500 miles-round trip, full attack included: spring attack, you should be ashamed.
Now I just need some way to get infinite teleportation (or at least, many of them). Echoing the first TP is a good start, but the quicken TP can't be echoed.
W E Ray wrote:
The base DC of the diplomacy check is 30 (15 indifferent, +15 "give aid that could result in punishment").
Even if the lie is unbelievable (-20) and the guard has +10 Sense Motive, it's easier to success the Bluff check than the Diplomacy check if you have 10 more points in Bluff. And you should have 11 more in Bluff if your DM allow Bluff to bypass the need of Diplomacy (and anyway, there's a spell that add 20 to your Bluff, and nothing for Diplomacy).
In other words: you're a well-known minister of the king, you have a high Bluff and no Diplomacy, and you want to see the king; but he has forbidden the throne room to anyone. You have better time saying that you're the king's father, or his brother or son, or his jester, or anything except the truth: that you have to see him as a minister. I'm asking for a confirmation about this nonsensical fact.
A very popular opinion is that Bluff can improve NPC's attitude and make them do what the PC wants.
For me, it's logically inconsistent: only Diplomacy and Intimidate can improve attitude, not Bluff. If you allow Bluff to do the same, you end with absurd situations like this:
It seems inconsistent, but it seems also to be the way the majority of the players handle Bluff; therefore, I ask for a clarification...
Evil Lincoln wrote:
In my world, magic works essentially like in yours. Except that I don't impose any fluff to casters : I assume all casters have different interpretation, and that's why they have to decipher scrolls and spellbooks.
When I have to explain the system to a player : "it's like a crossbow; you first load the crossbow. Then you can shot at any time. And if you want to shot again, you must reload. Your character can have his own interpretation of this mechanics, but he knows that he have to prepare a spell before casting it, and he knows that he can only prepare a limited number of spells."
When I play a spellcaster, I generally assume that I warp the weave around me to store my spells; I can then unwarp it with some words and gestures, and the movement of the weave create some effect. Warping the weave is generally longer than unwarping it: the warping process consist of giving it the form I want, and adding a "knot", some constraint to prevent the weave from unwarp; then I have just to remove the "knot" and the weave unwarp on its own.
The weave only accept limited deformations; as I gain levels, I don't warp it more and more: but I am more precise. A very small deformation is sufficient to create a time stop... But it's also a very precise manipulation. As a level 1 wizard, I warp the weave more to store an enlarge person than a powerfull mage warp it to store a time stop, because I don't understand well how the weave react; I pick a small thread of the weave, but all the weave comes with it... But with experience, I understand how to pick only the thread I need.
After I cast the spell, the weave unwarp rapidly... But not totally. It have to relax a bit before I can store a new effect in it.
Final though : the rules don't use the word "memorization". "Memorization" is a remain of AD&D 2 (and previous editions) : since 3e, casters "prepare" spells, they don't "memorize" anything. It's more Zelaznyan that Vancian (the crunch is the same, but the fluff is different).
Excuse me for my poor English... (I'm not even sure that "warp", as in "warp wood", is the word I need)
Great, i'll play a Greek ninja whith his traditional weapon like kama, katana, nunchaku, sai, shuriken, siangham, and wakizashi. "Fear the wrath of Hades' nunchaku !"
Oh, wait. Maybe there will be a ninja archetype which change the weapons proficiencies ? Then I'll use a variant class with variant weapon just to have the rogue talents I want, with an archetype of greek assassin which give me back the weapons I want. Or maybe the greek assassin will have his own variant class, because the myths around rogue, ninja, and greek assassin are not the same ?
Does merisiel use Ki to throw a cloud of knives? or does she rather use skill to throw several knifes?
What's the difference ?
Hunter x hunter doesn't use Ki, it use Nen. Should we entirely rewrite the class for this setting, changing the word "ki" with "nen" ?
I think a better game design is to make a generic power available to any rogue, and to adapt the fluff depending of the power source (be it skill, ki, nen or instinct).
Dorje Sylas wrote:
Seeker, not all the Ninja Tricks are appropriate for other rogues thematically.
could you be more specific ? How can you say that some tricks aren't inappropriate to fit thematically my rogue ?
If you speak about balance issue, I can understand you. But I don't understand how you can say that an ability isn't appropriate thematically, except if you know every rogue concept in the world.
In the APG, there are some magic-like rage powers for the barbarian. the APG doesn't create subclass or the like: if the power is thematically appropriate for your barbarian, you take it, if it isn't, you don't. I don't think anybody needs a "thematically-appropriate-police" to do this.
Because the fiction that surounds Ninja is different from that which surrounds western rogue figures. Because thematically they are different, just like their is a thematic difference between a random folk hero with a sword(fighter) and a monastic knight(paladin). Because refecting thematic difference is the entire point of classes.
I fail to understand your reasoning.
By opening the access of the ninja's talent to any rogue, you don't prevent a ninja to take those talents. You only allow more choice for rogues (and ninjas, since they should as well be able to take any rogue talent); you allow them to have the flavor of a ninja, or of a mystic rogue, or of anything else.
Eg, it would allow a player to play a shadowdancer without the need of the whole prestige class mechanic. Since I hate the prestige class mechanic, it's a gain for me. Since it doesn't remove the PrC mechanic for those who like it, it's not a loss for them. And since it allows you to select only ninja-like abilities, I fail to see your concern.
And personally I see less thematic difference between a mystic rogue (minor magic, major magic, and similar talents) and a ninja than between a core ranger and a shapeshifter ranger.
Your comparison with barbarian miss the point. When I play a raging Matsu in Rokugan, which class do you think I use ? Hint : not the Samouraï. All I need are rage power with Matsu flavor, I don't care that the class has a japanese or a greek name (or a greek name with a nordic concept).
Sure, in a standard party it isn't a huge deal, as it is usable 4,5,6 times a day? (Still pretty nifty). However,I am Running Kingmaker, and the Witch (Lvl 6) can cast it all day, 6 times a minute, 360 times an hour... In a game with armies, this is a HUGE ability. Basically, he can walk around like a Messiah, healing everyone that he meets. That's Cure Mod for over 2,000 soldiers in an 8 hour day?
A cleric's channel ability affects 96 squares; since they're not in combat, there can be 4 soldiers per square. Therefore, a cleric can easily heal 384 soldiers per round, and at level 6 he should have 7 or 8 channel per day (that's more than 2 500 soldiers per day, without nasty tricks like a platform system to get soldiers in the area above and below the cleric)...
It will be very difficult to use Intimidate to create the Shaken condition for more than 2-3 rounds since you have to beat your opponent's check by 5 for each additional round of effect. Even if you can stack the affect to force the frightened condition, that condition is unlikely to persist for more than 2 rounds at which point the target is back to shaken and ceases to flee.
It's not that difficult for an inquisitor :Inquisitor : +1/2*level, +3 class skill
glory domain : +level (you need to touch yourself as a standard action, and then you can use the bonus once during the next hour as a non-action; it means : if you do multiple-Intimidate, you have this bonus only once)
Total : 2.5*level+3+Cha (without any feat or spell). The DC is only 10+level+Sag...
Using only the core, a cleric can also have quite a good score...
Both Weapon Specialization and this new feat have essentially the same prereq, namely 4th level fighter. You can't take both at the same level unless your 4th fighter level is also an odd level, thus giving you two feats to spend.
*You can, with the fighter's retrain option. You only need to forget an other feat.