As a GM I have to make choices that some of the players don't like. This current one is not allowing the stamina system into my game and dealing with the player that is fighting me 100% of the way. I don't want to deal with it because it's a lot of stuff I have to take into consideration when building an encounter and while I think the system is a neat idea I'm not ready to play test it in the current campaign to see if it is right for our group.
But this guy will not take no for an answer and has three years of debate on his side. So from one humble GM to another can you guys please tell me everything bad or poorly designed about the stamina system so I can get this guy off my back for a campaign when I'm willing to test it out?
At my table, everyone has it. My only problem with it is many of the Combat Tricks are crap.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...
- Increased Bookkeeping.
I think that's about it... I don't think it's a bad system. Just insufficient. It simply doesn't do enough for Fighters or martial classes in general to stay effective or versatile at mid/high levels.
Considering most people view it as "something martials has needed for years and years and still isn't enough" I don't think your going to find many negatives.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, bottom line, you're the one who has volunteered to be GM and you don't want to implement that optional rule, so you don't have to do it. No argueent needed. If your buddy wants to run a game that uses the stamina system, awesome!, he/she can do it and you get to a be a player. And if he/she won't... back to you running the game you're comfortable with.
As a GM I have to make choices that some of the players don't like. This current one is not allowing the stamina system into my game and dealing with the player that is fighting me 100% of the way. I don't want to deal with it because it's a lot of stuff I have to take into consideration when building an encounter and while I think the system is a neat idea I'm not ready to play test it in the current campaign to see if it is right for our group.
But this guy will not take no for an answer and has three years of debate on his side. So from one humble GM to another can you guys please tell me everything bad or poorly designed about the stamina system so I can get this guy off my back for a campaign when I'm willing to test it out?
I haven't seen anything very poorly designed about the system. It's not game breaking. I'd give it to Fighters for free, and no other classes, mainly because I think Fighters need the boost even compared with other martials.
The only real issue I have with Stamina is that it can can be relatively metagamey at times. If I know I need a 14 to hit the enemy, and roll a 12, I can then choose to spend 2 points and ~guarantee a hit.
You are, of course, welcome to rule that it doesn't exist in your game. I do have to ask though, are you as strict when it comes to introducing the new spells, feats, and abilities as Paizo releases them?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
generally no, classes are the exception because I have to take a bit of time to learn the new class to see what it can do. If a fresh class comes out I generally wont let anyone play it for a month before I get the time to really sit down, play it in some minor scenarios I've created and looked over how people are building it. Considering I also have a full time job, and am a player in two other campaigns it's often put on the back burner.
The time I didn't do this is when someone wanted to play the 3rd party Path of War from Dreamscarred. and while I thought it was cool, I couldn't help the guy when he had questions about the class and I didn't have answers.
Uh...
- Increased Bookkeeping.
I think that's about it... I don't think it's a bad system. Just insufficient. It simply doesn't do enough for Fighters or martial classes in general to stay effective or versatile at mid/high levels.
Pretty much this. The only downside is that it's more to keep track of, and that it doesn't help as much as it could.
As a GM I have to make choices that some of the players don't like. This current one is not allowing the stamina system into my game and dealing with the player that is fighting me 100% of the way. I don't want to deal with it because it's a lot of stuff I have to take into consideration when building an encounter and while I think the system is a neat idea I'm not ready to play test it in the current campaign to see if it is right for our group.
But this guy will not take no for an answer and has three years of debate on his side. So from one humble GM to another can you guys please tell me everything bad or poorly designed about the stamina system so I can get this guy off my back for a campaign when I'm willing to test it out?
Combat Stamina is not that bad. Except for the list of conditions that'll prevent you from spending or regaining points of it, it's very simple and easy to deal with. Just make sure this player knows what he has to NOT be doing in order to regain stamina and announce how much time passes between the end of one encounter and the next challenge or fight (which is something you should probably be doing anyways). That way, this player(s) know how much stamina they regained.
Besides, it's really only good for combat, nothing else. It'll let them do things like convert a narrow miss into a hit or reroll a AoO attack roll with a -5 penalty or gain a small bonus to AC up to several times an encounter. It's not gonna let them waste whole armies or shut down a major magical plot element of your game. You've got the spellcasters to do that to you. =)
Given your reasons I wouldn't fight it as a player. Maybe on the side I'd want to convince you tat its a decent idea but in the game f it just makes GMing more difficult because you haven't had much experience with it then pushing it even if I won would make you, the GM, more uncomfortable beacue its unfamiliar territory.
That said, Combat Stamina offers a fairly minor boost in power to anyone with the feats to make use of it, which is usually the classes that really could use a power boost. In most cases people don't think it's enough of a power boost because the effects gained from it are relatively conservative. Nothing really absurd or particularly powerful comes out of it. I've been combining it with third party material to give it more of a kick but the only downside is that the player has a pool of points and some options to keep track of so if they don't know what they're doing or are indecisive in combat they can take forever to do something, although the same can be said for any full caster. As far as planning encounters around it, as I said, nothing particularly interesting or powerful comes out of it and it mainly benefits weaker classes so you don't have to do anything really.
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
I'd like to second this. There aren't too many downsides of note to Stamina, but that really isn't important to the issue that brought this thread up. The reason the OP even made the request is that one player can't accept, "no, I don't feel like it" as an answer. If this guy is so bent on using this system tell him to try GMing himself, and see how it goes. No means no. He isn't in debate club anymore.
Be polite about it of course, but if "Stamina will be a headache to keep track of, and I don't want to use it" isn't a good enough reason for him, he'll have three nominal choices.
1. Sit down, shut up, and let the person who's spending their free time to develop a game for the enjoyment of others (the player isn't the only one at the table there to enjoy himself. You may care to remind him of that.) do just that.
2. Leave the game. I doubt it'll come to this, Stamina isn't that big a deal. If so? Probably not someone you want to GM for anyway.
3. Try running a game with Stamina himself. Unlikely.
All that said, it's simple, yet hard to put your foot down. Ideally, a player accepts "No" as an answer the first time.
If you try to defeat the player in a debate about whether allowing the Stamina system is likely to cause game balance problems I doubt you'll have much fun or success. Digging for evidence here isn't likely to get you a lot of winning arguments beyond the already frequently mentioned, "I'm the DM, so..."
*shrugs*
Well , to me the fact that it is in the unchained book is reason enough to toss it out of the window.
I will have to agree with others that , you are the GM , you make the calls , i do find important to lay down all the different rules before people even sit down to make their PCs and to not change them during the game , outside that the GM makes the calls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well , to me the fact that it is in the unchained book is reason enough to toss it out of the window.
That's.... a rather ridiculous statement. I know you don't like the unchained summoner, but dismissing an entire book because of a single option is rather strange.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well , to me the fact that it is in the unchained book is reason enough to toss it out of the window.That's.... a rather ridiculous statement. I know you don't like the unchained summoner, but dismissing an entire book because of a single option is rather strange.
Not to mention that the option is generally a result of the class itself being problematic. Whether or not the criticism is founded Summoner is the class I've seen most readily banned and it's spell list routinely complained about. Summoner and Barbarian aren't just random and malicious nerfs, they're options that are results of fundamental complaints about those classes even if you disagree with the direction taken.
Not to mention that the option is generally a result of the class itself being problematic. Whether or not the criticism is founded Summoner is the class I've seen most readily banned and it's spell list routinely complained about. Summoner and Barbarian aren't just random and malicious nerfs, they're options that are results of fundamental complaints about those classes even if you disagree with the direction taken.Well , to me the fact that it is in the unchained book is reason enough to toss it out of the window.That's.... a rather ridiculous statement. I know you don't like the unchained summoner, but dismissing an entire book because of a single option is rather strange.
To be fair, they did more than just give barbarian the tweak to Rage that it needed. They redesigned the ability and modified a LOT of rage powers unnecessarily. All it needed was a touch up, like what the unchained rogue got. Paizo kind of has a history of making errata changes via a hatchet when a scalpel is all that's needed. That, or making changes when none are really needed.
To be fair, they did more than just give barbarian the tweak to Rage that it needed. They redesigned the ability and modified a LOT of rage powers unnecessarily. All it needed was a touch up, like what the unchained rogue got. Paizo kind of has a history of making errata changes via a hatchet when a scalpel is all that's needed. That, or making changes when none are really needed.
But basically every rage power was made More powerful?
To be fair, they did more than just give barbarian the tweak to Rage that it needed. They redesigned the ability and modified a LOT of rage powers unnecessarily. All it needed was a touch up, like what the unchained rogue got. Paizo kind of has a history of making errata changes via a hatchet when a scalpel is all that's needed. That, or making changes when none are really needed.But basically every rage power was made More powerful?
*cough*spell sunder*cough*
*cough*spell sunder*cough*
I did say "basically every" for a specific reason. :P
To be fair, they did more than just give barbarian the tweak to Rage that it needed. They redesigned the ability and modified a LOT of rage powers unnecessarily. All it needed was a touch up, like what the unchained rogue got. Paizo kind of has a history of making errata changes via a hatchet when a scalpel is all that's needed. That, or making changes when none are really needed.But basically every rage power was made More powerful?
Well, not exactly. Some powers were buffed. Some were outright nerfed. Some stayed pretty much exactly the same. And then there are the stances, a lot of them (12 I think). Move action activated / only one running at a time combat stances is a fairly significant shift in how barbarians are played. Which, combined with the overall nerf to Rage (outside of the temp hp bit) is what disappointed me so much about the unchained barbarian. Not only did it suffer in some ways mechanically, but flavor-wise it now seems less like a raging warrior and more like some kind of focused, well-trained soldier adopting a learned combat style. Stuff that really seems like it belongs in a fighter's kit.
|
As a GM I have to make choices that some of the players don't like. This current one is not allowing the stamina system into my game and dealing with the player that is fighting me 100% of the way.If you have a player like that, don't argue rules with him.... tell him to....
1. GM his own game and he can make his own decisions about what rules to use.
2. Or shut up, behave, or go home.
Democracy is not a system for running a game. One has to be an autocrat, a benevolent one, perhaps, but one nonetheless.
I personally have the most fun GMing when the other players take an active part in designing the game. Of the three in my current campaign, two have unique skills / magic systems and the other I frequently ask to give details on the world and setting.
Of course, we're playing Fate, not an adversarial / crunch-heavy system like d20 or any of its clones.
Of course, we're playing Fate, not an adversarial / crunch-heavy system like d20 or any of its clones.
I think it only works because it is Fate, in Pathfinder that will be a pain in The ass...
Of course, we're playing Fate, not an adversarial / crunch-heavy system like d20 or any of its clones.I think it only works because it is Fate, in Pathfinder that will be a pain in The ass...
Not really, I do it all the time in PF. Makes the players more invested in the setting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.
These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.
But this guy will not take no for an answer and has three years of debate on his side. So from one humble GM to another can you guys please tell me everything bad or poorly designed about the stamina system so I can get this guy off my back for a campaign when I'm willing to test it out?
You are free to say 'no' without any justification. It's mainly your effort, so you make the rules. And if the guy doesn't accept 'no', arguments won't change that. No matter how brilliant they are.
Of course this course has a price - it might really p*ss off the player in question and even destroy the entire group.
So I'd keep to 'If both options are bad, look for a third'. He really wants Stamina? No, I don't think so - I bet in essence he wants more power or more versatility for his martial character. Talk with him. He might indeed think he really wants Stamina, but there is a more basic desire behind that - figure it out together. If he wants more power, promise him some tailored items or point him the way to powerful character builds. In case it's about versatility, promise him items for that (e.g. gloves with an Improved maneuver feat) or suggest to sacrifice some damage output in favor of more options.
Personally, I find the stamina system as fairly acceptable, but it does involve more bookkeeping for the player and the DM.
As a DM, you are free to allow or not allow anything in the game, and "sorry, but I do not have the time / inclination to read up on another system," is actually a perfectly valid response.
So I'd keep to 'If both options are bad, look for a third'. He really wants Stamina? No, I don't think so - I bet in essence he wants more power or more versatility for his martial character. Talk with him. He might indeed think he really wants Stamina, but there is a more basic desire behind that - figure it out together. If he wants more power, promise him some tailored items or point him the way to powerful character builds. In case it's about versatility, promise him items for that (e.g. gloves with an Improved maneuver feat) or suggest to sacrifice some damage output in favor of more options.
Or just allow Stamina, since everyone who's tried it seems to think it's a reasonably good way to make Fighters a little more interesting?
(Or kick him out of the group if he's the sort of person who whines incessantly every time a decision goes against him. Either is good.)
|
I'm hearing two rather extreme answers from most people, and I think there's a middle ground. You are the GM, so it is your decision to make, but rather than sounding like an autocrat, you can tell your player "I really don't think that I want to use this system, so right now I'm still leaning toward banning it. I want to make sure you feel that I'm listening to your ideas and opinions, so right now I'm going to listen carefully to the best case you can make for what you want. Then I'm going to think about it and decide before we meet next week (or some other well-defined length of time). If I decide not to use it, that's the final answer for right now, but we can discuss it again for the next campaign." And to make this work, you really do need to listen carefully to and consider what your player says. Maybe he will change your mind, or maybe you will see something else that would do what he wants without being so complicated.
I'm hearing two rather extreme answers from most people, and I think there's a middle ground.
What, common courtesy? Das ist verboten!
All kidding aside, I agree with your point. Especially if you're coming from a position of authority (GM), you need to be considerate towards your players.
|
Just tell him that you'll allow the system for fighters only, and that if he wants it, to play a fighter. You won't have to balance around it almost at all, as fighters are very predictable in what they can do(which is the problem most people have with them). Simply expect him to turn misses into hits, and pull off a cool trick once or twice per encounter. That is all it really allows martial characters to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell him that you'll allow the system for fighters only, and that if he wants it, to play a fighter. You won't have to balance around it almost at all, as fighters are very predictable in what they can do(which is the problem most people have with them). Simply expect him to turn misses into hits, and pull off a cool trick once or twice per encounter. That is all it really allows martial characters to do.
Seconded.
Stamina really in nothing special at all, and if you limit it only to fighter it gives the class a SLIGHT buff, that doesn't in any way make the class unballanced.
But as others have said, you are the GM and you make this kind of calls. I strongly disagree with anyone suggesting you shold cave in and give players stuff because they want it. If you need a reason beyond that just explain what you explained to us: you haven't properly tested the stamina feat and don't feel confortable allowing it. This might or might not change in the future but until then the feat is not allowed, that's actually a good reason showing how you take game ballance seriously enough to spend time to test out rules and classes.
|
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.
These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.
Having just been through the process of adjusting an adventure for a rule decision made by the group against my wishes, I think folks who aren't behind the screen under estimate the impact that sort of thing can have on a GMs prep. By adding stamina basically every martial enemy has to be reconsidered and adjusted to integrate the system, otherwise the players are getting a straight buff. For those of us who work from prepared material because they are already short on time, you have to take the material, reverse engineer it, and then forward engineer in the change, it is often more work then just building an encounter from scratch.
"I'm the GM end of discussion" isn't always tyranny, it is often a plea for understanding and appreciation.
One of my favourite things about my gaming group is that every game, every person thanks the host and the gm. It may sound like common curtesy, but around here it seems lacking.
At the end of the day, this has to be entirely up to the GM, although obviously it should be resolved in as amicable and diplomatic a fashion as possible. Basically, it shouldn't be a debating issue, or at least it wouldn't be in my group. The point isn't whether the stamina system is a good system or not. The point is that being a GM can be a very demanding and stressful job, and if you feel it is too stressful to learn and integrate an entirely new subsystem into the campaign, then surely your friend and fellow roleplayer ought to be empathetic enough to understand this and accept your decision.
This, at least, would be my hope. :)
Cheers,
- Gears
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.
These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.
Having just been through the process of adjusting an adventure for a rule decision made by the group against my wishes, I think folks who aren't behind the screen under estimate the impact that sort of thing can have on a GMs prep. By adding stamina basically every martial enemy has to be reconsidered and adjusted to integrate the system, otherwise the players are getting a straight buff. For those of us who work from prepared material because they are already short on time, you have to take the material, reverse engineer it, and then forward engineer in the change, it is often more work then just building an encounter from scratch.
"I'm the GM end of discussion" isn't always tyranny, it is often a plea for understanding and appreciation.
One of my favourite things about my gaming group is that every game, every person thanks the host and the gm. It may sound like common curtesy, but around here it seems lacking.
If you read my post, you'll see all I'm saying is that he should listen to what his players have to say and (this is important) take it into actual consideration (because "listening" and then ignoring it completely doesn't count) .
I specifically said that GM has the final word and doesn't have to allow everything.
- - -
For this specific case, the Stamina system is so underwhelming that it's unlikely to cause any major difference in the game. It's a straight-up buff, but not a big one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost everyone here is arguing submission to the player. They seem to have forgotten that the OP has said that the player has been making a habit of taking a constant confrontational stance with the GM.
There is nothing wrong with GM's listening to their players, that's actually mandatory for running a good game. But there is also a social contract in this kind of game that specifies that the GM's word is the last word on the subject, the concession they get for doing the donkey work of running a game for players.
Very few people are arguing submission to the player from what I can tell. The original request was basically, 'Tell me why Stamina is bad, so I can shut down my player who really, really wants to use it.' The answer is, there's not a whole lot that's bad about it, but that doesn't mean he has to use it in a game he GMs, and plenty of people has said exactly that.
The only thing that's really clear from the original post itself is that the player has been intractable on the issue of Stamina, and that 'he's got three years of debate on his side,' which could very easily mean he was on the debate team in school (not too hard to believe, given that he's into TTRPGs).
I run a horrific schedule and am currently GMing a campaign. I am very sympathetic to the OP's plight. The request itself, though, makes me worry about the health of the GM-PC relationship. I'm not sure if it's on the GM's side or the PC's side, since I've never met either of them, but I definitely think a reminder to be polite even if you shut the PC down is reasonable.
The OP can and should indeed be the final arbiter of what is allowed in games he GMs, but he also ought to listen to his player and find out why he's arguing so hard for this optional system.
You could also allow it, but use the option where it costs a feat to do so. That way, he is not getting something for nothing and he has to decide if having a very weak ability is worth burning one of his precious feats on. It also means you don't have to change up any NPCs since they obviously didn't spend a feat on it.
Here's what you do. Let him have it. it's not game breaking, and I guarantee he will forget about it after a couple of sessions. it only works with the feats you already have, and only like 5-10 are any good. He's probably only read the part about how the feats let him do more stuff, but hasnt actually read them until you say go.
Seriously read the enhancement the stamina gives to feats. ask him what feats he has and have him tell you what the effects do with the stamina, then you can correct him if he is wrong.
For example Power Attack is a feat im sure he has.
Power Attack: When using this feat, you can spend 2 stamina points to gain the benefits and the hindrances of that feat until the end of your turn, instead of until your next turn.
This means that if he wants to make an AoO he doesn't have to worry about the negatives for Power Attack to hit. That is seriously stupid...
It's not as great as he thinks it is and will be disappointed when he puts it into practice.
It would have been better if it was:
Power Attack: When using this feat, as long as you 2 stamina points you gain the benefits and the hindrances of that feat until the end of your turn, instead of until your next turn.So, Power Attack becomes better since it is a maintain Stamina points. This is okay since the benefit is small.
You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.
Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!
You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:
/thread
Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.
These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.
No no no. The point of Pathfinder is not to have fun with friends. It is to crush the will of your players until they admit that you are the superior God-GM, and they are subhuman scum who should be on their hands and knees in gratitude that the God-GM deigned to run a game for such unworthy beings.
|
|
It would have been better if it was:
Power Attack: When using this feat, as long as you 2 stamina points you gain the benefits and the hindrances of that feat until the end of your turn, instead of until your next turn.So, Power Attack becomes better since it is a maintain Stamina points. This is okay since the benefit is small.
I think it'd be cool if there was a martial equivalent to psionic focus from the XPH / Dreamscarred's work, yeah. Like a stance you assume.
Brawler implemented something like that, but in perhaps the most ham-handed way possible.
|
|
No no no. The point of Pathfinder is not to have fun with friends. It is to crush the will of your players until they admit that you are the superior God-GM, and they are subhuman scum who should be on their hands and knees in gratitude that the God-GM deigned to run a game for such unworthy beings.
Don't forget, martials need to know their place. They aren't allowed to have nice things or make interesting choices, even mildly interesting ones like "do I want to buff Power Attack this turn or not."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait to play a stamina fighter. Sorry you don't like the system as it seams like a great one.
I was unimpressed until I made a character and saw the tricks I would have. It gives fighters more going power and options.
I can't wait until the weapons master's handbook comes out. More tricks and neat sounding abilities.
To me the only downsides are
1: keeping track of your extra options is a bit difficult, since the feat's name isn't as descriptive of its stamina option as a spell's name is of its fuction
2: The stamina cost for a lot of thing options are too high for what they do as far as i could judge
3: Recovering stamina takes too long in my opinion.
I don't think it will cause any balance issues to use the system, no matter which of the suggested implementation methods you use.
In fact in my own game i will implement it as a free bonus for fighters and feat ioption for everyone else. Also giving fighters 2 bonus stamina points per fighter bonus feat AND reducing the staminda recovery from 1 point per minute to 1 point per round.
|
|
In fact in my own game i will implement it as a free bonus for fighters and feat ioption for everyone else. Also giving fighters 2 bonus stamina points per fighter bonus feat AND reducing the staminda recovery from 1 point per minute to 1 point per round.
Maybe make it "+2 stamina points per combat feat," since that's what Pathfinder changed "fighter bonus feats" to.
D&D's Expanded Psionics Handbook made a similar ability called Psionic Body, which was a feat that said "+2 power points per psionic feat (including this one)." Maybe say that the +2 stamina / feat thing is a combat feat Fighters get at first level (or at least before level 3), and anyone else can take it as a feat?
Finally, having it refresh at 1/round sounds good on the surface, but makes things more fiddly and increases the likelihood that someone will forget. How about instead you just say it refreshes completely after each encounter, and then give a "second wind" option of some kind? Like maybe say once every five minutes, if you spend a full-round action to take a breather or meditate you regain (CON modifier + Fighter level) stamina.
(If this were using XPH rules, I'd say you could expend psionic / martial focus to do that. It's a DC 20 Concentration check to gain focus, and then you stay focused until you expend it, usually as a free action.)