Tanuki Tales
2013-01-22, 05:03 PM
So, if memory serves me, back when Third edition was being written, the Fighter was seen as "quite powerful" because it got so many of the new things they were inventing called "feats". And, like the Monk, they thought this meant the class would be overpowered and unfair to classes like the Wizard, who only got a few spells every level by comparison. As a result, feats were nerfed to the point where there were far more bad ones than good ones.
Fast forward to Pathfinder and all the flaws they inherited from 3.X that they either didn't fix or made worse or tried to fix but didn't do so and what have you. With keeping in mind that this is about Pathfinder existing in a vacuum without any backwards compatibility, answer the following:
What feats do you feel are, mechanically, fluff-wise, both or otherwise and what ever else have you, "bad" and why do you feel they are this way?
Fast forward to Pathfinder and all the flaws they inherited from 3.X that they either didn't fix or made worse or tried to fix but didn't do so and what have you. With keeping in mind that this is about Pathfinder existing in a vacuum without any backwards compatibility, answer the following:
What feats do you feel are, mechanically, fluff-wise, both or otherwise and what ever else have you, "bad" and why do you feel they are this way?