Acrobatic Steps/ Nimble Moves:
I would suggest also adding a bonus to Balance checks. (specific usage of Acrobatics)
Improved Greater Fortitude/ Iron Will/ Lightning Reflexes:
Given that I've seen word-count economy mentioned as a factor, these seem like a rather un-necessary waster of space. I'd rather see a "Masterful Save" Feat, which allowed you the limited re-roll effect to apply to Fort/Ref/Will if you have any of GF, IW, AND LR. Which would require 4 Feats instead of 6 if you wanted the benefit for all of them. And also takes up 4/6th the page space in the book... BONUS!
Shield Focus/ Greater Shield Focus:
2 Feats to gain +2 Shield AC just doesn't seem worthwhile.
Shield Focus itself should just have a +2 bonus, and Shield Mastery/GSM have their DR.
Greater Bull Rush
Greater Disarm
Both of these seem like they should be a part of the standard "Improved Bullrush/Disarm".
Greater Grapple
I might say that this could be a basic part of the standard "Improved Grapple".
But I think how Grapple itself works could use some work. Making it a Standard Action-only (not AT ALL compatible with Full Attack) basically screws PCs, since all the MONSTERS that tend to Grapple PCs all have IMPROVED GRAB which doesn't interfere with their normal (Full) Attacks. I would rather see Improved Unarmed and Improved Grapple be consolidated into one Feat, and Greater Grapple (requiring the consolidated Imp.UA/Grapple) would allow the use of Grapple with iterative attacks. It's not just about multiple Grapple attempts per round, as much as meaning you can't punch/bite/shiv your Grappling opponent if you want to try and Pin them at all, while they get all Natural Attacks. I mentioned this elsewhere, that the wording of Grapple means that the TARGET of an Initiated Grapple is able to Pin the original Grapple Attacker IN ONE ROUND (the INTENT is obviously to require two consecutive rounds to acquire a Pin, but it drastically favors the Defender currently).
Greater [Manuever]
Like the Greater [Saving Throw] Bonuses, but more so, because there's more Maneuvers. Having a consolidated "Greater Maneuver" Feat, which applied the appropriate benefit to ANY Maneuver for which you had the "Improved Maneuver" Feat seems appropriate and not over-powered to me. And... Saves more page space!
Lunge
Instead of the -4 AC Penalty, I'd rather see an effect like a STR penalty to att/damage.
Master Craftsman
I like it! It actually gives an NPC with +20 Craft Arms & Armor a useful role in-game!
Shall Not Pass
I like it!
Step Up
I like it!
Strike Back
Given that it's a Readied Action, precluding a Full Attack, I don't think a -2 Penalty is needed.
If Ready Action is changed to ALLOW Readied Full Attacks, then it would be appropriate.
The Critical Feats
I don't know if there REALLY needs to be this many options. They could be consolidated, or some dropped.
A lesser number of them could grant a 2nd "more powerful" effect at appropriate level.
|
I don't see the point of Strike Back. You can already ready an action to strike someone when they attack you. Why do we need a feat for it, that will take up a slot for no reason? I can see the fighter readying an action like this instead of moving up and letting the enemy full attack him, but this is already part of the rules. Why add a trap option?
I'm not sure you technically can ready an action to do this normally. A readied action takes place as soon as the action starts that triggers it, which is why you can disrupt spellcasting. So, once the creature with reach, it would trigger your attack, which would take place before its extremity is in range to hit you.
At least that's how I interpret it. If you could ready an action to hit someone every time they attacked you with reach, reach really wouldn't mean a whole lot.
Step Up
I love this Feat, but it's very Offensive focused, preventing an opponent from "Disengaging" from you to do something else.
I'd like to see a DEFENSIVE usage, which used the same mechanic (Immediate 5' Step) but let you step BACK when an Opponent moved towards YOU.
It could be part of the same Feat, or a distinct one.
If it were distinct, I think allowing it to apply to ANY movement that would put you in Melee Range of an opponent, i.e. not just 5' steps, would be appropriate. This would obviousy hamper Full Attacks against you, as well as Casters trying to deliver a Touch Spell against you. If you were at the limits of an enemy's Charge range, you might just step back out of melee range of them completely.
|
|
At least that's how I interpret it. If you could ready an action to hit someone every time they attacked you with reach, reach really wouldn't mean a whole lot.
Except you're making one standard action attack to their full. Plus, the ready action option exists for minor cases like this. This is putting the player into the position of spending a feat to do something he should be allowed to do already.
I would much prefer things like this to be available to the players as part of their basic actions, not something they have to purchase. Much like you have to buy the Block and Dodge buttons in Fable 2. They should be available from the get go.
Critical Feats
I agree with top poster, there is no real reason to have so many different effects. Maybe 1 or 2 feats that let you have a choice "When you score a critical you can either blind or deafen an enemy".
These feats are highly skewed towards large numbers of attacks per round (more chances to critical) and weapons with large critical ranges. I can see a resurgence of rapiers, scimitars, and falchions in the fighter crowds :)
My final gripe about these feats is the fact that it breaks the critical model by making the 20/x3 and 20/x4 weapons less significant because the higher crit range weapons are going to crit so much more frequently and the secondary effect is so much more powerful than straight damage.
I love the idea behind the crit feats but they have some serious issues.
Indeed, the carefull balance between the different weapons gets screwed up.
Well I've questioned how 'careful' the balance is... but this throws a monkey wrench in the works for certain.
|
Acrobatic Steps/ Nimble Moves:
I would suggest also adding a bonus to Balance checks. (specific usage of Acrobatics)Improved Greater Fortitude/ Iron Will/ Lightning Reflexes:
Given that I've seen word-count economy mentioned as a factor, these seem like a rather un-necessary waster of space. I'd rather see a "Masterful Save" Feat, which allowed you the limited re-roll effect to apply to Fort/Ref/Will if you have any of GF, IW, AND LR. Which would require 4 Feats instead of 6 if you wanted the benefit for all of them. And also takes up 4/6th the page space in the book... BONUS!Shield Focus/ Greater Shield Focus:
2 Feats to gain +2 Shield AC just doesn't seem worthwhile.
Shield Focus itself should just have a +2 bonus, and Shield Mastery/GSM have their DR.Greater Bull Rush
Greater Disarm
Both of these seem like they should be a part of the standard "Improved Bullrush/Disarm".Greater Grapple
I might say that this could be a basic part of the standard "Improved Grapple".
But I think how Grapple itself works could use some work. Making it a Standard Action-only (not AT ALL compatible with Full Attack) basically screws PCs, since all the MONSTERS that tend to Grapple PCs...
Hey Quandary (or anyone else) where can I find the actual write-up of these feats? I read them once, but couldn't find them when I was looking for them a while ago.
Thanks.
Robert
|
|
Link.Hey Quandary (or anyone else) where can I find the actual write-up of these feats? I read them once, but couldn't find them when I was looking for them a while ago.
Thanks.
Robert
thanks; but that just takes me to the homepage.....
Robert
|
I think "trading" part of the critical multiplier in exchange for the secondary effect sounds reasonable to me. Lower your hp damage, but nerf the opponent in a different way -- that seems very tactical, which is what I want fighters to be able to do.
I'm in favor of a single feat, which could do any number of effects (chose one, feat can be taken multiple times), and then you obtain that combat option. Perhaps call it "Versatile Critical"?
|
I don't see the point of Strike Back. You can already ready an action to strike someone when they attack you. Why do we need a feat for it, that will take up a slot for no reason? I can see the fighter readying an action like this instead of moving up and letting the enemy full attack him, but this is already part of the rules. Why add a trap option?But you can't normally strike them if they are out of your reach, which they inevitably will be if they charge you and have a better reach then you.
So for example, Bob the fighter can ready this action when he sees an ogre up ahead. The ogre charges, and from 10 feet away clubs Bob. Bob slashes the ogre's forearm.
I don't know if I would take the feat, but I can think of instances where I would have liked it.
Based soley on 3.5 rules because I haven't gotten to this in Pathfinder yet, you can take a 5ft step before or after your readied action, (this is not a part of the readied action, so does not also need to be declared).
|
|
Link.Hey Quandary (or anyone else) where can I find the actual write-up of these feats? I read them once, but couldn't find them when I was looking for them a while ago.
Thanks.
Robertthanks; but that just takes me to the homepage.....
Robert
Strangely, the link is working fine now; found the feats; thanks for your help.
Robert
|
|
Link.Hey Quandary (or anyone else) where can I find the actual write-up of these feats? I read them once, but couldn't find them when I was looking for them a while ago.
Thanks.
Robertthanks; but that just takes me to the homepage.....
Robert
Strangely, the link is working fine now; found the feats; thanks for your help.
Robert
After you pointed it out, I fixed the link and made a note in the original post. Maybe I should have reposted with the fixed link.
|
|
OK, here are my opinions on the new feats list:
The following seem to be quite balanced as written:
acrobatic steps
advance
critical focus
disruptive
fleet
greater bullrush
greater disarm
greater grapple
greater overrun
greater shield focus
greater shield mastery
greater sunder
greater trip
improved fortitude/will/reflexes
lunge
nimble moves
shall not pass
shield focus
shield mastery
step up
strike back
now let's look at the rest, in no particular order:
Greater feint: needs to be re-worded. "Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack, if that attack does not come before your next turn." so an opponent loses his DEX when and why? what? <blink blink>
penetrating strike (and greater): I like the getting around DR, but not the getting around DR/-. No matter your feats, that elemental is still made of elemental type stuff. Although I think the ignore 5/ignore 10, although a nice even number, might be too high. I would like to see this feat help with DR, not ignore it completely. How about negate up to 3 DR (6 with greaterPS) and leave the dr/- alone.
I'm not sure how i feel about any of the critical feats. Need to test these more, but seem overpowered at first (and second read)
Lastly, master craftsman:
I understand the desire to have people craft things without the use of spells, but then how are they going to be magic? If people want a vehicle to creating magic items without it being wizards.... then have a special "magic imbued craftsman" npc class. I do not want or need smart fighters making magic items without access to magic.
|
I have issues with a couple of the new feats.
Spellbreaker
The idea behind this feat is completely redundant. The feat allows a 10th-level Fighter to hit a spellcaster that has failed to cast defensively as an attack of opportunity.
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Now, if the point of the feat is that the fighter can make an AoO against the caster, even if the fighter has already made an AoO this round... then that would be different. However, this need to be clarified.
Master Craftsman
One of the things I have been enjoying about Pathfinder is that none of the feats seem to be useless. All of the feats have something that they give a character, and do not require prerequisites that don't do anything for the character other than qualify them to buy the next feat in the tree. This is broken with Master Craftsman.
Master Craftsman allows a non-caster the option to take the Craft Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. That is all it does. As it is written, it has become a pointless feat that will only allow a character to qualify to purchase another feat later down the line. The feat itself doesn't do anything for you other than allow you to purchase other feats in the future.
Now, the rules behind the Master Craftsman feat are solid, in my opinion. I think the idea of exchanging skill ranks for caster level is a good way to handle situation. However, I think that Master Craftsman still needs to do something else for the character besides allowing them the option to take another feat.
Why not make it so that the Item Creation feats have a Skill Rank requirement or a Character Level requirement as an alternative to the Caster Level? With the way that item creation is done (with a skill check), this would not be so difficult to alter for Pathfinder.
My basic complaint is that when you take Master Craftsman, you gain no immediate benefit. It simply gives the promise of getting something in the future.
If you take a feat, it should do something for you.
Just so you know... I love the idea behind Master Craftsman. I want non-caster character to be able to make magic items (it provides the idea for the legendary blacksmith, without said character having to be a spellcaster on top of it all).
|
|
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Sorry, but I think you have your definition of casting defensively wrong. If you fail your skill check, you lose your spell. You never provoke when casting defensively (unless of course Spellbreaker has anything to do with it)
|
|
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Sorry, but I think you have your definition of casting defensively wrong. If you fail your skill check, you lose your spell. You never provoke when casting defensively (unless of course Spellbreaker has anything to do with it)
And I think this idea just exacerbates a previously unfair rule. Who else needs to make a concentration check to perform the most basic function of the class?
I would like to see a feat to allow the caster to ignore AoO when casting 1 action spells in a threatened area. Just like the Improved <insert manoeuvre here> feats do for melee fighters.
|
|
Acrobatic Steps and Nimble Moves
Should probably be something tied to the Acrobatics skill rather than a feat. I am guessing this was probably geared for the fighter who is generally a ponderously armoured fellow and shouldn't really have the ability to be nimble... much like the former effects of Tumble, I think these feats should become Acrobatics skill check DCs instead.
Advance
I like this one - but I would stipulate it has to be something like charge - you have to head to the closest point from which you can attack your foe. Otherwise this allows someone to run around the opponent without fear of an AoO. Either that or modify the language such that it only counts when you are 10 or more feet from the opponent.
Critical feats
A neat idea, and I think the feats are constructed well and make good sense. I doubt I'd allow them in my campaign but that's just a localized phenomenon. For folks who don't mind lots of stuff happening around criticals, I think these are a good set of feats to make available with reasonable level restrictions.
Sickening Critical
Should be a save, as with the other Critical feats, to reduce duration to 1 round.
Disruptive and Spellbreaker
I'm not a fan of anything that makes it harder for casters to use their PRIMARY CLASS FEATURE since it already suffers horrible chances of failure or uselessness (saves, SR, etc).
Fleet
Looks fine. I might have considered changing it to 10 feet and having it not stack, but I have no problem with it the way it is.
Greater Feint
I've seen others mention this one as being a great boon to all those who are also threatening the target, but I am sure that wasn't the intent. Feinting doesn't deny the target its dexterity against everyone, just against the feinter. So it is, I assume, with this feat as well. That said, though, I can't see how this is going to be of any use. Improved Feint means that you feint as a move action leaving you only a standard action with which to attack - generally, short of strange feats, that means a single attack. Using the assumed initiative system where it's static each round you're still only going to get a single attack off against the target of your Improved Feint. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see this feat actually having any effect...
Other Greater <insert thing here> feats
All good. :)
Lunge
This should be a standard action... it's hard to imagine all iterative attacks being made at this extended range, and once a fighter gets high enough level the -4 is going to be meaningless effectively lengthening a shortsword to be 10 feet long. Either that or someone who has no real care about increasing AC (which seems to be pointless in Rise of the Runelords, for example) will take this. I'd recommend making this a standard action (single attack) and getting rid of the -4 to AC.
Master Craftsman
I am wholeheartedly against non-casters creating magic items. Where did this even come from? I get the impression that Jason feels Wizards should be purged from the game or at least made as ineffective and useless as possible. :) Anyway, this will never appear in any games I run, and I don't think it's something that should be part of the core rules. Make it a nice optional rule, if you like... perhaps an attractively coloured sidebar entitled "So you don't like to ask Wizards for stuff, eh?" and move along with the rest of the rules.
Penetrating Strike
Good stuff.
Shall Not Pass
Needs a new name, but I like the feat. I'd change the "adjacent squares" to "threatened area" though. I know you actually do mean adjacent squares, but as a mechanic that doesn't make a lot of sense unless this is some kind of grapple issue. If I can hit someone next to me with a shortsword and stop their movement why wouldn't wacking them with a polearm work equally well? All in favour of the concept of the feat, though.
Shield Focus and Shield Mastery
Good stuff.
Step Up
It's OK. I'm not sure I like trading in the next round's movement to be able to use it out of sequence, but it shouldn't be that terrible. I'm seeing a real focus on getting lots more situations for AoOs, and that's all this will do - allow the fighter to stay tight to someone trying to back away to do something that draws an AoO.
Strike Back
I would suggest that if the attacker is using a reach weapon that only a Sunder is possible and not an actual strike against the body/limb of the attacker. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Sure, if it's something with a natural 10' reach and its using a large-sized longsword... attack the arm. But if it's a medium-sized creature using a reach weapon then the only open Strike Back should be a Sunder attempt (which may require Improved Sunder). What about the -4 to AC that is suffered when using the Lunge feat? That doesn't apply in this instance? Shouldn't the AC penalty be greater, since you aren't using the Lunge feat to reach out? And what if someone is using a weapon that has a 15' reach? Is the fighter's longsword going to fire out 15 feet to hit the attacker?
|
|
Disruptive and Spellbreaker
I'm not a fan of anything that makes it harder for casters to use their PRIMARY CLASS FEATURE since it already suffers horrible chances of failure or uselessness (saves, SR, etc).Master Craftsman
I am wholeheartedly against non-casters creating magic items. Where did this even come from? I get the impression that Jason feels Wizards should be purged from the game or at least made as ineffective and useless as possible. :) Anyway, this will never appear in any games I run, and I don't think it's something that should be part of the core rules. Make it a nice optional rule, if you like... perhaps an attractively coloured sidebar entitled "So you don't like to ask Wizards for stuff, eh?" and move along with the rest of the rules.
Wow. Seriously. I've played Wizards quite a bit in 3x (best class next to CoDzilla, after all), but I mostly played melee types in AD&D (1e).
Why the switch? Melee classes are pretty much relegated to "baggage handler" status at high levels in 3x, while Wizards can more or less get off much of their power unhindered. Concentration checks are a joke, and spell penetration makes SR checks a joke as well. And saves? Really? When a smart wizard will usually target he opponent's weak save?
No, the 3x mantra since its inception has been melee classes do not get nice things. Why would you be upset that there may be a couple of feats that allow melee types some relevance past 10th level?
|
|
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Sorry, but I think you have your definition of casting defensively wrong. If you fail your skill check, you lose your spell. You never provoke when casting defensively (unless of course Spellbreaker has anything to do with it)
Page 72 of the PF RPG, under Spellcraft DCs:
Cast Defensively (avoiding an attack of opportunity): DC = 15 + Spell Level.
I think I am correct in my definition.
|
|
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Sorry, but I think you have your definition of casting defensively wrong. If you fail your skill check, you lose your spell. You never provoke when casting defensively (unless of course Spellbreaker has anything to do with it)
Page 72 of the PF RPG, under Spellcraft DCs:
Cast Defensively (avoiding an attack of opportunity): DC = 15 + Spell Level.
I think I am correct in my definition.
...and add that to the list of things on my rant in my previous post. 1st level elf wizard, one point in spellcraft. 18 Int (+4), Spellcraft (+4). DC for a FIRST LEVEL Wizard: 16. Wiz avoids an attack of opportunity, for something much more complicated than anything that provokes an AoO for a melee type standing still, like getting out a potion(sans feats) on an....8 on the d20.
Another joke that spell disruption is viable without some nice feat help for melee types...
|
|
I hate to say this... but, "DUH!" The point of casting defensively is to avoid the attack of opportinity. Thus, If the caster fails the Spellcraft check to cast defensively, they take the AoO. As it is written, his feat is pointless.
Sorry, but I think you have your definition of casting defensively wrong. If you fail your skill check, you lose your spell. You never provoke when casting defensively (unless of course Spellbreaker has anything to do with it)
Page 72 of the PF RPG, under Spellcraft DCs:
Cast Defensively (avoiding an attack of opportunity): DC = 15 + Spell Level.
I think I am correct in my definition.
ok, that comes from a chart that simply tells you what "casting defensively" does.
You need to read the definition for the full story. It is on page 155.And also here:
Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without
provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make
a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you’re
casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.
|
|
Disruptive and Spellbreaker
I'm not a fan of anything that makes it harder for casters to use their PRIMARY CLASS FEATURE since it already suffers horrible chances of failure or uselessness (saves, SR, etc).Master Craftsman
I am wholeheartedly against non-casters creating magic items. Where did this even come from? I get the impression that Jason feels Wizards should be purged from the game or at least made as ineffective and useless as possible. :) Anyway, this will never appear in any games I run, and I don't think it's something that should be part of the core rules. Make it a nice optional rule, if you like... perhaps an attractively coloured sidebar entitled "So you don't like to ask Wizards for stuff, eh?" and move along with the rest of the rules.
Wow. Seriously. I've played Wizards quite a bit in 3x (best class next to CoDzilla, after all), but I mostly played melee types in AD&D (1e).
Why the switch? Melee classes are pretty much relegated to "baggage handler" status at high levels in 3x, while Wizards can more or less get off much of their power unhindered. Concentration checks are a joke, and spell penetration makes SR checks a joke as well. And saves? Really? When a smart wizard will usually target he opponent's weak save?
No, the 3x mantra since its inception has been melee classes do not get nice things. Why would you be upset that there may be a couple of feats that allow melee types some relevance past 10th level?
Yep. Seriously. :) Concentration checks SHOULD be a joke - this is the primary class feature of the wizard, and to require a skill-tax and then a roll just to perform this function seems very punitive. Then, assuming you're able to roll a skill check to get your primary class ability to work you then have to see if the target is immune or has SR. OK, another roll to see if I can make my primary class ability work. Oh, and if I spend a feat or two I can make that a little more likely. THEN, assuming I have been able to make the rolls so far to make my primary class feature work, I then wonder if the target is going to make its save. Yes, I can pump the value of that up, but again... it's my PRIMARY CLASS FEATURE and should probably not require in excess of four feats and two rolls on my part plus a roll from the target just to see if anything appreciable actually happens. Oh, and if either of those first two rolls doesn't succeed then my spell is lost. If the spell wasn't lost, that would be different... but that particular spell is gone for the day now. If it was one of my highest level spells, then my most powerful once-or-twice per day class feature was just shut down completely. I can't do it again next round, or in the next encounter, or anything else... it's just gone.
As for Master Crafstman... it's just silly. How can an inherently non-magical class create a magic weapon? Maybe they can use the "magic powder" that was in the Dungeons and Dragons movie... that was a good idea... ;)
I was serious in my assertion that Jason must not like Wizards. Everything he's done (except, perhaps, for the Universalist) has detracted from them or in some way watered them down, and moved their specialty out to other classes (Rogues casting spells, Fighters making flaming weapons...).
As for allowing some "relevance" to the melee types... I guess it depends on your definition of relevance.
Anyway, this argument has been had before.
|
|
And I think this idea just exacerbates a previously unfair rule. Who else needs to make a concentration check to perform the most basic function of the class?
While I agree with you to some degree - it cannot be denied that spells wind up more powerful than any melee combatant - so It's a fair trade-off check and balance.
I dont think it needs to be an impossible check, but some chance of failure or suffering from a potential AoO.
I would like to see a feat to allow the caster to ignore AoO when casting 1 action spells in a threatened area. Just like the Improved <insert manoeuvre here> feats do for melee fighters.
Quicken Spell does this; of course at a significant cost.
Robert
|
|
And I think this idea just exacerbates a previously unfair rule. Who else needs to make a concentration check to perform the most basic function of the class?
While I agree with you to some degree - it cannot be denied that spells wind up more powerful than any melee combatant - so It's a fair trade-off check and balance.
I dont think it needs to be an impossible check, but some chance of failure or suffering from a potential AoO.
More powerful in what way? A rogue's sneak attack is a lot better than a Fighter can do when flanking... are fighters now going to get sneak attack? A fighter can't do a flurry of blows... is that next? I guess my point is that the Wizard does different things than fighters.
There has been a ton of math done in comparing melee and magic, and it can always be skewed to whatever perspective one is trying to push forward. So I won't perpetuate this. :)
I would like to see a feat to allow the caster to ignore AoO when casting 1 action spells in a threatened area. Just like the Improved <insert manoeuvre here> feats do for melee fighters.
Quicken Spell does this; of course at a significant cost.
Significant is a good word to use... but it also provides other benefits. Why not have the equivalent? Why not just toss out a feat that eliminates AoOs when a caster is performing the primary function of his class in a threatened area? Such feats exist for all of the fancy manoeuvres meleeists can use... why not for a caster?
|
|
Disruptive and Spellbreaker
I'm not a fan of anything that makes it harder for casters to use their PRIMARY CLASS FEATURE since it already suffers horrible chances of failure or uselessness (saves, SR, etc).Master Craftsman
I am wholeheartedly against non-casters creating magic items. Where did this even come from? I get the impression that Jason feels Wizards should be purged from the game or at least made as ineffective and useless as possible. :) Anyway, this will never appear in any games I run, and I don't think it's something that should be part of the core rules. Make it a nice optional rule, if you like... perhaps an attractively coloured sidebar entitled "So you don't like to ask Wizards for stuff, eh?" and move along with the rest of the rules.Yep. Seriously. :) Concentration checks SHOULD be a joke - this is the primary class feature of the wizard, and to require a skill-tax and then a roll just to perform this function seems very punitive. Then, assuming you're able to roll a skill check to get your primary class ability to work you then have to see if the target is immune or has SR. OK, another roll to see if I can make my primary class ability work. Oh, and if I spend a feat or two I can make that a little more likely....Wow. Seriously. I've played Wizards quite a bit in 3x (best class next to CoDzilla, after all), but I mostly played melee types in AD&D (1e).
Why the switch? Melee classes are pretty much relegated to "baggage handler" status at high levels in 3x, while Wizards can more or less get off much of their power unhindered. Concentration checks are a joke, and spell penetration makes SR checks a joke as well. And saves? Really? When a smart wizard will usually target he opponent's weak save?
No, the 3x mantra since its inception has been melee classes do not get nice things. Why would you be upset that there may be a couple of feats that allow melee types some relevance past 10th level?
I would call you bugnuts but i see you are just madly in love with wizardly power ^^ (nothing but love for ya fellow poster) Fighters primary roll is KILLING PEOPLE WITH SWORDS (or spatullas if they have the exotic weapon prof), that includes wizards that have the unfortunate luck of being in melee with a killer.
if jason dislikes wizards, he shows it in weird ways ( like giving them options even if totally out of spells) the Fighter however was promised much in the feat section, i truly appreciate everything jason has given so far (still need to steal paladins primary Wills save...) but woe to the Fighter who doesnt have the precise feats to have a chance against spellcaster (and still only a chance) my feral Lupin paladin with mageslayer feats almost got rolled my an enemy druid...and my build is SOLELY focused on slaying spellcaster. Wizards of the Coast nerfed Fighters, and broke high level gameplay. lets fix that please.|
|
I have no problem with fighters getting lots of cool stuff - goodness knows they have the feats to blow on them. I am all for fighters having neat stuff that is relevant to their role - killing things with weapons.
I just don't like other classes in the game suffering for it. Surely there is a way to empower the fighter without diminishing the wizard.
I also think people are mistaking the fighter having a role instead of being able to be all things for every situation with being nerfed.
|
|
all things in combat would be fine with me, because they dont have the skills to do out of combat things, or spells to overcome out of combat situations. if Fighters rolled everyone toe to toe, that would be BALANCED. because even the other brute, the Barbarian, can escape from most combats with their run speed. they can also have enough skill points to have fun in noncombat events.
we cant undervalue the usefulness of out of combat abilities
Yep. Seriously. :) Concentration checks SHOULD be a joke - this is the primary class feature of the wizard, and to require a skill-tax and then a roll just to perform this function seems very punitive. Then, assuming you're able to roll a skill check to get your primary class ability to work you then have to see if the target is immune or has SR. OK, another roll to see if I can make my primary class ability work. Oh, and if I spend a feat or two I can make that a little more likely....
First off, concentration is a not a primary ability of the wizard, it is a bandaid made up by 3.x to "fix" the wizard, who used to loose ANY spell if he took ANY damage, or if a mean goblin snuck up behind him and said "boo" too loudly.
The concentration check was supposed to give him a a chance to succeed at casting a spell if there was an attemptto interupt it,not makeitan auto success.
In my house rules, the difficulty for that concentration check is much harder (although still possible).
IT is damage taken + level of spell being cast + 5.
So if a wizard were casting a 3rd level fireball spell, and took 5 damage from a sword, his DC would be 13 (should be ableto be done, but not an auto success, but its only 5 hp of damage). If he took 25 points of damage his DC would be 33. (really hard)
If he took more than half his current HP in damage the +5 becomes a +10, so if the 25 points of damage above was more than half his hit points hed need to make a DC of 38 to get that spell off (darn impossible)
Interupting spells used to be a given (1 damage or a loud noise) so dont go around making broad statements like "concentration is a core ability of the spellcaster"
Beause in that case we could say full move, multiple attacks at full attack bonus, and ability to interupt spell casting at will is a core ability of the fighter. AS it has been that way for 20 years longer than 3.5 rules existed at all.
The current Pathfinder version is:
DC = 10 + spell level + damage taken.
Or Casting Defensively:
DC = 15 + spell level
Failing either kills the spell, fail the defensive casting still prevents the AoO.
Incidentally those are the same DCs as concentration from 3.5
However the biggest difference right now, is that in Beta this is a spellcraft check instead of concentration skill check which as resulted in the wizard having a HUGE bonus to the roll.
I have seen people lose spells on both taking damage (much more often... when it happens) and from casting defensively... more at low levels than at higher ones.
Also there is currently a feat being considered that will increase the difficulty of casting defensively if the person with teh feat is threating the caster that is trying to cast defensively.
well one of the things being missed in spell casting ( I think) is verbal and somatic components.
yo have a 6 second round in order to say "by the rays of the death gods it shoot you with this magic missle" and with your quickened spell say (really fast, to the point of sounding funny) "by the power of greyskull I give you big manly muslces and a goofy super hero smile"
assuming the mage cast magic missle and bull strength.
Now can anyone here, say both those dumb things, in six seconds, while running down a flight of stairs and making stupid, hand and arm waving gestures and holding ones fingers funny, and make no mistakes as his friends fire paintballs at him?
All they while making NO mistakes (which would negate and loose the spell)
Im going to say no.
Not no that you shouldnt be able to do it with your hero spellcaster, just no way does that happen "normally" is six seconds.
His a spellcraft check is needed, with situational modifiers to represent the fact that this IS very hard to do, CORRECTLY.
Everyone playing this game has taken the verbal and somatic components in a spell for granted and minimalized them as basically, if I can walk and talk freely well then "pew pew pew"
Now, if the spellcaster wasnt doing a full move, wasnt being distracted, or even wasnt trying to cast two spells in six seconds, the difficulty would be much more moderate, to the effect of being an "auto succeed" an therefor not needing to bother to roll at all.
But all that above should never BE an auto succeed.
Sure you can get feats that allow things to be possible, but just because you have a feat doesnt mean this kind of thing should be automatic, or even easy.
Fighters can buy all sorts of feats, that are meaningless in they cant hit the AC. The same should hold true for mages, they should at least have a chance to fail, otheriwse it looses its playablility.
as far as DC=20+spell level+ damage, this should be level specific.
By the time you cast a 6th level spell you are about 12th level.
And appropriate opponent for that level should be able to land say 30 points of damage on you (for arguements sake), so the DC to cast that 6th level spell after beng hit should be 36.
so the 12th level mage with an 18 int would have 12 points in this skill (plus 3 for class skill, plus 4 for int) so a total of 19, making the die roll necessary to succeed (36-19) 17, this seems acceptable, so how is it that everyone always says the spell casters "auto succeed" at doing this all the time and cant be interupted?
If the same situation was that the character took 6 points of damage, he would not necesarily auto succeed. (6 dam + 10+ 6 spell level = a DC of 22 -17 ranks) roll equals 5, which is pretty much a given most of the time, but not an auto succeed.
So what is the problem? 12th level spell casters putting 20 ranks into their spellcraft?
Actually that isn't missed -- people just forget to make the spell chucker roll his check. Just like casting spells on in a storm or riding a horse causes a check to keep the spell I wouldn't mind if casting while pulling the crazy "swing on a rope while casting" required one to (I pull this case out of nowhere just as an example).
The "original" Concentration check from 3.5 had checks for keeping a spell during "vigorous" and "violent" motion.
That's something I think would apply to some of the movement that wizards get away with in most campaigns right now.
On the quicken spell, well that's why it costs a slot 4 levels higher than normal.
On the Spellcraft check you are wrong. It would be a DC 46 (10 + Spell level + damage taken), and that's a good thing, the spellcaster should have a hard time after being hit in combat for 30 damage.
Now a 13th level wizard with Int of 29 and magical aptitude and skill focus(spellcraft) would have a + 35 to his spellcraft check:
13 Ranks + 9 (Int) + 3 (Class skill) + 4 (Magical Aptitude) + 6 (skill focus(spellcraft)
Which is a bit wonky to me, but I did burn 2 feats getting there so maybe not so much.
Something to remember is that a fighter can use his feats all day long, a spellcaster (especially a wizard) only has so many spells before he's out for the day. Yes magic items can extend that some but the saves are horrible, and any class can benefit from magic items, so I see them as moot as bring up that any fighter can use a + 5 weapon.
I can't help but notice though the length of the round bothers you here, but not when it's the fighter running around taking 4+ attacks and such. A little consistency would be nice. ;D
|
|
First off, concentration is a not a primary ability of the wizard, it is a bandaid made up by 3.x to "fix" the wizard, who used to loose ANY spell if he took ANY damage, or if a mean goblin snuck up behind him and said "boo" too loudly.The concentration check was supposed to give him a a chance to succeed at casting a spell if there was an attemptto interupt it,not makeitan auto success.
In my house rules, the difficulty for that concentration check is much harder (although still possible).
IT is damage taken + level of spell being cast + 5.
So if a wizard were casting a 3rd level fireball spell, and took 5 damage from a sword, his DC would be 13 (should be ableto be done, but not an auto success, but its only 5 hp of damage). If he took 25 points of damage his DC would be 33. (really hard)
If he took more than half his current HP in damage the +5 becomes a +10, so if the 25 points of damage above was more than half his hit points hed need to make a DC of 38 to get that spell off (darn impossible)Interupting spells used to be a given (1 damage or a loud noise) so dont go around making broad statements like "concentration is a core ability of the spellcaster"
Beause in that case we could say full move, multiple attacks at full attack bonus, and ability to interupt spell casting at will is a core ability of the fighter. AS it has been that way for 20 years longer than 3.5 rules existed at all.
Sorry, it wasn't clear in my post that I wasn't talking about Concentration being the primary ability - i was talking about the spells, and Concentration is just what lets them perform those BASIC functions without interruption.
After reading your next post as well, I have to wonder what you think about a fighter who takes 30 points of damage.. should there be some kind of penalty to him on his next attack? What about a fighter at 1 HP? He can still make 6 attacks, defend fully, make a full move, or do anything he can do at full health. You don't think that's ridiculous? how about making all those attacks in one round of six seconds? The other poster makes a good point regarding consistency.
I'm seeing a bit of a witch-hunt (or wizard-hunt) lately by a few people... I guess I have to ask: what is the actual problem that these few people have? Is it that the wizard can use his spells too easily? Someone spell it out for me because I am somewhat confused with the purpose of these kind of posts about making it harder for the wizard to actually do his job.
Actually, I teach a business seminar aimed at teaching good habits for managing employees efficently, it's entitled "6 seconds" (based on easy metric math 6 seconds is one tenth of a minute.
Having taugh this seminar several times a year, since 2000. I feel minorly qualified for taking into consideration what could be done (or how long certain actions take to complete in a short period of time).
I have also been in real life combat (both gun fight and hand to hand)
I have studied martial arts for nearly 20 years.
I have fought in boffer weapon combat for years for the purposes of live action roleplaying (against spellcasters and other "fighters")
So as far as what a human can do in six seconds with a sword and running around?
Making 4 attacks in six seconds is cake, even I can do it.
Recent studies from the special warfare school (a division of the military directly overseen by the pentegon) show that oddly enough a green beret/seals accruacy, timing and overall performance actually increase under stress, duress, and adverse conditions something about body tempurature and training/condiitoning... I didnt read the whole thing, I wasnt sure what the point to the article was)
Anyway, no I dont think running 30 feet and making 4 attacks with a sword in six seconds is hard. Even my overweight self can do it,and I have seen much better than that.
If you were ever involved in combat (or a ire fight as a police officer for example) you would realize and anyone I have talked to who has had similar experinces, has said, you wouldnt realize how much happens in such a short period of time.
That being said, swinging a sword and missing once, means your accuracy was off.
Screwing up the words to a spell, flubbs the WHOLE spell.
Running while casting spells that require a somatic component, or casting a quickened spell in the same round as running and casting the standard spell are ALL things that should require a spell check roll (regaurdless if you spent a feat on it or not.) And I beleive situational modifiers (penalties) would exist depending on what you were trying to do (ie swinging on a vine while casting quickened magic missle after already casting jump to get on the vine at all)
Im not saying you cant do it (its a fantasy game) but there should be arealistic chance to actually fail.
That being said,how many people have actually played in games in 3.5 where casters actually LOST a spell? No one every looses spells any more, basically because they dont want to adhere to the existing rules.
They dont think they should make a spellcraft/concentrate check unless they are forced to by something in a module or DMG saying, "this requries a check and the penalty to the roll is -x under these circumstances"
The guy who spent three feats and adding to his int a bunch of times, has built a character that has a reasonable chance to get away with casting magic missile on a swinging vine. ( I personally think still spell would be an easier way to go about that, but whatever)
But that shouldnt be every caster out there, simply because they dont want to loose a spell because that would "suck and be unfair"
Which means there is a semit
|
|
I actually think that what a warrior or a spellcaster could realistically accomplish in six seconds isn't all that important. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. If it doesn't perfectly mirror reality, so what? As long as it's fun.
Speaking of fun...it's been my experience that D&D 3.5 tends to become not so fun somewhere in the teen levels, and not because fighters are too effective, but because the casters can totally dominate the game. Maybe your experiences have been different, but I've seen at least a half dozen campaigns break down somewhere between 12th and 15th levels, all because those character's who are not spellcasters become obsolete.
I know that people like to argue the point back and forth, but can anyone seriously tell me that they've been in a campaign where the poor 15th level sorcerers were totally ineffectual because the fighters kept killing every enemy in line of sight? Me, I've never seen that.
Don't get me wrong, I like spellcasters, and I occasionally play them, and it's great once they reach a level that they can hold their own. I don't want to steal their thunder. I just want Pathfinder (unlike D&D) to challenge players of every class equally after 15th level, and to avoid making anyone feel like a sidekick.
|
|
make concentration checks at least as difficult as CMB checks (maybe bring it back to CON or WIS)
make spellcasting take a full round at higher levels
make spellcasters pretty much unable to cast spells when in melee with foes (for god sake make the Fighter types feel protective over them, because right now the mechanics dont support the Fighter types NEEDING to protect the spellcasters) there are enough single, lifesaving spells in the game that if they are even sorta threatened they are but a five foot step and standard action from total safety. while noncasters are sweating bullets if the combat starts looking bad (they got no easy way to live)
i understand many people love spellcaster dominance, and are afraid of easy but significant changes that alter gameplay towards noncasters (to balance higher levels) to them i would love to comfort that D&D had a long history of this working (all of first and second ed had more balanced higher level play) your wizards will still be cool (even cooler because they will actually tested) instead of just seeming like know it all d*(ks who talk mean game and have spells to show you how inferior your choice of class is.
(i only like low level spellcasters because it is the only time were i feel like i am actually playing a game, instead of just flexing in front of NPCS)
|
|
That being said,how many people have actually played in games in 3.5 where casters actually LOST a spell? No one every looses spells any more, basically because they dont want to adhere to the existing rules.
They dont think they should make a spellcraft/concentrate check unless they are forced to by something in a module or DMG saying, "this requries a check and the penalty to the roll is -x under these circumstances"
Then if your assessment of why "no one ever loses spells" - being that they don't adhere to existing rules - is correct, shouldn't that tell you something about how the core rules should actually be moving instead of going the other way? If everyone is making house rules or just rule-zeroing the Concentration checks (we still require them in the group I play with, btw) then why should the rules actually continue to push in the wrong direction and make such things harder for the casters?
This was one of the things that I thought was good about switching it to Spellcraft - that it's now based on a skill that wizards generally take anyway and is based on the casting stat. The problem with it, of course, is that INT is likely to be a dump stat for all other casting classes. This is why I have recommended that Spellcraft should have a stat bonus based on the casting stat used by the class making the roll.
|
|
make concentration checks at least as difficult as CMB checks (maybe bring it back to CON or WIS)
Have you noticed the number of posts saying that CMB is too high and hard to compete with?
make spellcasting take a full round at higher levels
And this is punitive and exactly the opposite of how it should work. Look at the fighter for instance... at higher levels he can do more basic stuff, and has a lot of new options at his disposal. Would you also allow for casters to cast multiple lower-level spells per round? How about at 6th level they get a bonus 1st level or lower spell every round; at 11th level they get 2 bonus spells per round at level 2 or lower; at 16th level they get 3 bonus spells per round at level 3 or lower; and then there is epic....
make spellcasters pretty much unable to cast spells when in melee with foes
That is perfectly fine by me as long as there is a feat which totally eliminates this penalty (just like the Improved <manoeuvre> feats)
(for god sake make the Fighter types feel protective over them, because right now the mechanics dont support the Fighter types NEEDING to protect the spellcasters) there are enough single, lifesaving spells in the game that if they are even sorta threatened they are but a five foot step and standard action from total safety. while noncasters are sweating bullets if the combat starts looking bad (they got no easy way to live)
I think i see what part of the problem is... characters don't work together. Whenever I play the casters generally spend at least half of their spells to benefit the party rather than "steal kills" from the front-liners. More often than not the front-liners are appreciative of the assistance - in my experience. This could be why I don't understand the enmity toward the casters, I guess...
i understand many people love spellcaster dominance, and are afraid of easy but significant changes that alter gameplay towards noncasters (to balance higher levels) to them i would love to comfort that D&D had a long history of this working (all of first and second ed had more balanced higher level play) your wizards will still be cool (even cooler because they will actually tested) instead of just seeming like know it all d*(ks who talk mean game and have spells to show you how inferior your choice of class is.
Wow. That's all. :)
I think that the biggest difference in opinion here is coming based on our experiences with playing. It seems clear to me that your experiences include playing with players who play like "d*(ks" and never actually do anything for the party but just play like they're soloing while the front-liners suck up all the damage the casters should be taking. I have not had such experiences (thankfully, perhaps) - when we play it's as a team. Perhaps this is why I see an effort to weaken the casters as a blow to the entire team.
I like this concept:
A solution could be for the feats to allow you to 'exchange' a point of critical multiplier for an effect. This is like the alternative sneak damage feats.
but what about something like the following feat chain?
Critical Strike 1 [General Feat]
Benefit: Whenever you confirm a critical on an attack roll you can either deal extra damage as normal, or cause the target to suffer one of the following effects:
* Dazed for 1 round
* Dazzled for 1d3 rounds
* Confused for 1 round
* Fatigued for 1d4 rounds
* Knocked Back 5' per 10 full points of damage (roll normally)
* Knocked Down/Prone
* Nauseated for 1d10 minutes
Critical Strike 2 [General Feat]
Prerequisite: Critical Strike 1
Benefit: Whenever you confirm a critical on an attack roll you can either deal extra damage as normal, or cause the target to suffer one of the following effects:
* 1 point of ability damage (your choice)
* Opponent is Blinded for 1d4 days
* Opponent is Deafened for 1d4 days
* Opponent is exhausted for 1d6 rounds then fatigued for 1d4 rounds
* Opponent is sickened for 1d4 hours
Critical Strike 3 [General Feat]
Prerequisite: Critical Strike 2
Benefit: Whenever you confirm a critical on an attack roll you can either deal extra damage as normal, or cause the target to suffer one of the following effects:
* Opponent becomes disabled for 1d4 rounds then returns to normal
* Opponent suffers 1 point of ability (your choice) drain
* Opponent is paralyzed 1d4 rounds
* Opponent is stunned for 1d4 rounds
All of these could lead into even deadlier critical strikes (though perhaps not exactly at this strength)...
Critical Strike 4 [General Feat]
Prerequisite: Critical Strike 2
Benefit: Whenever you confirm a critical on an attack roll you can either deal extra damage as normal, or cause the target to suffer one of the following effects:
* Opponent becomes unconscious for 1d4 rounds then returns to normal
* Opponent begins dying (as per the condition)
* Opponent makes a Fort save DC = to your normal damage roll or Dies
well ive never said weaken casters, Im simply saying that there was intention in the original game system that got mutiliated by WotC when they published 3.x.
The intent was that the adventure needed a well balanced party, and that everyone needed to work together because they all had soemthing to offer the other couldnt.
the older versions of arcane spells casters were weak and you usually only saw one per party. So they DID need a buff somehow. So I think the CON check was GOOD(it meant that if a kobold hit them in the toe with a mean kick, they might still be able to cast)
Making the caster a little more mobile was good (because arcane casters used to plant their feet and be like a turret on a battleship and just fire artillery rounds and enemies)
But they went way over board, blew things out of proportion and hamtrung melee characters and monsters alike in the process.
If I hit a mage with an arrow ( of any level) I should have a decent chance of interupting that spell (the old version was automatic I would succeed, and the new version in pretty much set up so its too likely I would fail) There just needs to be a better balance.
If something as simple as a mundane arrow from an orc could disrupt a spell, it would makethe game better than "pew pew pew".
Im still not convinced, however, that this is a "feat" issue (there are enough feats and maybe, most likely too many)
Feats shouldnt "alter" the existing "universe" (read rules) they should just enhance the character within the universe.
If the "universe" says you cant move and attack three times, a feat allowing a fighter to do so, is in fact warping reality.
skill focus doesnt "warp" reality. It doesnt mess wit the rules of existance.
No feat should do this, otherwise feats like skill focus dont have the bang of the others, they should be different but in the same category.
If anything deats should be toned down a little bit and the core rules rewritten to address the universe issues and not rely on feats to change reality.
If "pew pew pew" is the reality, then eschew materials, still spell, quicken and others like it are essentially worthless feats if, in this universe spells are meant to be shot off with that kind of quickness and ease anyway.
The current universe says if you wear armor, you spell has a chance to fail, but you can run across a dungeon at full gallop and not even be required to make a check?
Silly.
Honestly tho, I think if this IS the case and intention of th designers of the universe, then wearing of armor should be related to a spell check (con ,spellcraft, whatever) and not to a percentile roll, something like arcane armor training should allow the caster to make this check.
example: instead of a percent chance to fail the spell based on armor type, let the armor check penalty of the armor type effect the casters spell check, and arcance armor training can offset that penalty, so a caster wearing armor just needs to make acheck for every spell they cast,meaning basically, the caster needs to burn two feats to wear armor.
That kind of feat(s) doesnt warp reality.
But allowing a feat that changes what can be done in a period of time in that same universe, does.
If that is the intention of feats, then skill focus is drastically under powered (an others like it) and should allow say a holder of the feat to take 20 as an immediate ation in that skill, rather than just give a plus 3.
Im not saying we should change skill focus,Im simply demonstrating that
skill focus and others like it are the "norm" for feats and before we start creating feats to "fix" game problems, we should measure what these new feats might do, in comparison to the 'normal' feat, and if it does too much, then it shouldnt be a "feat" but a rule change (or not change anything at all if it is decided the unvierse is already prefect)
This thread-- "Critiques of the new feats" should be "sticky". I spent an half-hour looking for it. The posts have wandered a bit from the original purpose though. It would be practical if Jason copied and pasted the new feats in this Skills and Feats section of the messageboards as well.
Here's my thoughts and questions about some of these new Feats:
Advance (Combat)
If you combine Advance and Step Up together, you can engage large targets fairly quickly and stick with them fairly well. These Feats help Sword-And-Board Fighters further excel at what they do best right now - move in and burn down an opponent as quickly as possible while mitigating enemy damage with their high AC.
Blinding Critical (Combat, Critical)
The Blindness spell is much too powerful. This Feat is also much too powerful. Blindness should be a temporary status effect, not a permanent effect. This Feat should probably use the same mechanics as Stunning Critical.
Critical Mastery (Combat)
Two status effects with one attack? Very swingy. Too powerful.
Deafening Critical (Combat, Critical)
See Blinding Critical. Effect is too powerful.
Disruptive (Combat)
A useless prerequisite Feat that lets you qualify for an even more useless Feat. Probably best to revamp the whole system for disrupting spellcasting, truth be told.
Fleet
As currently written, it looks like this Feat is useless to anyone wearing anything heavier then Medium Armor. I'd be more concerned about the untyped movement bonus and the ability to stack the Feat if not for the fact that you're sacrificing a very scarce resource for a very small movement boost. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that this Feat has hidden potential for abuse in the right hands.
Greater Feint (Combat)
Do creatures affected by this lose their DEX bonus against you and your attacks, or against the attacks of everyone? I'm assuming it's just you, but if that isn't the case, then this Feat is overpowered.
Improved Greater Fortitude, Lighting Reflexes, Iron Will
These Feats just seem to be a band-aid for the lack of Recovery Saves in the Pathfinder RPG system. These feats should be abandoned and a comprehensive Recovery Save system should be implemented.
Lunge (Combat)
An extra five feet of reach doesn't seem like much, but it's actually quite potent, especially whenever characters that already have Reach weapons pick up this Feat. It also affects the power of Enlarge Person. Probably best to abandon this Feat.
Master Craftsman
How about that? A Feat that allows Fighters to create basic magical arms and armor without needing a spellcaster on hand. Long overdue in my opinion. However, there really shouldn't be a prerequisite Feat - there should just be one Feat to create Magical Arms & Armor, and another to craft Wonderous Items.
Shall Not Pass (Combat)
This Feat puts Fighters with Reach Weapons (and especially Fighters with Spiked Chains and Improved Initiative) at the top of the food chain when it comes to actually intercepting monsters trying to get to your spellcasters. You can use Spring Attack to make an initial strike against Team Monster, fall back to your original position, use your attacks of opportunity to prevent any enemies from moving through your threatened space, and then either use Whirlwind Attack against them the next round or re-position yourself for more attacks of opportunity to block further movement. Fighters might actually be able to effectively tank monsters now!
Shield Mastery (Combat)
There's already a Shield Master Feat, yes? This Feat should be renamed.
Spellbreaker (Combat)
A useless Feat with a useless prerequisite. What Wizard worth their salt is going to fail their roll to cast on the defensive?
Step Up (Combat)
Perfect for preventing people from stepping back and drinking potions.
Strike Back (Combat)
Another great Feat - maybe not a must-have, but a great one to be able to get regardless.
This thread-- "Critiques of the new feats" should be "sticky". I spent an half-hour looking for it. The posts have wandered a bit from the original purpose though. It would be practical if Jason copied and pasted the new feats in this Skills and Feats section of the messageboards as well.
I concur. I just found out about these Feats TODAY because someone made a post in the Announcements thread that introduced them.