Fighter: Boat load of feats not a good thing

[ckafrica]

I realize this might be a lost cause but I don't think an ever expanding series of feats is something that will make fighters better or keep them simple. In fact the more feats you add (especially when they are geared towards the fighter) the more complicated the fighter becomes.

This is because the added feats makes it increasingly difficult of make good decisions regarding feat selection. You can end up with so many choices you have no idea what is good for your character. It might not be a problem for experienced players like most of us are but it definitely adds to the confusion of new players

For example: The last game I played we had 2 new players for whom we HAD to choose feats for them because when we showed them the stack of books to choose from the said we had to be kidding. Heck even from core they had a hard time knowing what was what.

Feat trees are also bad for the game because the theory of them seems to be that they replace other power scaling mechanics. Problem here is if you end up not taking one you are now behind the curve. Again experienced players will likely clue in but new ones will very likely miss it. The result is the character gets accidently nerfed by player error. It is only the illusion of choice when any other choice other than continuing up the feat tree would be foolish.

It also niches most fighters at early levels into one trick ponies. One of my last melee types was a charge machine. He did crazy damage on the charge but once he was in melee, he had to either disengage or do a fraction of the damage in foot to foot melee. Because we were relatively low level I had only enough feats to be really good at one thing, and when i couldn't do it I sucked. When I finally had the feats to expand into other areas, the entry feats just weren't that good for the level I was at. It was going to take several levels before my second trick was going to be level appropriate.

Instead of boatloads of fighter feats, could fighters get a series of fighting styles that scale automatically (based on BAB would be my suggestion). They could be attack style or weapon group specific; others opponent specific. Some could be restricted to higher fighter levels to prevent level dipping for the best ones. The main idea, in my mind, would be each one would allow the fighter to be good a something, no matter what the level, without having to keep on stacking the feats. you could even provide limited access to the other martial classes where appropriate.

With all the pages allotted to the sorceror's and wizard's and cleric's new toys, is it unreasonable to do the same for the much lamented figher?

[tergiver]

I think you make some good points, but it's fixable with some crutches. Fighting styles seems like too major of a rework at this point, and doesn't tie into the loads of 3.x feats already out there.

I think there are things that can be done to make feat trees clear to novice players. One is to call out the progression graphically on the feat summary chart, which Paizo did a good job with on pp.78-80 of the PDF.

Another way is to have higher-level sample NPC builds. or at least a list of suggested feat progressions. There's some of this on page 336 and 337, but I'd like to see it tied more closely into character creation instead of NPC creation and sorted into a suggested order for easier builds.

The one trick pony issue is a concern, because fighters optimized around one feat tree will be better than those that diversify. I suppose it may be a cost of keeping fighters simple, but I'm open to alternatives.

[Squirrelloid]

OP +1

Part of the problems with feats is that feat trees are inherently broken. Especially feat trees in which the earlier feats become unplayable with the later feats. Each of those feats is a possible class feature for the fighter - why should some of his class features become useless in later levels? The idea that you can and should burn feats to get access to better abilities is inherently flawed. Its not so bad when its something good (like 3.5 PA), but if Great Cleave is a balanced ability it should be balanced regardless of what feats you took to get there. (And it is). At which point, why bother to have feat pre-requisites?

On the other hand, Overhand Chop is one of the worst feats I've ever seen, on par with 3.5 Toughness. The only reason anyone would ever take it is to get to Devastating Blow, meaning they're setting a feat on fire for that privilege. And they have to take Backswing too, which is also a relatively poor use of a feat, but at least they might actually use it after level 5. Making people take bad feats to get to plausibly good feats helps no one except the casters, who could care less about melee feats. In fact, most feats the casters care about either have no pre-requisites or have exactly one pre-requisite that's rather worthwhile (SF=>GSF, SPen=>GSPen, any meta => quicken).

Feats need to be worthwhile for 20 levels (or however many you can have it for), and they need to exist for a reason other than to add an extra cost to another feat. No one makes spellcasters prepare bad spells, why do we need to make fighters take bad feats?

[tergiver]

Great minds. ;)

Squirrelloid wrote:

Part of the problems with feats is that feat trees are inherently broken. Especially feat trees in which the earlier feats become unplayable with the later feats. Each of those feats is a possible class feature for the fighter - why should some of his class features become useless in later levels?

It's a trade-off, options versus simplicity. If the newer feat is always better than the old feat, then that goes to making fighters easier to play, which is one of the OP's desires. If the older feat is still viable, it gives the fighter more options (less one-trick with the pony) but more complexity in play.

Maybe the fighter needs both kinds of trees?

BTW, I think you're better off pointing out the problems you see (i.e, earlier feats becoming unplayable) and avoiding words like "broken".

Squirrelloid wrote:

The idea that you can and should burn feats to get access to better abilities is inherently flawed.

If you want to argue against feat taxes, I think you won't be alone, but hold that thought till we get there.

[hogarth]

I agree on the feat chains and "pity feats" (i.e. "nobody will take feat X by itself, so maybe we can glue it to something useful"). If you want a feat to be reserved for high level characters, give it a BAB requirement or something like that.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Add another voice of reason to the OP's cause.

If necessary, re-work existing Feats into a Training package under a Feat: [Advanced Training] (Fighter; BAB +6), or the like.

Feats may well help sell expansion books, but it is already ridiculous how many there are, and how they don't balance against each other -- one does barely anything, another does a lot, and they both cost one Feat 'slot', as it were.

I've already started a Point-based Feat thread that didn't seem to garner any support, even though Paizo could very easily retain all existing Feats and simply add a parenthetical point cost(#) next to the name or the PreReqs. Then GMs and Players could feel slightly better about effete Feats, because they'd see the low point cost and know: 'hey this won't do much for me.'

The Feats need some sort of help, and the Fighter needs just a bit more love at all levels (but especially past L4, where most Dippers stop).
My suggestions were shot-down as being to close to the Barbarian's Class Abilities (eye-roll: I though Barbarians were 'fighters'), so someone else is going to have to come up with the Golden Idea that fixes the Fighter.

Please,

[Jason Nelson]

Perhaps the simple answer is to not have feats have fixed effects, but to have the feats themselves scale with level. There is already precedent for this in the game with Stunning Fist, which gets more uses and a higher save DC with level once you have taken the feat, or Leadership that lets you get more mooks and a better cohort. For that matter, the PF Beta skill feats scale now with 10+ skill ranks.

So, by that token, why shouldn't the AC bonus from Dodge or Mobility scale with level? Or, for Dodge be able to work vs. multiple creatures as you go up in level.

You could even, for that matter, make class-specific scaling effects (as with Stunning Fist, where monks get 1 use/level instead of 1/4).

For instance, Weapon Focus could be:

For anybody: +1 to hit with one weapon
For fighter: +1 to hit/4 fighter levels

Weapon Specialization could be available to anybody (make prereq BAB +4), but...

For everybody else: +2 damage with one weapon
For fighter: +1/2 fighter level to damage with one weapon

So perhaps it is not a matter of having MORE feats, but having feats be less fixed in their effects.

This can't be a hard notion to accept.

We accept it for spells (not just more spells, and not just higher-
level spells, but the lower-level ones you have get better over time).

We accept it for class abilities (smite evil, sneak attack, barbarian rage, favored enemy, turn undead).

If in fact feats comprise the dominant "class ability" of the fighter, and even inasmuch as feats work for anyone, why not have feats that go up as you go up.

[Jason Nelson]

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

Add another voice of reason to the OP's cause.

If necessary, re-work existing Feats into a Training package under a Feat: [Advanced Training] (Fighter; BAB +6), or the like.

Feats may well help sell expansion books, but it is already ridiculous how many there are, and how they don't balance against each other -- one does barely anything, another does a lot, and they both cost one Feat 'slot', as it were.

I've already started a Point-based Feat thread that didn't seem to garner any support, even though Paizo could very easily retain all existing Feats and simply add a parenthetical point cost(#) next to the name or the PreReqs. Then GMs and Players could feel slightly better about effete Feats, because they'd see the low point cost and know: 'hey this won't do much for me.'

The Feats need some sort of help, and the Fighter needs just a bit more love at all levels (but especially past L4, where most Dippers stop).
My suggestions were shot-down as being to close to the Barbarian's Class Abilities (eye-roll: I though Barbarians were 'fighters'), so someone else is going to have to come up with the Golden Idea that fixes the Fighter.

Please,

FWIW, I like the idea of point-costing feats, but there is a can of worms there, in that you should probably also point-cost spells (and maybe even skills) as a guide for which ones rock and which ones suck.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there everybody,

While I am not too interested in removing feats from the fighter, I am interested in making feats a better component of the fighter. Unfortunately, this is not yet the place to discuss feat balance. We are going to be adding a number of high utility feats specifically for fighter and other melee based classes.

Hopefully this will help solve up this problem.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Squirrelloid]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there everybody,

While I am not too interested in removing feats from the fighter, I am interested in making feats a better component of the fighter. Unfortunately, this is not yet the place to discuss feat balance. We are going to be adding a number of high utility feats specifically for fighter and other melee based classes.

Hopefully this will help solve up this problem.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

How are we expected to discuss the fighter without discussing feats?

[Jason Bulmahn]

Squirrelloid wrote:

How are we expected to discuss the fighter without discussing feats?

You need to understand that a number of feats are probably going to be rewritten when we get to the feats chapter. I know this limits the discussion on the fighter a bit, but this discussion is going to get really off topic if we start mulling over all the feats. This gets even more true when we get to spellcasters.

I am not saying that you cannot discuss feats, but right now I am focused on the structure of the classes and their abilities. I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Xaaon of Xen'Drik]

I'm in disagreement, inexperienced players have the DM to help them, if you hand a new player a stack of books, you're crazy...

Feat trees work fine, they are stepping stones. It's also Backwards compatible...adding a couple extra feats to fighters is a simple conversion...the easiest is either adding dodge or improved Initiative.

Squirrel and I are often in disagreement. =)

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Perhaps the simple answer is to not have feats have fixed effects, but to have the feats themselves scale with level.

[-snip-]
If in fact feats comprise the dominant "class ability" of the fighter, and even inasmuch as feats work for anyone, why not have feats that go up as you go up.

Good stuff here. Kudos.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Jason Nelson wrote:

FWIW, I like the idea of point-costing feats, but there is a can of worms there, in that you should probably also point-cost spells (and maybe even skills) as a guide for which ones rock and which ones suck.

Yes, I suppose one could make that argument, but then we'd be playing GURPS or HERO, right. ;) I hear you, but I think it would be a step in the right direction, in any case.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

You need to understand that a number of feats are probably going to be rewritten when we get to the feats chapter. I know this limits the discussion on the fighter a bit, but this discussion is going to get really off topic if we start mulling over all the feats. This gets even more true when we get to spellcasters.

I am not saying that you cannot discuss feats, but right now I am focused on the structure of the classes and their abilities. I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Okay, Jason, we're with you on that. So we'll just wait until the Feat discussion is brought up, then. :)

[ckafrica]

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I'm in disagreement, inexperienced players have the DM to help them, if you hand a new player a stack of books, you're crazy...

Right well what happens when you've got a whole new group without much experience, DM included? I'd like to see the need for game mastery to be diminished so that new players can look at something quickly, think "that sounds cool", and have it actually be cool.

As for feat trees, I hated having to take dodge to get something good up the track. Sure it's better now but why can't I just get the feat I want when the developers decide it's appropriate. Level requirements, and MAYBE an attribute requirement should be sufficient for most. It would produce the same effect.

[ckafrica]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Squirrelloid wrote:

How are we expected to discuss the fighter without discussing feats?

You need to understand that a number of feats are probably going to be rewritten when we get to the feats chapter. I know this limits the discussion on the fighter a bit, but this discussion is going to get really off topic if we start mulling over all the feats. This gets even more true when we get to spellcasters.

I am not saying that you cannot discuss feats, but right now I am focused on the structure of the classes and their abilities. I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I guess the problem is with feats being the center of what makes the fighter a fighter, and with us not being able look at what the fighter is going to be able to do with the feats you are promising, how can we judge the effectiveness of the balance of the trainings.

For example depending on what is ultimately done with wpn focus/specialization and power attack will affect how we deem the effectiveness of wpn training.

I appreciate that your trying to compartmentalize everything so you can your team is not overwhelmed but characters are more fluid than that.

[Bagpuss]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Has anyone mentioned the damage resistance at 19th level from Armour Mastery just being too low, yet? Had a look through some threads but didn't see it (which doesn't mean it's not there).

[Andreas Skye]

Not talking of feats themselves, but of the concept of bonus feats, just one suggestion:
To give the option of simplicity vs. complex fighter design, I considered presenting the player with 2 options:

1) "Generic" DIY Fighter: as it is, with bonus feats, whatever feat list we get to choose from if reqs are met and all.

2) "Specialist Fighter": at 1st level, instead of choosing the bonus feat, you declare a "specialist type". That choice has a narrow feat progression for the rest of your fighter career, but with the bonus of letting you take feats without meeting the prerequisites as long as you follow the specialist's specified condition (like a Ranger Combat Style or a monk's bonus feats)

E.G. (sketchy, of course)
Swashbuckling Fighter:
Requirement: Light Armor or no armor only; no shield or buckler only.
Weapon Training restricted to: Blades, Light Blades, Close, Thrown

Bonus Feat list:
1st lvl = Weapon Finesse or Dodge
2nd lvl = Add Two-weapon Fighting and Weapon Expertise to the list
4rd lvl = Add Mobility and Two-Weapon Defense to the list
6th lvl = Add Improved Two Weapon Fighting, etc. etc.

I guess further consideration should wait for the feat discussion, but this approach could give players a balance between detailed builds and iconic fantasy fighter-types.

[Squirrelloid]

Bagpuss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Has anyone mentioned the damage resistance at 19th level from Armour Mastery just being too low, yet? Had a look through some threads but didn't see it (which doesn't mean it's not there).

I'm pretty sure I said something somewhere - I'd like to see it brought up to at least 15/-.

[Arakhor]

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

[Squirrelloid]

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

What low strength weapon attacks does a 19th level fighter expect to be subjected to that matter at all? Seriously? He's supposed to be able to stand toe-to-toe with things like the Tarrasque - laughing off hordes of 1st level commoners doesn't seem unreasonable. He's *19th level*.

[Jal Dorak]

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

The real question is how does the Barbarian feel about this. "Hey, you stole my schtick...and made it 3 times better!"

[Jal Dorak]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

What low strength weapon attacks does a 19th level fighter expect to be subjected to that matter at all? Seriously? He's supposed to be able to stand toe-to-toe with things like the Tarrasque - laughing off hordes of 1st level commoners doesn't seem unreasonable. He's *19th level*.

I honestly do not think anybody is supposed to stand toe-to-toe with the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque is supposed to scare the crap out of people.

Do you really think DR 15/- is going to make the difference between beating the Tarrasque and not?

It's not the commoners, it's the 2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs that have no chance to even damage the fighter if they hit.

Total immunities are not usually a good thing.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

The real question is how does the Barbarian feel about this. "Hey, you stole my schtick...and made it 3 times better!"

> incredulous < I really read that, didn't I?!

Who came first, the Fighter or the Barbarian? Why play a Fighter if all of the Sub-types are better by leaps and bounds than the Fighter?

I'm almost stammering in type as I write this. ...

I'm out of here. You get the Fighter fixed by Hardback or I'm not throwing my money away on this ________.

Later,

[Arakhor]

I'm not sure if that's irony or not, but if it isn't, bye. We won't see you at the launch.

[KnightErrantJR]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there everybody,

While I am not too interested in removing feats from the fighter, I am interested in making feats a better component of the fighter. Unfortunately, this is not yet the place to discuss feat balance. We are going to be adding a number of high utility feats specifically for fighter and other melee based classes.

Hopefully this will help solve up this problem.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Not to go off on the feat tangent, but as a class feature, I'd love to see the idea from the Book of Experimental Might where a fighter gets a bigger boost from feats that he specifically takes as fighter feats as opposed to his normal feat slots, above and beyond what others get when they take the same feat.

[Squirrelloid]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Squirrelloid wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

What low strength weapon attacks does a 19th level fighter expect to be subjected to that matter at all? Seriously? He's supposed to be able to stand toe-to-toe with things like the Tarrasque - laughing off hordes of 1st level commoners doesn't seem unreasonable. He's *19th level*.

I honestly do not think anybody is supposed to stand toe-to-toe with the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque is supposed to scare the crap out of people.

Do you really think DR 15/- is going to make the difference between beating the Tarrasque and not?

It's not the commoners, it's the 2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs that have no chance to even damage the fighter if they hit.

Total immunities are not usually a good thing.

2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs are not a challenge for a 19th level fighter. You may note he *doesn't even get experience for them*. Anything below about CR10 shouldn't even be relevant anymore. So no, I don't consider that a problem. I'm only thinking about things that are actually supposed to be a challenge for the fighter - and those that are attacking physically at 19th level are mostly Huge+ and dealing far more than 15 damage/hit.

The wizard can beat the Tarrasque by himself - if the fighter can't even stand in front of it for a few rounds there's a serious problem. This is part of that 'melee characters can't have nice things' issue, because giving them effective abilities is for some reason not allowed.

Seriously, the wizard can have DR 10/'the monster doesn't have it' by using a 4th level spell (Stoneskin). Giving the fighter protection which actually matters against level-appropriate foes at *19th* level is not unreasonable.

[Jason Nelson]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Jal Dorak wrote:

Squirrelloid wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

15/- would make the fighter basically immune to almost all low-Strength weapon attacks. Are you really sure that's a good idea?

What low strength weapon attacks does a 19th level fighter expect to be subjected to that matter at all? Seriously? He's supposed to be able to stand toe-to-toe with things like the Tarrasque - laughing off hordes of 1st level commoners doesn't seem unreasonable. He's *19th level*.

I honestly do not think anybody is supposed to stand toe-to-toe with the Tarrasque. The Tarrasque is supposed to scare the crap out of people.

Do you really think DR 15/- is going to make the difference between beating the Tarrasque and not?

It's not the commoners, it's the 2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs that have no chance to even damage the fighter if they hit.

Total immunities are not usually a good thing.

2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs are not a challenge for a 19th level fighter. You may note he *doesn't even get experience for them*. Anything below about CR10 shouldn't even be relevant anymore. So no, I don't consider that a problem. I'm only thinking about things that are actually supposed to be a challenge for the fighter - and those that are attacking physically at 19th level are mostly Huge+ and dealing far more than 15 damage/hit.

The wizard can beat the Tarrasque by himself - if the fighter can't even stand in front of it for a few rounds there's a serious problem. This is part of that 'melee characters can't have nice things' issue, because giving them effective abilities is for some reason not allowed.

Seriously, the wizard can have DR 10/'the monster doesn't have it' by using a 4th level spell (Stoneskin). Giving the fighter protection which actually matters against level-appropriate foes at *19th* level is not unreasonable.

All true.

Besides which, the 2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs:

1. Are not hitting the fighter's AC except on a 20 anyway, so whether they in theory could damage him or not is immaterial.

2. If they are low-level (I'm assuming you mean 2nd-5th, not 1st level 'may as well be commoners' mook orcs), they are all PA-ing for their BAB/STR bonus anyway, so on a hit they can do a few points if they roll well on damage. So it's not TOTAL immunity.

3. And, of course, they can try to avalanche the PC with a massed trip/grapple and CDG him. Since their weapon on a double-max crit will most certainly inflict damage and force a CDG save. Which the fighter will almost certainly make, but hey, it's a shot.

I'm not saying ANY of the above is likely, but it should be enough to satisfy the nagging feeling that somehow, some way, that army of goons should be able to at least threaten the fighter.

More importantly, though, this is barely relevant because of the extreme unlikelihood of a 19th level D&D fighter just randomly running into 2000 orcs either. I've played D&D since 1981 and the number of times the "super-fighter vs. army of mooks" scenario has actually come up I could count on one hand and have fingers left over. Compared with the super-fighter in the high-teens fighting giants, elementals, dragons, vampires, demons, and all manner of other level-appropriate bad guys (to say nothing of spellcasters) who are dealing big damage.

And officially speaking, the CR of the tarrasque is 20. Much as we would like him to be uber-epic, by rule he's just another tough monster that an encounter with should expend 20% of the resources of a 20th level party. I had fun one time applying the paragon template from the ELH to the tarrasque. He was pretty hardcore then (CR 36 I think), but the official big T is CR 20.

I'm not saying that a fighter facing an army couldn't happen. I'm just saying that predicating the high-level abilities of PCs should be based on things that 99% of the time will actually happen, rather than the outlier of theoretical possibility, and that even with that, if we use the DR 15/-, you do still retain the theoretical chance of harm, even from a buncha low-threat goons.

[Bagpuss]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Seriously, the wizard can have DR 10/'the monster doesn't have it' by using a 4th level spell (Stoneskin). Giving the fighter protection which actually matters against level-appropriate foes at *19th* level is not unreasonable.

Damn straight. DR 15/- would be OK. As for the massed attacks of low-level enemies, 19th level in D&D terms is right up at the top end of heroic characters from fantasy books and movies, if not beyond it. This is a guy that in theory (alas, not in practice) is comparable to a 19th-level wizard, in terms of enemy-bashing; he's certainly a guy that can block the sort of thing that threatens even a 19th level wizard while the wizard dismantles it from a position of safety. As you point out, 10/'effectively -' is a 4th-level wizard spell; a 19th level fighter just *should* be better.

[NeoSamurai]

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.

[Andreas Skye]

NeoSamurai wrote:

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.

In a post above I suggested the possibility of "specialized style" choice for ready-to-go fighters. In that proposal, the advantage lied in access to a reduced bonus feat list without having to meet the prerequisites (a la ranger combat style). Your proposal sounds interesting, but, I think, would not fix the OP issue: so many feat choices complicating excessively a quite "straightforward" class. Your "techniques" would actually imply more abilities, bookkeeping and feat trees to care of.

[Jal Dorak]

Squirrelloid wrote:

2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs are not a challenge for a 19th level fighter. You may note he *doesn't even get experience for them*. Anything below about CR10 shouldn't even be relevant anymore. So no, I don't consider that a problem. I'm only thinking about things that are actually supposed to be a challenge for the fighter - and those that are attacking physically at 19th level are mostly Huge+ and dealing far more than 15 damage/hit.

The wizard can beat the Tarrasque by himself - if the fighter can't even stand in front of it for a few rounds there's a serious problem. This is part of that 'melee characters can't have nice things' issue, because giving them effective abilities is for some reason not allowed.

Seriously, the wizard can have DR 10/'the monster doesn't have it' by using a 4th level spell (Stoneskin). Giving the fighter protection which actually matters against level-appropriate foes at *19th* level is not unreasonable.

I'm not suggesting the orcs are a challenge individually to the fighter. But the fact they have almost no chance to even scratch him is bit absurd.

As to stoneskin, the spell lasts 200 minutes at most and costs 250gp every time the wizards casts it. The fighter ability is "always on" as long as he wears armor.

I honestly think that anything over DR 10/- is pushing the limit of power-creep. It's not that they shouldn't get effective abilities, it's that they shouldn't get great abilities. Why not just buy adamantine heavy armor?

Now, I'm totally in favour of some of the suggestions - namely a scaling DR bonus rather than a one-off capstone ability. But it should be comparable to the barbarian. Whether or not that means the barbarian DR also gets a boost, I'm open to discussion.

[Jason Nelson]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Squirrelloid wrote:

2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs are not a challenge for a 19th level fighter. You may note he *doesn't even get experience for them*. Anything below about CR10 shouldn't even be relevant anymore. So no, I don't consider that a problem. I'm only thinking about things that are actually supposed to be a challenge for the fighter - and those that are attacking physically at 19th level are mostly Huge+ and dealing far more than 15 damage/hit.

The wizard can beat the Tarrasque by himself - if the fighter can't even stand in front of it for a few rounds there's a serious problem. This is part of that 'melee characters can't have nice things' issue, because giving them effective abilities is for some reason not allowed.

Seriously, the wizard can have DR 10/'the monster doesn't have it' by using a 4th level spell (Stoneskin). Giving the fighter protection which actually matters against level-appropriate foes at *19th* level is not unreasonable.

I'm not suggesting the orcs are a challenge individually to the fighter. But the fact they have almost no chance to even scratch him is bit absurd.

As to stoneskin, the spell lasts 200 minutes at most and costs 250gp every time the wizards casts it. The fighter ability is "always on" as long as he wears armor.

Against the 2000 low-level greatsword-wielding orcs, the wizard wouldn't bother with stoneskin. He'd just cast levitate, fly, overland flight, etc. along with protection from arrows and displacement or greater invisibility and cluster-bomb the orcs from orbit with damage or SoD/SoS. A couple of low-level spells and he becomes about as invulnerable to the army of orcs as our uber-fighter with DR 15/-.

And yes, the "always on" feature is nice, but our battle with the 2000 orcs isn't going to take 200 minutes. It probably wouldn't take 20 for the fighter. It might not even take 2 for the wizard.

You are right to point out that a wizard can't keep up stoneskin as long as our uber-fighter can keep his armor on, but the difference is that the wizard has a bucketload of other defenses to avoid getting attacked in the first place. A lot of them do have countermeasures, sure, but they have enough defensive options that DR will only sometimes come into play. A wizard doesn't need DR to be on all the time.

For a fighter, if they are a melee muncher, their DR and hit points are your class feature. They will come up ALL the time.

Jal Dorak wrote:

I honestly think that anything over DR 10/- is pushing the limit of power-creep. It's not that they shouldn't get effective abilities, it's that they shouldn't get great abilities.

Not to sound crass, but why the hell NOT? The casters are getting great abilities at 17th level. And 15th. And 13th. And whenever else they are getting higher-level spells. AND more lower level spells. AND the spells they already have are getting better.

The caster is always going to win on versatility, and that's fine. But if the caster can have a bunch of great choices, where is the harm in the uber-fighter having ONE great ability, one about which he doesn't even get a choice?

Jal Dorak wrote:

Why not just buy adamantine heavy armor?

Because it only gives DR 3/- that doesn't stack with other DR. Which ain't much, all things considered.

Jal Dorak wrote:

Now, I'm totally in favour of some of the suggestions - namely a scaling DR bonus rather than a one-off capstone ability. But it should be comparable to the barbarian. Whether or not that means the barbarian DR also gets a boost, I'm open to discussion.

Barbarian DR should also get a boost. Barbarian DR also gets to cheat because it is not armor-dependent. He can be butt nekkid and still get his DR.

[Jal Dorak]

I guess for me the concept of - *ding* damage reduction - is what is unappealing to me in regards to the ability.

You spend your whole career fighting, and in the twilight you suddenly are unaffected by blows from more-mortal-men. Just doesn't sit right.

And this is a personal choice, but I just feel DR 15 is too high. It negates the damage bonus from most high-level creatures, leaving them with a few paltry dice of damage against a character with hundreds of hit points. The leap from "no DR" to "almost the best DR in the game" is a bit much - we don't know how it will play out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving the fighter cool abilities. But I'd rather have more options than just one super one.

[toyrobots]

Squirrelloid wrote:

OP +1

Part of the problems with feats is that feat trees are inherently broken. Especially feat trees in which the earlier feats become unplayable with the later feats. Each of those feats is a possible class feature for the fighter - why should some of his class features become useless in later levels? The idea that you can and should burn feats to get access to better abilities is inherently flawed. Its not so bad when its something good (like 3.5 PA), but if Great Cleave is a balanced ability it should be balanced regardless of what feats you took to get there. (And it is). At which point, why bother to have feat pre-requisites?

This is my #1 house rule. No Feat or PrC pre-requisites.

Levels are too infrequent to punish players for choices they made ages ago, perhaps not knowing any better.

Under this policy, some feat chains can be replaced outright by allowing the same feat to be taken multiple times (Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus). Feats that are only conceptually related (Mounted Combat and Ride-By-Attack) must stand on their own merits, and when an earlier feat in a chain assists a later one (Power Attack and Cleave), they still stand on their own merits.

Feats that are too weak because they were only intended as "stepping stones" sometimes need a boost to make them worth it (they got to Dodge already). Feats that are too strong get a minimum level pinned on, usually whatever level you would have had to be to get that feat in the conventional system.

As a GM, it makes me happy because my players don't spend more time planning their progression than they spend thinking about the game. Players are happy because they get to "skip" feats that don't benefit their concept.

It's not for everyone, but this rule fixes a lot in my games.

[Squirrelloid]

Jal Dorak wrote:

I guess for me the concept of - *ding* damage reduction - is what is unappealing to me in regards to the ability.

You spend your whole career fighting, and in the twilight you suddenly are unaffected by blows from more-mortal-men. Just doesn't sit right.

And this is a personal choice, but I just feel DR 15 is too high. It negates the damage bonus from most high-level creatures, leaving them with a few paltry dice of damage against a character with hundreds of hit points. The leap from "no DR" to "almost the best DR in the game" is a bit much - we don't know how it will play out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving the fighter cool abilities. But I'd rather have more options than just one super one.

You know, we could make it one of a couple options, and have it be around DR 20/something obscure, like Mistletoe or Being hit in the Ankle (requires a sunder attempt?). I mean, its not like the concept of the nearly invulnerable character isn't prevalent in mythology. Of course, all such characters inevitably die to their weakness...

[Dennis da Ogre]

I'm kind of partial to the idea of feat chains. I agree that having chains with worthless starter feats is bad but I think the idea that a player that invests in a series of related feats that build on each other should be rewarded by a greater effect. Some chains make sense, I think the PRPG version of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack is a good example of a chain where the feats all progress and are all useful. If all of the chains followed a similar progression I think it would help significantly.

I also agree with one of the problems the original poster stated, the proliferation of combat feats has lead to a lot of confusion and poorly built characters. If individual feats were more balanced and feat chains were more logical and effective then it would be easier for players to design their characters.

[toyrobots]

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

I'm kind of partial to the idea of feat chains. I agree that having chains with worthless starter feats is bad but I think the idea that a player that invests in a series of related feats that build on each other should be rewarded by a greater effect. Some chains make sense, I think the PRPG version of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack is a good example of a chain where the feats all progress and are all useful. If all of the chains followed a similar progression I think it would help significantly.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I see the allure. At the same time, pre-reqs cause undesirable behavior and detract from the character when players make mistakes. The absence of pre-requisites, with the guidelines I mentioned in my last post, has not in any way detracted from the game. Nobody has said "Dang, I wish I had to take dodge to get mobility!" nor have I heard "Dodge is worthless." (since it's the Beta Version)

It's worth noting that for setting level pre-requisites, I assume a non-human progression. I don't find that this penalized humans too much, because without pre-reqs it's easy for them to pick up some other worthwhile feat.

I'm not sure this would be a good change for the PRPG, although if Jason is serious about the above statements he could do worse than to pay attention to the logic here, if not the execution. Unless a feat has a great reason to hold another feat as a pre-req, replace it with Minimum Caster Level or Base Attack Bonus. Then the Fighter will be free to diversify.

[Jal Dorak]

Squirrelloid wrote:

You know, we could make it one of a couple options, and have it be around DR 20/something obscure, like Mistletoe or Being hit in the Ankle (requires a sunder attempt?). I mean, its not like the concept of the nearly invulnerable character isn't prevalent in mythology. Of course, all such characters inevitably die to their weakness...

That's actually a really cool idea - like you said, it has a mythological base and gives the fighter something neat in their character design to make them unique.

Obviously, for starters they could select materials or damage type, but I agree they should get to make interesting choices as well. It's not like that isn't part of the game, Rakshasa's get insta-killed by holy bolts after all.

If it does go this route, I would still like to see a bit of scaling. Maybe even give them fewer weaknesses they higher the level.

[Dennis da Ogre]

toyrobots wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong, I see the allure. At the same time, pre-reqs cause undesirable behavior and detract from the character when players make mistakes. The absence of pre-requisites, with the guidelines I mentioned in my last post, has not in any way detracted from the game. Nobody has said "Dang, I wish I had to take dodge to get mobility!" nor have I heard "Dodge is worthless." (since it's the Beta Version)

Part of the problem I see is that feats are viewed in isolation. If the chains were more plainly labeled or perhaps feats in a chain were grouped together in the book then it would make more sense. Most players have a learning curve when it comes to feats and related feats tend to be scattered around the book. For example to try and figure out a reasonable TWF character you windup flipping through 12 pages of the book in a completely non-linear fashion. No wonder players wind up confused over prereqs. I see the appeal of alphabetizing feats but the problem is it makes it a serious PITA figuring out what goes where.

One possibility is to have a few sample builds in an obvious place. Wizards started doing this after the PHB but it wasn't concise and often didn't help much.

A chapter, or even a supplement on building effective characters would be huge. I'm not talking about an uber CharOp type guide but rather a straight forward "PRPG Character Builders Guide". 3-4 sample character of each class with full feat progression (not just fully built XXth level characters).

toyrobots wrote:

I'm not sure this would be a good change for the PRPG, although if Jason is serious about the above statements he could do worse than to pay attention to the logic here, if not the execution. Unless a feat has a great reason to hold another feat as a pre-req, replace it with Minimum Caster Level or Base Attack Bonus. Then the Fighter will be free to diversify.

Well I would suggest that a feat tree should be filled with related feats with each 'required' feat having a logical reason for being a prereq to the successor. And each successor feat should be more powerful than any stand alone feat.

For example:
Mobility requires you be able to dodge stuff. Spring Attack requires you be able to move through combat well... Both these links are logical extensions of the previous one, both prereqs are useful of themselves.

Similarly:
Improved TWF requires TWF... duh

Conversely:
Whirlwind Attack Requires Combat Expertise.... Huh?

Let's make feat trees that make sense, not make feats that are arbitrary gatekeepers to better feats.

Another feat combo I hate but not fighter related:
Spell Focus (Conjuration) -> Augment Summoning
Hey... augmented summoning is good but so good you have to take a nearly worthless feat to get it?

[sacerd]

toyrobots wrote:

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

I'm kind of partial to the idea of feat chains. I agree that having chains with worthless starter feats is bad but I think the idea that a player that invests in a series of related feats that build on each other should be rewarded by a greater effect. Some chains make sense, I think the PRPG version of Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack is a good example of a chain where the feats all progress and are all useful. If all of the chains followed a similar progression I think it would help significantly.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I see the allure. At the same time, pre-reqs cause undesirable behavior and detract from the character when players make mistakes. The absence of pre-requisites, with the guidelines I mentioned in my last post, has not in any way detracted from the game. Nobody has said "Dang, I wish I had to take dodge to get mobility!" nor have I heard "Dodge is worthless." (since it's the Beta Version)

It's worth noting that for setting level pre-requisites, I assume a non-human progression. I don't find that this penalized humans too much, because without pre-reqs it's easy for them to pick up some other worthwhile feat.

I'm not sure this would be a good change for the PRPG, although if Jason is serious about the above statements he could do worse than to pay attention to the logic here, if not the execution. Unless a feat has a great reason to hold another feat as a pre-req, replace it with Minimum Caster Level or Base Attack Bonus. Then the Fighter will be free to diversify.

This is as close to a perfect fix that I have ever seen. I will be implementing this in the next d20 game I run. Have you ever figured out what the BAB should be for the various feats?

[Ordos]

Hi --

Dumb question but, why not make the feats for fighters just level based? It can be 'backwards compatible' if you make the level required to get the feat what it would have been in if you had a used a feat tree (or previous editions). So this way, if someone WANTS Whirlwind attack, they don't need to meticulously map our their character from 1st level. When they get to 15th level (or whatever level they would have been able to get Whirlwind attack), they meet the pre-req (more or less).

In the end, it becomes no different than a spell really...

Also, for the 15/-- debate, why not say that he can get 15/-- against a single foe only (that he designates); much like Dodge. So, this way, if he does fight a Tarrasque alone, he gets the 15/-- and if he fights 2000 Orcs, he'll be safe against one of them only. And the pre-req away from just 'armour' to being able to wield his weapon to 'block blows' (hence, giving him a 15/--).

Just a thought.

Thanks

Eg:

Whirlwind Attack [General]
Prerequisites:
Int 13+
Dex 13+,
base attack bonus +4 or higher
15th level.

Benefit: When the character performs the full attack action, he or she can give up all regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at the full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.

EDIT: I just noticed that Toyrobots suggested that; I should have read the post more carefully. In any case, I agree with his assessment.

[toyrobots]

sacerd wrote:

This is as close to a perfect fix that I have ever seen. I will be implementing this in the next d20 game I run. Have you ever figured out what the BAB should be for the various feats?

My formula is as follows: existing BAB and Caster Level pre-reqs stay. Beyond that, if it requires 1 pre-req feat, give it a BAB/Caster Level requirement of 3. For Each additional pre-req feat, add 2.

Obviously Caster Level Pre-reqs go to magical feats, and Base Attack pre-reqs go to Combat Feats. For instance, Whirlwind attack has 2 feat pre-requisites, so I read that as minimum BAB 6.

It's worth noting that Feats that actually use the same mechanic, just beefed up, need attention. See my reply to Dennis below.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Well I would suggest that a feat tree should be filled with related feats with each 'required' feat having a logical reason for being a prereq to the successor. And each successor feat should be more powerful than any stand alone feat.
For example:
Mobility requires you be able to dodge stuff. Spring Attack requires you be able to move through combat well... Both these links are logical extensions of the previous one, both prereqs are useful of themselves.

Similarly:
Improved TWF requires TWF... duh

Conversely:
Whirlwind Attack Requires Combat Expertise.... Huh?

Let's make feat trees that make sense, not make feats that are arbitrary gatekeepers to better feats.

Another feat combo I hate but not fighter related:
Spell Focus (Conjuration) -> Augment Summoning
Hey... augmented summoning is good but so good you have to take a nearly worthless feat to get it?

I'd argue that a +1 to AC for a round and a +4 to AC vs. specific attacks are NOT clearly linked mechanics. This is a conceptual link, and I think Dodge stands on it's own merits. I have no problem with representing them as separate feats, with Mobility requiring a Base Attack of +3 (if you're using defense bonus, I would go with that instead.)

Eliminate those feats that are just blocks of text that repeat the obvious. Weapon focus, for instance, could contain the text of Greater Weapon Focus in negligable space, simply by stating: "You can take weapon focus up to three times, once at Bab +1, once at Bab +" whatever and so on.

Basically, if several feats do the same thing in different magnitude, they should be one feat that you can just keep taking. If they have different mechanics, make them different feats, and give them a level/class based restriction like CL or BAB top make sure the real powerhouses aren't let loose too early.

EDIT: One more serious advantage; eliminating feat-based pre-req basically makes the most onerous aspects of CharOp behavior obsolete. I mean no disrespect to people who enjoy that sort of thing, but I don't. If there's a great feat, nobody has to bend over backwards to build an eligible character for it...

EDIT 2: I'm hesitant to offer this as well, but no pre-reqs is backward compatible. ;)

[ckafrica]

Ordos wrote:

Whirlwind Attack [General]
Prerequisites:
Int 13+
Dex 13+,
base attack bonus +4 or higher
15th level.

Benefit: When the character performs the full attack action, he or she can give up all regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at the full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.

Just to point out that there is no point to require BAB of 4 if your gonna have 15th level pre-requisite.

Whirlwind should be level 4 at most.

It is a basic shtick that any martial type should be able to wade through a bunch of low level mooks who step up. It serious doesn't even matter if you are fighter level appropriate things because hitting 4 fire giants surrounding you with a single attack is about as effective as slapping them. You're just going to make them made.

[Squirrelloid]

Guys, the thing you're missing about feat trees is that they often take a very limited resource (feats) and set them on fire to perform just one trick. This is not acceptable when the other class paradigm involves gaining *multiple spells per level*, each of which is a viable trick, and that's in addition to a lesser but still substantial number of feats.

Example:
The TWFing feat tree is completely unacceptable - it should not take 3 feats (4 with Supreme TWF from non-core) to do the trick of fighting with two weapons marginally well (you need additional feats to even be *good* at it). It should take one. And that's still not a great feat because it makes you only marginal at fighting with two weapons.

At most a fighter should be spending two feats per trick if he wants to be at all effective, which means the basic TWFing feat should probably include all of the following:

Two-Weapon Fighting [Combat]:
Pre-Requisites: BAB+1, Dex 15
*1 off-hand attack per on-hand attack
*no penalties for using a non-light off-hand weapon (suffers only -2/-2)
*full str bonus with off-hand weapon
*a Shield bonus to AC equal to 1 +1/off-hand attack

(so it starts at 2 and goes up to 5, mostly competitive with having used a shield, except you obviously don't have a shield which can hold other enchantments)

That's just one feat. There should be a second feat, probably a tactical feat, which includes abilities like TW Rend. Say something like the following:

Two-Weapon Mastery [Combat] [Tactical]
Pre-Requisites: BAB +6, Dex 17
The TWM feat contains a number of benefits that trigger when certain conditions are met:
(A) Whenever you hit a creature with an attack from two or more different weapons you are attacking with, you may rend for 2x highest base weapon damage dice + 1.5x str mod.
(B) Whenever you are wielding two or more weapons and do one of the following - use Combat Expertise, fight defensively, or take a full defense action - double the defensive benefits from doing so.
(C) Whenever you are wielding two weapons and make a disarm or trip attempt, you may sacrifice additional attacks from the opposite hand (starting with the highest attack bonus remaining) to aid in the attempt. Each sacrificed attack nets you a +6 bonus on the trip or disarm attempt.

Feats seriously need to be that good for the fighter as it stands to be worth the paper its printed on. (And as my copy is digital, that's not worth very much). Because the fighter really should be good at 5 things by 10th level, and he can't be if every trick requires 6 feats to do well.

[Dragnmoon]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Stuff about Feats

I like this alot..Make sure you bring this up When we talk about Feats.

But this will help all the martial classes, I still think we need stuff that Help FIghter Classes to make them unique from the other martial classes.

[ruemere]

My opinion is that player should be able to decide on target archetype (or build) and than customize it through feats.

So, while the core class abilities of the fighter should make him him more durable and stronger over levels, its the customization angle which should provide a selling point to customers, er, players.

In order to reign in feat suggestion, I would advise to produce a quick list of archetypes suitable for Fighter class, and verify that such fighters are doable.

Example fighter character archetypes:
1. Armored Juggernaut - monstrosity with high defenses and high offenses. Particularly effective against groups.
2. Skirmisher - highly mobile skirmisher with good protection against ranged attacks and attacks. Particularly effective against single opponents.
3. Commander - officer leading armies. Often mounted. Decent offense, defense, diplomatic skills, decent mobility. Particularly effective with morale boosting abilities.
4. Protector - typical MMORPG tank character, i.e. fighter type with high defense, high hitpoint reservoir, ability to withstand SoD. Particularly effective at stopping opponent advance (Attacks of opportunity, Trip, Bash and so on).
5. Sheriff - self-sufficient fighter. Jack of all weapons and master techniques, able to self-heal, decent in all fighter areas.

Also, there are special aspect of fighter which should be important part of possible character development - these are not archetypes per se, rather aspects to be added to basic archetypes as per player wishes:
1. Arcane - fighter capable of shrugging off magic attacks.
2. Siege - fighter capable of operating siege machines.
3. Mounted - warhorse rider. Knows how to protect his mount from high level offense.

There are various ways to implement this, one could for example design talent trees (a fighter chooses a few talent trees and bonus feats are added automatically at certain character levels):
- Arcane Protector, Siege Skirmisher or Mounted Sheriff

Another thing is do define feat pools and assign them archetype or aspect names. By choosing feat pools fighter would automatically get bonus feat pools to build from (more flexible than talent trees at the cost of more thinking).

Thoughts?

Regards,
Ruemere

[Jason Nelson]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Guys, the thing you're missing about feat trees is that they often take a very limited resource (feats) and set them on fire to perform just one trick. This is not acceptable when the other class paradigm involves gaining *multiple spells per level*, each of which is a viable trick, and that's in addition to a lesser but still substantial number of feats.

(snipsville)

I agree in principle here. I might spread it out slighly more like so:

1st feat - basic application
2nd feat - scaling improvement
3rd feat - icing on the cake

In fact, it might be better to call these feats 1, 2A, and 2B, because you could take one without the other.

In the case of TWF, this would basically be:

1st feat - Ambidexterity (in the 3.0 sense) and TWF - you can use a weapon equally well with either hand, and you can do basic TWF. I might even add TW Defense as a basic feature.

2nd feat - All BAB-scaled increases to attack (ITWF, GTWF, Supreme TWF, Extra-Gnarly-Mega-TWF, whatever) and defense (ITWD, etc.)

3rd feat - TW Rend, TW Pounce, Double Slice, and whatever other TWF doo-dads are out there that I'm too lazy to go look up

************

Look, the diff between 2 feats and 3 is not huge, but adds comparative value to the fighter vs. other martial classes, in that they are best able to do the big stacks and more of them.

I completely agree that a fighter should have more than one set of talents, and the fact that each suite of tricks should only cost 2 or 3 feats enables that and gets us away from the one trick pony problem.

Just for yuks, I looked at my 16th level cohort from STAP, who is a ranger/scout/PrC and primarily is an uber-charger. He has NINE feats devoted to his uber-charger-ness (including the bonus TWF from ranger which he uses when charging due to PrC/feat-based abilities).

You know how many other feats he has? FOUR. Two of those are bonus feats that he got from his base classes, and another one was a prereq for a PrC.

So how many feats were actually free choice? ONE.

(BTW, it was Shield Ward from the PH2, adding shield bonus to touch AC and defense vs. grapple/trip/bull rush/etc.)

Now, due to judicious building he's also pretty good at stand-up full-attack combat and he's okay with a bow if he can move around (skirmish damage). He also has some okay but not great PrC spellcasting.

But this is a 16th level warrior-champion, and he really has 1 great combat schtick (charge), 1 good one (stand-up full attack), and two not great but not terrible fallback options.

Compared to his boss (a beguiler), just a few levels higher, who has a jillion potential tricks, even with his fairly thin spell list.