|
In large part it depends upon just how much they're changing from the base game. Are these just alternate versions of the base classes? It's never been totally clear to me.
I'd be a big fan of more top heavy HP. That was one of the half dozen things that I really liked from 4e. Makes it so that a fluke crit from a greataxe wielding mook isn't instant death.
If they're changing the NPC classes - I'd be a big fan of changing all of them to be similar to the 4e minion rules. (One of the other 4e rules I actually liked. :P) It lets the GM throw a dozen or so mooks at the group along with the BBEG who can actually hit someone with decent HP & don't take too much effort for the GM to run.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised nobody indulged in a juvenile joke yet...
I'm going to guess that they might make their own version of Gestalt. Yeah Gestalt always been an optional rule but you must admit that's one of the rare ones that have stuck to this day. Curious to see what kind of spin, they put on it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class construction section. Build your own classes. Or a way to ditch classes and just buy abilities with xp. While there will be no more levels they should be equivalent to a classed character of equal xp. So a classless with 35,000 xp is comparable to a 7th level character. Or a little behind as they pay a premium for flexibility.
So basically you want Pathfinder to no longer be Pathfinder at all - but a level-less point buy system.
There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems. (though they tend to penalize specialization if they are actually at all balanced) But it would no longer be Pathfinder at all.
And I didn't advocate getting rid of classes / levels but rather adding the option to go without. Or to build your own. Developers probably have a set of guidelines to go by when designing new classes / archetypes beyond 'stick four devs in a room with pens, paper and cricket bats'. Why not have that in the rules?
They sorta gave us those guidelines 2 months ago with the chapter in the ACG called "Designing Classes".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class construction section. Build your own classes. Or a way to ditch classes and just buy abilities with xp. While there will be no more levels they should be equivalent to a classed character of equal xp. So a classless with 35,000 xp is comparable to a 7th level character. Or a little behind as they pay a premium for flexibility.
Rules for this already exist: convert your scenarios over to the Hero System or GURPS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Pathfinder Unchained is what the Pathfinder RPG would have been if it had not been made 3.5 compatible.
I don't know what that is but I want to see it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scaling for Eidolons, animal companions, etc.
What I mean is to adjust these class features to how the PCs are made. A 15 point buy campaign with a Summoner should see a weaker Eidolon than a 25 point equivalent stat array campaign.
Some option to make such features less or more powerful depending on how PCs are made, or even randomized if it is a rolled stat game.
If they're changing the NPC classes - I'd be a big fan of changing all of them to be similar to the 4e minion rules. (One of the other 4e rules I actually liked. :P) It lets the GM throw a dozen or so mooks at the group along with the BBEG who can actually hit someone with decent HP & don't take too much effort for the GM to run.
I'd recommend checking out the PDF Minotaur Games did for 'Underlings'. They're basically minions but for Pathfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically you want Pathfinder to no longer be Pathfinder at all - but a level-less point buy system.
There's nothing inherently wrong with such systems. (though they tend to penalize specialization if they are actually at all balanced) But it would no longer be Pathfinder at all.
What makes classes and character levels a sacred cow? It's not the feature that attracted me to Pathfinder.
It's because that one of the Cores of D&D. There are dozens of class-less RPGs, all of them gathering dust on the 25% shelf at your FLGS.
D&D has been the #1 FRP since day One. No need to mess with success.
This is why they are not gonna get rid of Vancian casting or Alignments or other core things.
Yes, they have already added non-Vancian options, sure, and that's great. But they know better than to mess with the basics.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the express purpose of the book is to throw away the basics and unchain PF from v3.5 compatibility and the expectations of being a D&D substitute. I think a classless system fits within that. As would replacing Vancian spellcasting with something (anything) else. Nothing they put in this book will change the basics, its all ALTERNATE systems. I have the feeling that few, if any, future publications will acknowledge these alternate systems. In short, this doesn't change Pathfinder u.less you chose for it to do so.
|
Except the express purpose of the book is to throw away the basics and unchain PF from v3.5 compatibility and the expectations of being a D&D substitute. I think a classless system fits within that. As would replacing Vancian spellcasting with something (anything) else. Nothing they put in this book will change the basics, its all ALTERNATE systems. I have the feeling that few, if any, future publications will acknowledge these alternate systems. In short, this doesn't change Pathfinder u.less you chose for it to do so.
Can you find me anything printed anywhere that states that this book is going to unchain anything from Pathfinder from 3.5 compatibility. I've never seen anything stated as that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game contains numerous rules considered sacred by players and GMs alike. Since the system itself was based upon RPG "technology" already more than 20 years old, "backwards compatibility" often meant sticking with the familiar, even if tradition was filled with cobwebs and decades-old assumptions.Pathfinder Unchained dares to take a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game and giving fresh optional takes on classic rules. Inside this collection of alternate rules and options you'll find completely redesigned versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes. Delve into a new system for resolving player actions designed to speed play and dispel confusion. Many of the new systems (such as the revised classes) work seamlessly with the existing Pathfinder rules. Even the most staunchly traditionalist player will appreciate the book's math-lite system for on-the-fly monster creation and the new system for generating dynamic magic items that go far beyond a simple +1 to add lore and interest to the campaign. Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options, as well as the robust new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components. This 256 page hardcover addition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is designed to be used by GMs and players that want to change the way their game is played. You can pick and choose the systems you want to change or you can adopt a number of them for a truly new play experience. With Pathfinder Unchained, you can have the game you want to play!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see quite a few references to 'classes' still in there. Plus, much as people don't want to hear it, Pathfinder is D&D. It's a heavily modified version of D&D that many people refer to as '3.75', but it's still based off of the 3.5 rules where there aren't new specifics in place, the classes are still there, magic works exactly the same, etc. etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only is Pathfinder Unchained not bound by backwards compatibility, but I see no indications that the different systems in the book even have to be consistent with one another. Classless characters could be achieved by a system that creates a single generic class for all characters, although I am not quite sure how it could be done within a reasonable page count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would really like to see a Rogue who has class features suited to the task.
Maybe at level one you pick 1 (or 2) Rogue Paths, similar to Oracle mysteries.
-Thievery
-Assassination
-Sneaking
-Chatting/Lying
-Avoidance
You could have feats to obtain abilities from other paths, similar to eldritch heritage feats.
Currently the Rogue tries to do all of those and manages to succeed only at trap disarming. The reason being that the Rogue has no in class methods of getting better at something. The only thing their class gives them is half their level to disable device.
Attempts to specialize in any of these just leads to a character who only has one method of contributing. If picking one of these features automatically specialized us for that role, it would be possible to build a Rogue that can hold his own in his area of expertise and fulfill other roles.
Examples of classes that have class features to make roles easier.
-Inquisitor- 1/2 level to Sense motive, Conversion Inquisition, skill based inquisitions, ect. On top of being strong in combat.
-Bard- 1/2 to knowledge, able to get a lot of skills to go off Cha, strong combat abilities.
-Hunter/Ranger- Half level to Tracking, Animal Companions to assist in a myriad of ways, spells to increase skill potency, strong in combat.
I could go on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the express purpose of the book is to throw away the basics and unchain PF from v3.5 compatibility and the expectations of being a D&D substitute.
I read it completely different.
That they wanted Pathfinder, and as a D&D substitute, but there were some things they wanted that would have not meshed really well with the 3.5 BC. Doesn't mean that it won't be a "D&D substitute" - just that some things are different, but still fit very well in the d20PRD kind of feel. Sort of like Cooke's Arcana Unearthed was different (no divine or arcane magic it was all on type- and had flexible spell levels, racial templates, 25 level classes later, different XP chart). All that would not have been "3.5 compatible" but still very recognisably 3.5 derived. That is what I am expecting from Unchained.
I think, but can't remember if a Dev said, that you could still use these rules and play in the Adventure Paths. I suspect with a different balance and feel, but still close enough that the basic math, and structure fit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd really love to see...
- Alternatives to vancian casting.
- Reduction/Removal of mechanical implications of alignment.
- Skills getting more epic at higher levels
- Martial characters getting mobility.
- Reduction of the Christmas Tree effect.
- Non-classs-specific Ways to make (viable) unarmored combatants.
- Revision of known broken spells (such as Maze and Simulacrum)
- Reduction of the gap between good saves and bad saves.
- Removal of SoL effects/A way to make spells less binary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd really love to see...
- Alternatives to vancian casting.
- Reduction/Removal of mechanical implications of alignment.
- Skills getting more epic at higher levels
- Martial characters getting mobility.
- Reduction of the Christmas Tree effect.
- Non-classs-specific Ways to make (viable) unarmored combatants.
- Revision of known broken spells (such as Maze and Simulacrum)
- Reduction of the gap between good saves and bad saves.
- Removal of SoL effects/A way to make spells less binary.
5E seems to hit most of these on the nuts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E seems to hit most of these on the nuts.What I'd really love to see...
- Alternatives to vancian casting.
- Reduction/Removal of mechanical implications of alignment.
- Skills getting more epic at higher levels
- Martial characters getting mobility.
- Reduction of the Christmas Tree effect.
- Non-classs-specific Ways to make (viable) unarmored combatants.
- Revision of known broken spells (such as Maze and Simulacrum)
- Reduction of the gap between good saves and bad saves.
- Removal of SoL effects/A way to make spells less binary.
Kinda... But that came at the cost of removing lots of stuff I like in 3.5/PF. It seems like a fun system, though... Haven't had the chance to play more than 2 sessions of it yet.
A class construction section. Build your own classes. Or a way to ditch classes and just buy abilities with xp. While there will be no more levels they should be equivalent to a classed character of equal xp. So a classless with 35,000 xp is comparable to a 7th level character. Or a little behind as they pay a premium for flexibility.
They already said they won't do a Class Builder like they did the Race Builder.
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the express purpose of the book is to throw away the basics and unchain PF from v3.5 compatibility and the expectations of being a D&D substitute.I read it completely different.
That they wanted Pathfinder, and as a D&D substitute, but there were some things they wanted that would have not meshed really well with the 3.5 BC. Doesn't mean that it won't be a "D&D substitute" - just that some things are different, but still fit very well in the d20PRD kind of feel. Sort of like Cooke's Arcana Unearthed was different (no divine or arcane magic it was all on type- and had flexible spell levels, racial templates, 25 level classes later, different XP chart). All that would not have been "3.5 compatible" but still very recognisably 3.5 derived. That is what I am expecting from Unchained.
I think, but can't remember if a Dev said, that you could still use these rules and play in the Adventure Paths. I suspect with a different balance and feel, but still close enough that the basic math, and structure fit.
Yes, I too recall this being the intention of the product. It's not about creating an entirely different game, it's more about pushing the boundaries further away. The game still has to feel like D&D, it just doesn't have to be compatible. So classes and levels are unlikely to be replaced in any of the optional subsystems.
As for a class building system... honestly, the third edition of D&D IS a class building system. You don't actually need rules for it, just come up with a concept and build a class to support it. I'm sure most players have at one time or another brewed a class (or at least came up with a concept).
What I would really like to see are rules that in some way make high level combat more manageable - smaller numbers, less buffs, less combat swinging save-or-die spells. Don't know if that's possible but would like to see an attempt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.
Unfortunately that has been happening with hardcovers a lot lately. Anytime you give people time to speculate or think about something that covers a broad area but has little information, people start making decisions on what HAS to be in the book, and thus get mad when something isn't in the book (or worse, Paizo does the opposite).
It's even worse for this book, since all the talk of killing sacred cows has let people's imaginations going crazy on what is in the book...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff that allows moving and full attacks for martials please.I woudl not complain if the book have something beyond "I move/stand still and attack" for martials.
Pathfinder already has moving and full attacks for martial characters: the Vital Strike feat tree.
All characters can use maneuvers untrained: bull rush, disarm, grapple and sunder, options beyond move and attack.
To my knowledge, Pathfinder Unchained is not going to be a 'more options' book but a re-write 3.5 legacy book. And most likely a preemptive test for a new edition of Pathfinder sometime in the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.Unfortunately that has been happening with hardcovers a lot lately. Anytime you give people time to speculate or think about something that covers a broad area but has little information, people start making decisions on what HAS to be in the book, and thus get mad when something isn't in the book (or worse, Paizo does the opposite).
It's even worse for this book, since all the talk of killing sacred cows has let people's imaginations going crazy on what is in the book...
But some of the speculation is going way too far to be realistic.
As far as what is actually said so far;
We know that barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner are getting rewrites. Chatter was heard that the goal of the barbarian and summoner re-write involves reducing math. There has also been dev discussion on giving rogue more of an ability to inflict conditions.Monk is suspected to be full BAB but that has no real grounds.
We know there are is an alternate form of action resolution. No talks on the details yet.
We know that there are new monster creation rules.
We know that there will be something on magic items with the intent of making them more interesting than simple +1 bonuses.
We know that there are spell components that can enhance spells.
We know there will be some sort of martial pool for martial stunts.
We know that the new systems are supposed to be fully compatible with the rest of the system.
We know that the devs compare Unchained to Unearthed Arcana.
So we know the basic scope and intent of the product and actually quite a lot of information, or at least enough information to not make wild theories expectations or wishes for it to do things some of the things in this thread (or the other thread).
Vital strike is nto even a shadow of full attacking, and making a maneuver untrained provokes an AoO and if the AoO hit you recive a penalty to your CMB equal to the damage taken. So, no.Stuff that allows moving and full attacks for martials please.I woudl not complain if the book have something beyond "I move/stand still and attack" for martials.Pathfinder already has moving and full attacks for martial characters: the Vital Strike feat tree.
All characters can use maneuvers untrained: bull rush, disarm, grapple and sunder, options beyond move and attack.
A 6th level Fighter with 18 strength and a greatsword: 2d6+6/2d6+6 damage for a total of 16-36 damage
The same fighter moving and the Vital Strike feat 4d6+6, 10-30 damage.
On average 3 points less, "not even a shadow" is an exaggeration.
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.
Do martial characters need additional options to the ones they already have. Possibly?
A 6th level Fighter with 18 strength and a greatsword: 2d6+6/2d6+6 damage for a total of 16-36 damage
The same fighter moving and the Vital Strike feat 4d6+6,for a full 10-30 damage.
On average 3 points less, "not even a shadow" is an exaggeration.
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.
Do martial characters need additional options to the ones they already have. Possibly?
a ten str fighter has less of a difference in damage. But a lv 6 fighter usually will have a 22str and weapon specialization power attack and weapon training. So it's 2d6+18 a swing. So 40-60 for a full attack to 22-42 on a vital strike. So that 3 is actually more like 18. Not even a shadow might be a bit strong but not as of as you make it sound
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.
Yeah... Nothing like investing 2~3 feats just so your character is not absolutely awful at doing something every warrior should know how to do...
Even better! You have to invest 4 points in an attribute you don't need and get a feat you most likely don't ever plan to use and has no synergy with you maneuver feat...
¬¬'
No. At the end of the day, full-attacking is basically the only combat option most martials have. Trying to do something different is heavily punished by the system.
a ten str fighter has less of a difference in damage. But a lv 6 fighter usually will have a 22str and weapon specialization power attack and weapon training. So it's 2d6+18 a swing. So 40-60 for a full attack to 22-42 on a vital strike. So that 3 is actually more like 18. Not even a shadow might be a bit strong but not as of as you make it soundA 6th level Fighter with 18 strength and a greatsword: 2d6+6/2d6+6 damage for a total of 16-36 damage
The same fighter moving and the Vital Strike feat 4d6+6,for a full 10-30 damage.
On average 3 points less, "not even a shadow" is an exaggeration.
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.
Do martial characters need additional options to the ones they already have. Possibly?
I see your point. Characters with high strength benefit more from the Vital Strike feat.
A lvl 6 fighter will not usually have 22 Strength, maybe in a rare case.
A belt of giant strength +4 is 16,000 gp. A 6th level character wealth by level is 16,000 gp.
An easy fix is to double weapon damage and strength damage. There is no need to introduce an entirely new system in Pathfinder Unchained.
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.Yeah... Nothing like investing 2~3 feats just so your character is not absolutely awful at doing something every warrior should know how to do...
Even better! You have to invest 4 points in an attribute you don't need and get a feat you most likely don't ever plan to use and has no synergy with you maneuver feat...
¬¬'
No. At the end of the day, full-attacking is basically the only combat option most martials have. Trying to do something different is heavily punished by the system.
Yes the Vital Strike feat is a feat tax. A simple fix is to give every martial character Vital Strike.
Even though its not perfect it does compensate martial characters when moving and attacking.
Heavily punished by the system? How? I see no evidence of it.
Sundering an enemy's armor (Improved Sunder) is a de-buff that the whole party benefits from.
Bull rushing an opponent down a flight of stairs (Greater Bull Rush), allowing your rogue companion a sneak AoO against him is a really good combat option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the express purpose of the book is to throw away the basics and unchain PF from v3.5 compatibility and the expectations of being a D&D substitute.I read it completely different.
That they wanted Pathfinder, and as a D&D substitute, but there were some things they wanted that would have not meshed really well with the 3.5 BC. Doesn't mean that it won't be a "D&D substitute" - just that some things are different, but still fit very well in the d20PRD kind of feel. Sort of like Cooke's Arcana Unearthed was different (no divine or arcane magic it was all on type- and had flexible spell levels, racial templates, 25 level classes later, different XP chart). All that would not have been "3.5 compatible" but still very recognisably 3.5 derived. That is what I am expecting from Unchained.
I think, but can't remember if a Dev said, that you could still use these rules and play in the Adventure Paths. I suspect with a different balance and feel, but still close enough that the basic math, and structure fit.
Yes, I too recall this being the intention of the product. It's not about creating an entirely different game, it's more about pushing the boundaries further away. The game still has to feel like D&D, it just doesn't have to be compatible. So classes and levels are unlikely to be replaced in any of the optional subsystems.
As for a class building system... honestly, the third edition of D&D IS a class building system. You don't actually need rules for it, just come up with a concept and build a class to support it. I'm sure most players have at one time or another brewed a class (or at least came up with a concept).
What I would really like to see are rules that in some way make high level combat more manageable - smaller numbers, less buffs, less combat swinging save-or-die spells. Don't know if that's possible but would like to see an attempt.
So: D12, Full BaB, 3 good saves, 8 + Int modifier skill points, all Skills as class skills, Full Divine Casting, Full Arcane Casting, Proficiency with everything and Bonus Feat every level?
Yes the Vital Strike feat is a feat tax. A simple fix is to give every martial character Vital Strike.
Even though its not perfect it does compensate martial characters when moving and attacking.
If it needs a fix, it's because it's broken. You really shouldn't to pay a feat tac just to be able to move 10ft and deal (at best) +2d6 damage... Especially considering casters can easily teleport as move action and still cast 2 spells.
Heavily punished by the system? How? I see no evidence of it.
1- Requires heavy feat investment just so it's not basically useless.
2- One of the most common prerequisites is basically useless for most characters. It's the very definition of feat tax.3- Often requires Int 13 despite the fact that most martial characters have no reason to invest in Int (It's also infuriating that with Int 12 you can learn to cast 2nd level spells but can't possibly learn to trip someone without provoking ¬¬')
Sundering an enemy's armor (Improved Sunder) is a de-buff that the whole party benefits from.
Bull rushing an opponent down a flight of stairs (Greater Bull Rush), allowing your rogue companion a sneak AoO against him is a really good combat option.
Sunder is probably the least taxing maneuver, since it doesn't have insane prerequisites. Probably the one that comes closer to being truly functional... Still, you need to invest a feat just so you don't get punched in the face while doing it and magical armor and weapon often have great Hardness and HP.
Also, no one likes destroying their loot (this is partially fixed with Make whole and Mending, though)
Bull Rush also requires 1~2 feats just to be effective and is very situational, to say the least. I've repeatedly seen characters go dozens of combats without ever using bull rush.... Or using it with shield bash only because they could do it as a free action, as it more often than not provided little to no benefit (pushing someone 5~10ft is basically irrelevant 90% of the time).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To incorporate certain gateway Feats as part of the class that naturally goes with them (Combat Expertise, I'm looking at you!).
Go back through the weapons and make them consistent with the later weapon types that granted sunder, disarm, etc., bonuses; and make weapons that have a similar physical structure possess the same special attacks (trip on polearm weapons); more Monk weapons on weapons that should be Monk weapons - in short, less arbitrary decisions about what does what.
Raise the Item Creation feat levels so that you don't start getting them at level 3! In good old AD&D you couldn't even consider creating a magic item until you were a Name level - i.e., you had mastered your craft!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the Vital Strike feat is a feat tax. A simple fix is to give every martial character Vital Strike.
Even though its not perfect it does compensate martial characters when moving and attacking.
If it needs a fix, it's because it's broken. You really shouldn't to pay a feat tac just to be able to move 10ft and deal (at best) +2d6 damage... Especially considering casters can easily teleport as move action and still cast 2 spells.
Heavily punished by the system? How? I see no evidence of it.1- Requires heavy feat investment just so it's not basically useless.
2- One of the most common prerequisites is basically useless for most characters. It's the very definition of feat tax.
3- Often requires Int 13 despite the fact that most martial characters have no reason to invest in Int (It's also infuriating that with Int 12 you can learn to cast 2nd level spells but can't possibly learn to trip someone without provoking ¬¬')Sundering an enemy's armor (Improved Sunder) is a de-buff that the whole party benefits from.
Bull rushing an opponent down a flight of stairs (Greater Bull Rush), allowing your rogue companion a sneak AoO against him is a really good combat option.
Sunder is probably the least taxing maneuver, since it doesn't have insane prerequisites. Probably the one that comes closer to being truly functional... Still, you need to invest a feat just so you don't get punched in the face while doing it and magical armor and weapon often have great Hardness and HP.
Also, no one likes destroying their loot (this is partially fixed with Make whole and Mending, though)
Bull Rush also requires 1~2 feats just to be effective and is very situational, to say the least. I've repeatedly seen characters go dozens of combats without ever using bull rush.... Or using it with shield bash only because they could do it as a free action, as it more often than not provided little to no benefit (pushing someone...
I see your point.
The problem is feat tax, there is nothing wrong with the maneuvers that are on offer. I agree, another problem is that fighter archetypes don't get related bonus feats. Free Hand Fighter (Improved Disarm), Two-Handed Fighter (Improved Sunder).
Yes magical weapons and armor and more durable. However, not every enemy you face is bristling with enchanted plate armor and a magically glowing longsword.
The Improved Bull Rush feat can be used in a number of ways. Move an opponent away from a spell-caster so they can cast spells without concentration checks, save a close-to-dying rogue companion, force an opponent off a rope bridge falling down into the canyon below.
Many players have become lazy, and want special abilities handed to them on a silver platter.
Experienced players make their own opportunities.
There is no greater victory when you take full advantage of your enemy's mistakes. A sweet victory when you take out a powerful nemesis with a humble bull rush.
Vital Strike has some use for druids.
That's one of the main problems with those fixes. They end up improving other classes far more than those they are supposed to help.
I am still hoping for a fighter rebuilt.
@Jadeite,
Perhaps you are right.
I co-designed combat and monk techniques, an attempt to rebuild the fighter class.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk3o?house-rules