When reading my comments below on the combat feats, bear in mind that I have never been a great fan of feats in any form. And the more powerful the feat, the more I tend to dislike it.
IMO, feats should be for minor character delineation and to implement things that can not be done as part of the combat system. Or to enhance natural parts of the combat system. For example:
TWF feats are a good use of feats; - everyone can use TWF, but the feats make is much more effective
Power Attack is a bad feat - everyone should be able to say "Im going to hit really hard this time, and I don't care about accuracy", and they should probably take a -6 and get 50% more damage. The feat should improve this.
To make my position clear, I believe that the vast bulk of feats should become combat actions and be (sometimes) replaced by "Improves *" feats.
[Edit: Just to be clear: I'm taking the time to make this long post because I *like* the work Paizo has done and would like to help. If my comments sound negative it's because I spent no time varnishing what I wanted to say]
So...to my comments:
AOO removing feats: Several feats (improved grapple, improved overrun etc) include the ability to avoid AOO. In a suspension-of-disbelief sense, I can not understand what you could possibly do while closing to HTH range NOT to provide an AOO, short of becoming ethereal. And whatever it is you do, is an ability that should be applicable at other times.Perhaps it should be called ... MOBILITY.
Recommendation: Never remove AOO, and if necessary create a new 'Situational Awareness' feat that reduces the risk from AOOs (perhaps increasing your AC). And yes, I'm not a big fan of Mobility...it should just *reduce* the risk.
Sunder: Not even sure why Sunder provokes as AOO. We don't have hit location, but if I were to say "I'm trying to hit my opponents left arm" should that provoke an AOO? Why should "I'm trying to hit their Shield/Sword/etc".
"Improved *" Feats in general: IMO they should be like "Improved Channelling": give a higher chance of success. Don't mind if they improve the quality of the result in some *small* way. Some, like Improved Grapple should probably provide a +4 BUT also reduce your AC by a similar amount.
Turn Elemental/Outsider: Makes no sense *unless* your deity is opposed to that element/plane. Then it should be a natural par tof Turning. No need for the feat.
Arcane Strike: Why the one round limit? Just make it permanent and call it Arcane Aura. Give it a secondary affect of -2 to stealth checks.
Overhand Chop: Seems like a minor variant of Power Attack (without the -ve to hit). Does not make sense to me; 2H weapons are more unweildy...how can I get more damage out of them without some dis-benefit? Good candidate for a 'Combat Manoever' with an associated negative.
Power Attack: Another candidate for a Combat Action with "Improved Power Attack". IMO it would not be particularly unbalancing to allow any player to swap to-hit for damage on a 2:1 basis.
Backswing: Probably needs some explanation. Is this hitting foes behind you? If so, is there a limit on who you can target? Seems like an unnecessary variation on cleave to me.
Careful Targetting: Grrrrr. This is one that gets my goat. What does it represent? If I'm that good at targetting, shouldnt I get improved chances of critical as well? I completely agree with dropping "Precise Shot", but I'm not sure it needs replacing. Also, going from 90% covery to 70% cover (*tripling* likelihood of being hit) seems excessive. If someone is behind 90% cover, yes, call in Legolas...he will wait until the target shows itself, then "take the shot"...
If that is what you are trying to simulate, then create a "Sniper Shot" feat: nominate a target and then you can take no other action until shot is taken or action is cancelled. While active, you are at -4 AC and easily surprised, but assuming the target is moving, after 2 rounds you can take a shot that is at +4 and doubles the effective chance to bypass cover (90% becomes 80%; 50% cover becomes 0%). Oh....and make this a combat action too. Then introduce "Improved Snipe Shot" to give icreased +'s or better defence and increased critical threat range.
Caught Off Guard: Grrrr. Again. This is role playing. No place for a feat. As to the "no penalties" then create a new Weapon Class: Improvised Weapons, and let people take it as a feat. Treat it like Simple Weapons etc.
Dazzling Display: Ditto. It's called role playing. And Charisma. And Chutzpah.
Deadly Stroke: Seems like something that should be....a combat manoever. Perhaps requiring a skill check.
Deft Shield: Has suspension of disbelief problems for me. "I'm going to whack this guy with my Big Plank of Wood (tm), while at the same time using same Big Plank of Wood (tm) to block all frontal incoming attacks". Seems hard, but if it's possible, then....it should be a combat manoever. And the feat increases the chance in some way.
Devastating Blow: Auto-criticals are not a good idea.
Double-Slice: Again, this looks like it is trying to achieve a result from a movie. I suspect all knife fighters will do this as part of basic training. Not sure, don't use knives myself. But why apply only when TWF? If there is something special about this (other than +2 to off-hand), then maybe keep it....but make it a combat action.
Exact Targetting: See comments on Careful Targetting
Gorgons Fist: Dont like monks, never play them or let players choose them. Will ignore all mon-related feats.
Pinoint Targetting: See Careful Targetting
Razor Sharp Chair Leg: Catchy name, but maybe "Improvised Weapons" would be better. But all improvised weapons *should* have negatives. They have no balance, differ considerably between instances etc. Skill can *reduce* this disbenefit, but not eliminate it.
Shield Master: See Deft Shield.
Shield Slam: See Deft Shield. Also, needs to be a combat action if implemented. Then do "Improved Shield Slam".
Stunned Defense: Not really sure what it's tryimg to achieve. Seems like a morale-based role-playing thing. If they are so impressed and fearful, they'd probably run away. Or surrender.
Throw Anything: See Razor Sharp Chair Leg.
Turning Smite: Should be automatically granted but only for deities preferred weapon. And permanently on. But have a lower chance of succeeding than a real 'turn'.
Two Weapon Rend: See double-slice. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, especially as I advance with my pointy table leg in one had and heft my beer mug in the other.
Weapon Swap: This one is just more or less nonsensical. Why weild two weapons? In my left hand I will weild my Imagined Dagger of Nothingness...make my right-handed attacks, then swap to my left hand....and make some more. I think the idea behind two weapon fighting is that the attacks occur (at least logically) concurrently.
Sad as it is Dungeons & Dragons is far from role-playing.
Don't get me wrong: My first goal in designing a campaign is figuring out ways to resolve conflicts without rolling dice and allowing character strengths to show through. That said, this is still a conflict resolution game. Dice are used because some body has to lose, and sometimes it's not the most poetic or ironic event, like most stories would tell you.
I hate combat feats. I like feats because they are ways for me to customize my character apart from that other guy. Also, they build my abilities and powers horizontally. Vertical power comes with experience and levels, so that is fine. But how do you broaden your character's general abilities? Feats.
I dislike 4e's method of doing feats, which is what you are suggesting. Giving minor additions or separations to tweak, not define. If that's all feats do, then we are even closer to cookie cutter PCs than before.
TWF is a great feat line. While I agree with you that Power Attack is probably more logical to allow everyone to do it, it does make some sense to force someone to train themselves or be trained in power attacking, because it's reckless. Someone untrained would probably get themselves killed while trying a stunt like this. Remember, general guidelines to simulate combat roles and situations. If you make rules too specific in action then people won't want to do it.
Who wants to sit and take a -4 to anything and wait for someone to move in a combat round when combat rounds don't make a lick of sense to begin with?! What you really mentioned the sniper shot feat is just readying an action. Anyone can do that.
I rant. Carry on.
I hate combat feats. I like feats because they are ways for me to customize my character apart from that other guy.
I agree that differentiation is the most defensible use of feats.
Also, they build my abilities and powers horizontally. Vertical power comes with experience and levels, so that is fine. But how do you broaden your character's general abilities? Feats.
Well, feats, skills, multi-classing, prestige classes, equipment, in-game relationships all build general in-game abilities.
I dislike 4e's method of doing feats, which is what you are suggesting. Giving minor additions or separations to tweak, not define. If that's all feats do, then we are even closer to cookie cutter PCs than before.
Yes and no; 4e introduced a plethora of (dreadful,IMO) special at-will/encounter/daily powers to replace the more powerful feats. I am merely suggesting toing down feats and making them combat actions in may cases, then building feat lines, like TWF, that enhance actions.
In games I have played, differentiation has usually been achieved by a rich rule-base from which noone can possibly have all skills or all spells.
Perhaps and answer here might be to associate a feat will some kind of trainable skill level *in that feat*, separate from the normal skill aquisition system, or maybe not separate. Not sure, and this is probably too big a change for Pathfinder at this stage.
While I agree with you that Power Attack is probably more logical to allow everyone to do it, it does make some sense to force someone to train themselves or be trained in power attacking
...
would probably get themselves killed while trying a stunt like this.
Emphasis here on 'force them to...'; I'd prefer to see people with the training benefit, much like the TWF model. Reckless people will get killed. Hey, you could even introduce -4 AC for untrained ppl.
Remember, general guidelines to simulate combat roles and situations. If you make rules too specific in action then people won't want to do it.
YES! And that's exactly as I see many feats; specific kludges with one-off rule modifications that reduce streamlining and add very little value to the game that could not be added in a more generalist way.
What you really mentioned the sniper shot feat is just readying an action. Anyone can do that.
Well, the detail of the Snipe Shot suggestion is somewhat different. But...it really comes down to what the authors were trying to achieve with their new missile feats. People who I know who can shoot accurately tend to take their time aiming, and dont like distractions. If you want to make some kind of Super Accuracy feat, then at least draw on the way most people experience such things.
I rant. Carry on.
We live to rant.