Improving some bad feats

[Josh the Aspie]

Hey there all.

In looking to create some good house rules, I'm working on some low level home brewing.

Some feats that I am looking to improve are below. I realize that these feats probably are not on par with the best ones, but I just wanted to make them stink far far less, and make them feats that people with a theme might actually consider taking.

Any suggestions on these feats, or on other feats to improve and then add to the list?

Combat Expertise:
You are not capped at transferring 5 points of your BAB.

Dodge:
You add a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. You may choose to give this bonus up at the beginning of your turn to instead gain a +2 dodge bonus vs a specific opponent. This change in bonuses lasts until the beginning of your next turn.

Toughness:
You gain 3 hp.
If you have a base Fortitude Save of +2 or higher, you instead gain a number of hit points equal to your HD, to a minimum of 3.

[waterpenguin43]

Recomendation: -Classes with Extra Turning should have their level for turning at +1.

[Rowan Arquest]

I think the cap on 5 points of BAB for Combat Expertise has to do with the fact that you gain multiple attacks after that point.

[Jane_Smith]

Combat Expertise [General, Fighter]
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon. Add an amount equal to your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 1) as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round.

Dodge [General]
Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus bonus to your Armor Class. If you have 10 or more ranks in Jump and Tumble, the dodge bonus increases to +2.
Other: If using pathfinder rules, toss jump/tumble for 10+ ranks in Acrobatics.*

Toughness [General]
Benefit: You gain +3 hit points plus 1 hit point per Hit Dice. Everytime you gain a level or gain Hit Dice, you gain +1 hit point.


Brought to you by - Pathfinder, making dnd 3.5 better sense, well, wotc stopped giving a rat's crap anymore.

[Josh the Aspie]

Rowan: It's actually just a penalty to your attack. It works the same way for AC that Power attack does for damage, except there is no bonus for two handing a weapon, and that when they decided not to limit power attack to a -5/+5 total max in 3.5, they didn't also make the change for Combat Expertise.

Jane: While I appreciate your suggestion on Combat Expertise, I want to make it more useful for warriors, not less.

However, I do have a new idea for the alteration of this feat.

Combat Expertise [General]
Prerequisite
Int 13.

Benefit
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty on your attack roll and add the same number as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

Normal
A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

Special
If you are wielding two weapons, and taking any applicable penalties for doing so, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. If you chose to wield a double weapon as two weapons, you

A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Jane_Smith]

Problem is - expertise was originally designed for rogues/swashbuckler style fighting (Fencing, for example). What your trying to do is basically pick apart the entire flavor just so fighters can get more AC then even Improved Expertise allowed, alot sooner.

Seriously, you need more then -5 attack for +5 dodge to ac? It stacks with defensive fighting, so -9 attack for +7 armor, combine with something like Defensive Strike, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, and Riposte and your fine. Why do fighters need -20 attack, +20 armor class at 20th level?

[Eurus]

That's cool, but why make two-weapon fighting even more appealing? I think it'd make sense to have the 1-for-2 exchange rate apply if you're wielding a shield, instead.

[Dogmantra]

It never made sense to me why you got a 1.5x bonus for power attack, and no bonus for either a shield or empty hand with combat expertise.

I'd change it to:

Special
If you are holding a shield, or have an empty off hand, instead add 1.5 times the number subtracted from your attack rolls.

[Josh the Aspie]

Weapon expertise is all about active deflection, using your shield as a weapon.

Don't forget that your shield is a weapon too, and that if you drop the shield bonus you can get the dodge bonus instead. Also, if you have the shield bash feat, you can get both.

A lot of people I've talked too say that in many cases two weapon fighting is a 'dead end' and want to make the whole tree free. I just think that adjusting a few rules that people complain about not making sense (like weapon expertice, and the rules on disarm/trip) would make the twf tree make a bit more sense without combining all of the TWF feats into one, which is what a lot of people seem to recommend.

Also, yes, I'm aware that weapon expertice is most often used by light, dexterous combatants. Rogues, etc, get more out of sneak attack (etc) when they get more attacks per round. This helps rogues too, and it also makes the defensive fighter build more valid as well. I see that as a good thing.

And also, I see no reason to give a defense bonus for going with a single hand. Most duelists in styles that you currently see as a single sword form often had something in their off hand to parry with (those fighting with rapier, or saber using an off hand main gauche, for example).

Power attack is double damage, btw.

[tenshiakodo]

Actually, as far as Combat Expertise goes, why does it work "like" fighting defensively, but use a completely different system.

For example, let's say I have 5 ranks of Tumble. I can take a -4 penalty to attacks for +3 AC. If I have Combat Expertise (and a BAB of +3) I could take a -3 to my attack for +3 AC. Wow, that's not much for a Feat.

Sure, I could do both, but what am I going to hit with -7? I always felt Tumble and other fighting defensively boosts should affect CE.

So my take:

Combat Expertise {Fighter}

Prerequisites: Int 13

You can trade offense for defense more efficiently in combat.

Benefit: when fighting on the defensive, your attack penalty is reduced by 2. If taking the full defense combat option, your AC bonus is increased by 2.

Normal: characters may take a -4 penalty to attacks to gain +2 AC in combat, or take the full defense combat option to gain +4 AC.

Special: if using a light shield or a buckler, increase the AC benefit from fighting on the defensive by 1, and by 1 when using the full defense combat option.

If using a medium shield, increase the AC benefit from fighting on the defensive by 2, and by 2 when using the full defense combat option.

If using a tower shield, increase the AC benefit from fighting on the defensive by 3, and by 3 when using the full defense combat option. Further, when using a tower shield to gain cover, the character receives the same benefits as if they had taken the full defense combat option.

This fix allows a character to take a -2 attack penalty to gain +2 AC (+3 with Tumble), or full defend for +6 AC (+8 for Tumble).

Similar bonuses, such as from Thief-Acrobat PrC accrue as well.

Finally, while a potent Feat for everyone, it also makes shield use much more attractive. A Fighter who cross-classes for 5 ranks of Tumble can carry a tower shield (+4 AC) and fight defensively to gain a whopping +6 AC or gain +11 as well as cover.

This, I feel, gives sword and board strategies a significant push when compared to other combat builds.

[Nero24200]

Problem is - expertise was originally designed for rogues/swashbuckler style fighting (Fencing, for example). What your trying to do is basically pick apart the entire flavor just so fighters can get more AC then even Improved Expertise allowed, alot sooner.

Seriously, you need more then -5 attack for +5 dodge to ac? It stacks with defensive fighting, so -9 attack for +7 armor, combine with something like Defensive Strike, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, and Riposte and your fine. Why do fighters need -20 attack, +20 armor class at 20th level?

To be fair, the Pathfinder version of Expertise actually works more in favour of Wizards, War Mages, Beguiliers and other Intellegence focused classes rather than rogues who are are likely to have it as a secondary ability score.

[Dogmantra]

Power attack is double damage, btw.
Of course it is... I was thinking of STR bonus...

[Josh the Aspie]

And most rogues that I am aware of are not going to get to use expertise to it's fullest using the version limiting it based on int, due to having an Int under 20.

Most two weapon fighters so far seem to be rogues, rangers, etc, all of whom have either the average or good BAB progression.

As for the difference between two weapon fighting and two-handed weapon fighting in the build... power attack introduces a difference in that feat, and most people don't seem to have a problem with that (I could be wrong here, of course).

Something that I have toyed with is requiring off hand attacks be given up to take advantage of the 2x to defense, but you have no such attacks to give up when using the standard attack action, and this would shift the favor of the feat even further towards fighters and away from rogues who use the two weapon fighting to deliver more sneak attack damage.

[Roderick_BR]

Problem is - expertise was originally designed for rogues/swashbuckler style fighting (Fencing, for example). What your trying to do is basically pick apart the entire flavor just so fighters can get more AC then even Improved Expertise allowed, alot sooner.

Seriously, you need more then -5 attack for +5 dodge to ac? It stacks with defensive fighting, so -9 attack for +7 armor, combine with something like Defensive Strike, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, and Riposte and your fine. Why do fighters need -20 attack, +20 armor class at 20th level?
Because sometimes you NEED that much protection. Wizards are invisible, blurred, mirror imaged, blinking, and whatnot. Fighters relay on his ability to avoid phisical blows.
I've pondered about making the -1/+1 thing be free, and the actual feat do something else (with a similar idea for Power Attack).


That's cool, but why make two-weapon fighting even more appealing? I think it'd make sense to have the 1-for-2 exchange rate apply if you're wielding a shield, instead.
You mean, make two-weapon fighting appealing at all? But I agree, no need to add anything to TWF. There's already Two Weapon Defense that acts as a make-shift shield. If shields doesn't gain anything from Combat Expertize, TWF doesn't need either.

[Jane_Smith]

Because sometimes you NEED that much protection. Wizards are invisible, blurred, mirror imaged, blinking, and whatnot. Fighters relay on his ability to avoid phisical blows.

You know wizards get spells 'per day' and all those last 1 encounter worth usually, lol...? IT TAKES "SEVERAL" resources to get that powerful of a defense going and it only lasts for a few minutes at the most - so why the hell should fighters be able to get like +20 armor class "whenever they feel like it" at 20th level in addition to everything else from -1- source? They DO NOT need that much armor class.

You want high armor class? Take dodge, take mobility, take two-weapon defense up to greater two-weapon defense, fight defensively, take combat expertise, or use a damn SHIELD! Tower shields give full cover if you ready them, thats the best protection you can -get-! And unlike the wizard, all these protections last all DAY!

Why your at it, lets make "Godhood" a feat - +20 luck bonus to all d20 rolls to, cause fighters need the attack, saving throws and skill bonuses! :D

[Josh the Aspie]

You mean, make two-weapon fighting appealing at all? But I agree, no need to add anything to TWF. There's already Two Weapon Defense that acts as a make-shift shield. If shields doesn't gain anything from Combat Expertize, TWF doesn't need either.

If you feel it is necessary to explicitly remind everyone, in the feat it's self, that you can use your shield as a weapon and thus get said benefit OR use your shield when you are not using the feat OR take the shield bash feat to be able to use both AC boosting benefits at the same time... well, then perhaps I should do so.

Still, all of that does assume that the shield user -has- two weapon fighting. It is probably silly from a style modeling perspective to make all sword and board folks take TWF just to be able to use their shield effectively, as the techniques involved are completely different. It also makes no sense from a tree-independence gaming standpoint either.

Okay. New version of the feat. This gives some additional benefits to shield users, and makes it obvious that shield users can benefit from the double-bonus. It doesn't add an incredible amount though, it just means that you don't have to take 2 feats and a -2 to your attack on top of the one from combat expertise in order to make full use of this feat.

I am currently debating whether or not to allow TWF to get the double bonus. Shield fighters -are- the most defense oriented ones.

I'm also considering making half the bonus, in the case of the shield / twf users, be a shield bonus that stacks with the bonus from the shield used (and the bonus from two weapon defense, if I keep the twf build). That way their touch AC only goes up by 20, not by 40.

Combat Expertise [General]
Prerequisite
Int 13.

Benefit
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty on your attack roll and add the same number as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

Normal
A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

Special
If you have a shield readied, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You may also gain this double bonus if you are wielding two or more weapons. You do not gain triple for having a shield and two or more weapons. If you chose to wield a double weapon as two weapons, you may gain this bonus. This choice must be made when you choose the penalty to apply to your attacks.

A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Dienekes]

You know wizards get spells 'per day' and all those last 1 encounter worth usually, lol...? IT TAKES "SEVERAL" resources to get that powerful of a defense going and it only lasts for a few minutes at the most - so why the hell should fighters be able to get like +20 armor class "whenever they feel like it" at 20th level in addition to everything else from -1- source? They DO NOT need that much armor class.

You want high armor class? Take dodge, take mobility, take two-weapon defense up to greater two-weapon defense, fight defensively, take combat expertise, or use a damn SHIELD! Tower shields give full cover if you ready them, thats the best protection you can -get-! And unlike the wizard, all these protections last all DAY!

Why your at it, lets make "Godhood" a feat - +20 luck bonus to all d20 rolls to, cause fighters need the attack, saving throws and skill bonuses! :D

You're changing your reasoning here from the rogues/swashbuckling "smart fighters need the feat" to "Wizards" who are, in mine eyes at least not supposed to be able to at any time become comparable to Fighters in defense by giving up the, very meaningless for them, attack bonus.

Now looking at the feat as it is, without taking fluff that any GM can decide for themselves. It is for half-way intelligent fighting types who value defense. Doesn't this kinda point directly toward shield users as opposed to the idiots called swashbucklers who get into melee fights without the highly valuable armor that could potentially save their life (yes I know DnD doesn't actually work this way. But it is a stylized representation of a style and world that does work this way)

As to your reasoning, why should Fighters get AC easily. Because they're FIGHTERS! They get the down and dirty where they need to learn to survive through these physical means solely. Wizards have spells, they can do a lot of crazy things with these spells, a counter argument is why should Wizardy types get to use a type of feat designed for warrior types better than actual warriors?

[Kris Strife]

I think the big question is 'Why is the wizard close enough for someone to be able to hit him with a sharp stick anyways?' Considering that according to most people 'Casters Win' is Rule -1 of D&D, with 'Non-Casters Suck' being Rule -2, why do you want to make the wizards (even) better at something (high AC) than the classes that are supposed to have that as a strong point?

Warmage on the other hand, I could kinda, sorta see, considering Int is an important stat for them and they're supposed to have mundane combat training...

[Jane_Smith]

No, the question is - why should the fighter get so much armor class from 1 feat?

Keep in mind, the bonus to ac from expertise is also a DODGE bonus - this includes to touch (and ranged touch) AC.

I am stating from a balance standpoint that allowing a single feat; just -1- being able to grant a +20 bonus to armor class is broken as the 666+ layers of the abyss. Period. I dont care how you try to state it isnt.

Level 20 fighter, with +5 mithril fullplate, +5 tower shield, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, dodge, and -normal-, core combat expertise, and using a defensive attack action? With a total of 16 dexterity, your looking at a total of 53 armor class, touch AC being 26, and flat-footed AC being 42. Not even considering other items, like cloak of displacement or magical buffs like haste, etc.

A 28 hit dice, epic-level, CR 20 Old Red Dragon has a +36 attack, roughly (without magical items, buffs, or the like. Note, dragons usually use power attack, and use buffs, so... within 30-40ish attack bonus). Meaning it has to roll about 15-17 or higher just to HIT the fighter. If the fighter props up his tower shield, he can absorb/stop the dragons fire breath in its tracks with 100% cover. Considering the fighter will have the aid of (USUALLY) 3-4 other party members, including one typically healing, THIS IS A BALANCED FIGHT.

Now, you give a fighter -your- version of combat expertise, thats +15 more armor class for him. For a total of 68 AC normal, and touch AC being 41 ac. Even with a +48 attack bonus from Greater Magic Fang +5 and weapon focus, etc... THE DRAGON, SOMETHING EPIC LEVEL would have to roll a PERFECT 20 just to hit a level 20 fighter.

DO YOU NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?! >.> If i was your dm, i would just have a cave in drop on anyone who takes it and laugh "Lets see it protect you -now-!".


Edit: At the very least, add "adds +1 dodge bonus to ac up to your base attack bonus, or intelligence modifier, whichever is lower." If fighters are so smart in combat, and considering expertise has a 13 int requirement, then make them flex those brain muscles. :P

[Salvonus]

The Fighter would have a -24 to hit. If I'm not mistaken, he's only going to hit the Dragon on a natural 20 - ergo, he's not really a threat, is he? Unless the DM is playing the Dragon as a total dunce, he'd just ignore the Fighter and go after something that actually poses a threat.

That said, I don't really know if changing Combat Expertise is all that necessary. As it stands, the -5/+5 cap makes it a fairly solid feat; what's more, it is the prerequisite for some excellent feats. If you want to raise that cap, I think that Improved Combat Expertise is a fairly reasonable feat to require.

[Jane_Smith]

Nicely stated Sal.

[Josh the Aspie]

The Fighter would have a -24 to hit. If I'm not mistaken, he's only going to hit the Dragon on a natural 20 - ergo, he's not really a threat, is he? Unless the DM is playing the Dragon as a total dunce, he'd just ignore the Fighter and go after something that actually poses a threat.

Yes, he would have a very large penalty to his attack roll, to the point where he himself would only be able to roll 20s to try to hit the dragon that has more attacks per round than he does. And the dragon is likely to pass him by in favor of other, easier to smash/doing more damage targets. This is why, in many circumstances, it would not be wise to use this feat to it's fullest. Just as there are many circumstances where using Power Attack to it's fullest isn't exactly the best idea.

On the other hand... sometimes it would be.

Jane, so you don't feel that I am ignoring you, all of the above, including the post from Salvonus, was going to be the majority of my reply to you, before she posted.



That said, I don't really know if changing Combat Expertise is all that necessary. As it stands, the -5/+5 cap makes it a fairly solid feat; what's more, it is the prerequisite for some excellent feats. If you want to raise that cap, I think that Improved Combat Expertise is a fairly reasonable feat to require.

While I appreciate that this feat does exist as an option, so did Improved Power Attack in 3.0. I do not feel that putting a cap on an ability, simply to remove it later with a second feat, or with a class ability (see: Trapfinding) is really that great of an idea.

I have included a new version of the feat below, in order to take into account more comments that have been made, as well as some of my own ideas for refinement.

This change will help decrease the power of the feat, as the doubling only applies to normal AC. I've also narrowed the focus of the feat again, applying it only to shield users. If a two weapon fighter wishes to use this benefit, then they can take this feat, improved buckler defense (or simply choose not to attack with their off hand weapon that round), and wear a buckler.

Combat Expertise [General]
Prerequisite: Int 13.

Benefit
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty on your attack roll and add the same number as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

Normal
A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

Special
If you have a shield readied and are receiving a shield bonus to your AC from it, in addition to applying the number subtracted as a dodge bonus to your AC, you may apply the number as a shield bonus to your AC. This shield bonus stacks with the shield bonus from the shield used to gain this benefit. You loose this bonus if you loose the ability to apply your dexterity to your AC.

A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Salvonus]

Wait... If you use a shield, you get x2 your attack penalty to AC? That's rather crazy... A -3 to hit is not that difficult to swallow while still providing a significant attacking threat, and you'd get a whopping +6 to AC. That's more than a bit broken. :smallconfused:

I'm not sure that the comparison to Power Attack really works. Damage and AC are totally different beasts. :smallconfused:

[Josh the Aspie]

It is my understanding that bonuses to to hit and damage scale up much faster than AC does in the case of warrior classes and brute monsters, thus making defensive builds impracticable. Can you explain why, exactly, it is broken?

[Jane_Smith]

Because it makes a warrior in the -nude- immune to melee attacks unless they roll a natural 20?...

Edit: Ok, nearly immune. They can still disarm you. :smallamused:

[J.Gellert]

So the topic says "improving some bad feats" and Expertise is on there...

Really? Expertise is a great feat. And it's the prerequisitie for a whole line of feats. Don't change it, it works.

In our last campaign, we had a falchion-wielding fighter that owned every single encounter through well-timed power attacks and application of expertise. Nothing could really hit him at level 8-10 of the campaign, and we were on the low end of wealth by level, so his AC was... almost all him, basically. A +5 bonus is nothing to scoff at, and a -5 penalty to attack really is nothing much to a fighter because their BAB is, especially on the first attack, higher than they need to actually hit things. Especially if your friendly neighborhood priest buffs you first.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Because it makes a warrior in the -nude- immune to melee attacks unless they roll a natural 20?...

While, at the same time, making their enemies immune to attacks because the warrior can't hit anything except with a natural 20. If you can't be hit, but can't deal damage, you are absolutely irrelevant to any other combatant.

Keep in mind, also, that at higher levels AC matters less and less. If you have AC 30 and a ring of blink and your enemy has a +19 attack bonus, he has a 50% chance to miss you from AC and a 50% chance from the ring. If he gets a +2 to hit (trivial at these levels) he has only a 40% chance to miss from AC but still a 50% chance from the ring. As his attack bonus increases, no matter how many bonuses he picks up he always has a flat 50% miss chance from the ring (even against 20s) while he can eventually ignore AC except for natural 1s. By the time you can get a +15 or +20 dodge to AC from this new Combat Expertise, it doesn't really matter anymore, because you're either contributing to combat with a miss chance or you can't hit anything.

[Tar Palantir]

Not to mention that boosting AC does nothing to protect the fighter from his myriad other weaknesses, such as against Fly, Solid Fog, or Will save or die/lose spells like Dominate Person or Final Rebuke. If your attacking the fighter through his AC, you're going about it the wrong way, just as if you're throwing Will saves at the cleric or Fireball at the rogue. Buffing defensive strengths is pointless, as your enemy attacks where you are weak, not where you are strong.

[Rowan Arquest]

I dont know why this topic is even trying to "improve" "broken" feat (massive fingerquotes). All of the feats in the PHB are good. Yes some are worse than others, like the feats used to increase skill checks aren't the best but every feat has a specific use, and not only that they do it well. The problem with fighters not being as strong as they should be is not because of the feats themselves but the fact that wizards, clerics, druids and other top tier classes were made so much more powerful. I know that many will dispute this but why send a fighter to kill something when a wizard can do it from across the room. Why sneak through the shadows and sneak attack someone when we can blast them with magic. I don't like the fact but the physical classes are so underpowered compared to others that it cna be tough to balance a game. But I don't think that perfectly well designed feats are the problem with game balance, it's the other classes were made too strong.


Not to mention that boosting AC does nothing to protect the fighter from his myriad other weaknesses, such as against Fly, Solid Fog, or Will save or die/lose spells like Dominate Person or Final Rebuke. If your attacking the fighter through his AC, you're going about it the wrong way, just as if you're throwing Will saves at the cleric or Fireball at the rogue. Buffing defensive strengths is pointless, as your enemy attacks where you are weak, not where you are strong.

And this possibly one of the best reasons for not changing combat expertise right here. Only a truly stupid character would play to their opponents strength. They exploit the weaknesses.

[Josh the Aspie]

Okay, first off, combat expertise was only one feat on the list, but due to some people's rather vehement feelings about it, the thread very quickly became about it.

The majority of the objections to the combat expertise feat seem to be in one of the following categories:
1. It's too good for fighters.
2. It's not good enough for wizards.
3. Fighters are dumb, don't bother trying to help them.
4. It doesn't help fighters at all anyway.

Yes, yes, this is a simplification.

To address 1.
Yes, perhaps I went a little bit too far. If I want to try the version I currently have in the thread, I should first try the version where people simply don't have the -5/+5 cap, and see where that takes me. Baby steps.

To address 2.
Don't care.

To address 3.
They're a valid part of many teams, many people enjoy playing them. Having them be -less- weak is still an improvement, even if they don't wind up being on par with wizards. That's not the sole end goal of all of these changes either, but if something helps out fighters? Bully.

To address 4.
Aiding -some- kind of defense isn't bad. Just because it doesn't aid all of them at once doesn't make the change totally without effect.

This is these are the versions of the feats I have decided to go with, for now. I may also try out a version of Combat Expertice as proposed by Tenshiakuko.

Combat Expertise [General]
Prerequisite: Int 13.

Benefit
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty on your attack roll and add the same number as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

Normal
A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

Special
A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Toughness [General]
Benefit: You gain +3 hit points, plus 1 hit point per Hit Die.
Special: A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

Dodge:
Benefit: You may add a +1 dodge bonus to your AC.
Special: If you have 10 or more ranks of tumble, this bonus increases to +2

[Surrealistik]

Here's another:

SPELL FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a school of magic, such as illusion. Your spells of that school are more potent than normal.
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. For spells from the selected school that have no Difficulty Class, add +1 to their Caster Level instead.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack.
Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.

[Josh the Aspie]

That... would actually make the feat worth something when it comes to schools that don't typically have DCs, and also make it worth while as a pre-requisite for summoners, as well as helping to make summoning a valid tactic at level 1... very nice suggestion. You have my thanks.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Here's another:

[...]

For spells from the selected school that have no Difficulty Class, add +1 to their Caster Level instead.

You might want to consider letting the caster choose whether to grant +1 DC or +1 CL on spells granting DCs (when picking the feat, of course, not on the fly); for some characters getting an extra 1d6 out of your fireball is better than +1 DC, and for others it's the reverse.

[Jane_Smith]

Why not just change spell focus to allow both? +1 Dc to spells is not that big of a thing (heck, in 3.0 it was +2). +1 caster level for all variable/level dependent effects would be nice as a added touch.

Spell Focus [General]
Choose a school of magic. Your spells of that school are more potent than normal.
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. In addition, you gain a +1 bonus to your effective caster level when using spells from the chosen school.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.


Also - some other feats;


Two-Weapon Fighting [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. In addition, when making a full attack, you can make as many extra attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon gained from a high base attack bonus.

Ambidextrous [General, Fighter]
Prerequisite: Str 13, Dex 13.
Benefit: You may treat one-handed weapons in your off hand as light weapons for determining your two-weapon fighting penalties, and may apply your full Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off hand weapon. If you use a normal light weapon in your off-hand, your two-weapon fighting penalties are reduced by 1.

Weapon Focus [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Bonus: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls and a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

Improved Weapon Focus [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls and a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. These bonuses stack with other bonuses on attack rolls and damage rolls, including the one from Weapon Focus.
Special: You can gain Improved Weapon Focus multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon you have selected with Weapon Focus.

Greater Weapon Focus [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, Improved Weapon Focus with selected weapon, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls and a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. These bonuses stack with other bonuses on attack rolls and damage rolls, including the ones from Weapon Focus and Improved Weapon Focus.
Special: You can gain Greater Weapon Focus multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon you have selected with Improved Weapon Focus.

Improved Initiative [General, Fighter]
Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on initiative checks. During a surprise round, you may take your turn normally even if caught flat-footed.

Incredible Finesse [General, Combat]
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: When using any melee weapon in which you use Dexterity instead of your Strength modifier to determine your attack bonus, you may apply your Dexterity bonus to the weapons melee damage (if positive). This stacks with the bonus gained from strength (if any). This damage is considered precision damage, and creatures immune to critical strikes are also immune to this bonus damage.

Iron Will [General]
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on Will saving throws. Three times per day as a immediate action you may choose to reroll a failed Will save.

Lightning Reflexes [General]
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on Reflex saving throws. Three times per day as a immediate action you may choose to reroll a failed Reflex save.

Great Fortitude [General]
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on Fortitude saving throws. Three times per day as a immediate action you may choose to reroll a failed Fortitude save.

Luck of Heroes [General]
Sometimes, your worst is your best.
Prerequisite: 1st level only.
Benefit: Whenever you roll a twenty sided dice for ability checks, attack rolls, caster level checks, saving throws, skill checks, or initiative checks, any result of 1 is treated as 20.

Spell Mastery [General]
Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st.
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook. In addition, you gain a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks when dealing with these spells in any way.

Mobility [General, Fighter]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out or or within a threatened area, and against ranged attacks made against you when any creature is in any space you threaten.



Also - exp-less item creation;


Brew Potion [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 3rd.
Benefit: You can create a potion of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures. Brewing a potion takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less, otherwise brewing a potion takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. When you create a potion, you set the caster level, which must be sufficient level to cast the spell in question and no higher than your own level. The base pice of a potion is its spell level x its caster level x 50 gp. To brew a potion, you must use up raw materials costing one half this base price.
When you create a potion, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.
Any potion that stores a spell with a costly material component also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component when creating the potion.

Forge Ring [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 12th.
Benefit: You can create any ring whose prerequisites you meet. Crafting a ring takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To craft a ring, you must use up raw materials costing one-half of its base price.
You can also mend a broken ring if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to forge that ring in the first place.
Some magic rings incur extra costs in material components as noted in their descriptions. You must pay such a cost to forge a ring or mend a broken one.

Craft Magic Weapons and Armor [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: You can create any magic weapon, armor, or shield whose prerequisites you meet, Enhancing a weapon, suit or armor, or shield takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in the price of its magical features. TO enhance a weapon, suit or armor, or shield, you must use up raw materials costing one-half this total price.
The weapon, armor, or shield to be enchanted must be a masterwork item that you can provide. Its cost is not included in the above cost.
You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to craft that item in the first place.

Craft Rod [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 9th.
Benefit: You can create any rod whore prerequisites you meet. Crafting a rod takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To craft a rod, you must use up raw materials costing one-half of its base price.
Some rods incur extra costs in material components as noted in their descriptions. These costs are in addition to those derived from the rod's base price.

Craft Staff [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 12th.
Benefit: You can create any staff whose prerequisites you meet. Crafting a staff takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To craft a staff, you must use up raw materials costing one-half of its base price. A newly created staff has 10 charges.
Some staffs incur extra costs in material components as noted in their descriptions. These costs are in addition to those derived from the staff's base price.

Craft Wand [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: You can create a wand of any 4th level or lowered spell that you know. Crafting a wand takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a wand is its caster level x the spell level x 750 gp. To craft a wand, you must use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price. A newly created wand has 50 charges.
Any wand that stores a spell with a costly material component also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the cost derived from the base price, you must expend 50 copies of the material component.

Craft Wondrous Items [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 3rd.
Benefit: You can create any wondrous item whose prerequisites you meat. Enchanting a wondrous item takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its price. To enchant a wondrous item, you must use up raw materials costing one half of its base price.
You can also mend a broken wondrous item if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the ra materials and half the time it would take in the first place.
Some wondrous items incur extra costs in material components as noted in their descriptions. These costs are in addition to those derived from the item's base price. You must pay such a cost to create an item or to mend a broken one.

Scribe Scroll [Item Creation]
Prerequisite: Caster level 1st.
Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less, otherwise scribing a scroll tkes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is the spell level x its caster level x 25 gp. To the scribe the scroll, you must use up raw materials costing one-half this base price.
Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component when scribing the scroll.

[Surrealistik]

Why not just change spell focus to allow both? +1 Dc to spells is not that big of a thing (heck, in 3.0 it was +2). +1 caster level for all variable/level dependent effects would be nice as a added touch.

It was changed from this because it was generally too powerful, which is why I feel, at best, you should only be able select a bonus to CL or DC. The other issue with your solution is that it's asymmetrical as it is at present, and disproportionately favours a spell subset of any given school (those with CL and DCs), when the benefit should apply to all spells of the school about equally. Because this is true, I agree with PairO'Dice's suggestion:

SPELL FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a school of magic, such as illusion. Your spells of that school are more potent than normal.
Benefit: You may add +1 to the save Difficulty Class or Caster Level of spells from your chosen school at your option. You must choose the type of benefit while casting.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack.
Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.

[Stormthorn]

I think the cap on 5 points of BAB for Combat Expertise has to do with the fact that you gain multiple attacks after that point.

Yea, but its either remove the cap or put a cap of 5 on power attack saince these are essentialy opposite feats but with Power Attack being a LOT better.

Heck, Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Troop taken together are from what i have heard rediculously powerful. Which is why i limit my players to only that first one.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Heck, Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Troop taken together are from what i have heard rediculously powerful. Which is why i limit my players to only that first one.

It's not overpowering to have any two of those, really--3x bonus damage or losing AC isn't problematic in and of itself. Combining all three can be an issue, but really, getting an extra 60 damage at level 20 at the cost of -20 AC, or 30 at level 10 or whatever, is chump change; it just seems ridiculous because it's being compared to all the bad feats (like, y'know, the ones being improved here).