Options That Should Just Be Part of the Class

[Dr_Dinosaur]

As the title says, I'm looking for things that, in your experience, are largely assumed to be part of any build focused on a certain class (with a focus on the Core classes). Things like Lion Totem for pounce on Barbarians or taking Natural Spell on a Druid, the real ASAP choices that just plain make the class work better.

If anyone cares, I'm collecting these for research before I try the daunting task of reworking the core classes for my table, as part of our house rules intended to streamline things that experienced players feel compelled to use anyway. Stuff like weapon finesse being a weapon property or feats with Improved/Superior/Greater versions just scaling up at certain levels.

[GilesTheCleric]

Do you mean for a class for all variations, or for specific builds? Anything that's typically deemed "necessary" on a class regardless of build is probably something that isn't balanced (either because it's so much better than the other options, or because the class requires it to function).

Taking a peek at Grod's G&G might be of help; he suggests things like Expel Vestige on Binders in addition to a bunch of other fixes to make classes more playable if that's your goal.

Some other things that I think are just about a given include Battle Blessing for Paladins, any form of rapid metamagic for Sorcerers, Power Attack for (most) fighters/ mundanes, Tomb-tainted soul for Dread Necromancer, a whole bunch of things for Monk, and Darkstalker on Rogue.

I happen to notice that you're in AL. Anywhere nearby?

[mabriss lethe]

I extend battle blessing to all the "half casters" ranger, spellthief, hexblade, etc.

[Chronos]

One place to start is by looking at other editions. For instance, in 5th edition, everyone gets the equivalents of Weapon Finesse (except better-- It also applies to damage) and Spring Attack for free.

[Telonius]

Craven and Darkstalker, for a Rogue.

Shock Trooper and Dungeon Crasher for Fighter.

Completely agreed on Battle Blessing.

I'd argue against Natural Spell on a Druid; personally I remove it from the game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd argue against Natural Spell on a Druid; personally I remove it from the game.
I like it as metamagic.

You may be more interested in my older list of minor class tweaks- most of that never made it to Giants and Graveyards since I use full class rewrites for most things. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275054-A-LOT-of-minor-class-tweaks

[Talya]

I'd argue against Natural Spell on a Druid; personally I remove it from the game.

Exalted Wildshape or Dragon Wildshape eventually make it less relevant, anyway. Unicorns and Dragons are fully capable of making whatever verbal and somatic components are required for spellcasting. (While I don't understand how Unicorns can make somatic components, the Celestial Charger rather proves the point.)

[tadkins]

I'd probably give Spell Thematics to everyone, without the stat benefit, just so people can flavor their spells in their own unique way.

In my mind it just makes sense that a fireball from the Archmage of Celestia would look a bit different than the fireball cast by the vile lich Rak'nathar the Black. People shouldn't have to burn a feat just for that.

[Flickerdart]

In my mind it just makes sense that a fireball from the Archmage of Celestia would look a bit different than the fireball cast by the vile lich Rak'nathar the Black. People shouldn't have to burn a feat just for that.
Nobody is stopping you from saying your fireball burns blue instead of red or whatever. It's just still obvious to everyone there that it's a fireball made of fire that burns things.

[DrMotives]

Exalted Wildshape or Dragon Wildshape eventually make it less relevant, anyway. Unicorns and Dragons are fully capable of making whatever verbal and somatic components are required for spellcasting. (While I don't understand how Unicorns can make somatic components, the Celestial Charger rather proves the point.)

I think the thinking behind Natural Spell isn't that animals are incapable of making somatic components, after all there's no rules saying an Awakened animal caster needs a feat to use their magic. It's that the druid is used to making the verbal & somatic components for their natural form, and the feat allows them to know how to adapt these for their wildshapes. The logic hole is that this should require afflicted lycanthropes and anybody using Shapechange or Polymorph to take the feat if they use magic in a different creature type than their own. Since it doesn't, and I've never heard someone suggest it should be, that's as good a justification as any for scrapping the whole feat.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I think the thinking behind Natural Spell isn't that animals are incapable of making somatic components, after all there's no rules saying an Awakened animal caster needs a feat to use their magic.
Doesn't it in Savage Species? I know the feat to bypass that restriction is in Savage Species.

[tadkins]

Nobody is stopping you from saying your fireball burns blue instead of red or whatever. It's just still obvious to everyone there that it's a fireball made of fire that burns things.

I always thought all spells had the same predetermined aesthetics unless they took that feat. Huh.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Do you mean for a class for all variations, or for specific builds? Anything that's typically deemed "necessary" on a class regardless of build is probably something that isn't balanced (either because it's so much better than the other options, or because the class requires it to function).

Some other things that I think are just about a given include Battle Blessing for Paladins, any form of rapid metamagic for Sorcerers, Power Attack for (most) fighters/ mundanes, Tomb-tainted soul for Dread Necromancer, a whole bunch of things for Monk, and Darkstalker on Rogue.

The bolded bit is what I'm most interested in, but the stuff that's unbalanced becoming a (probably slightly weakened) part of the base class frees up those other options that would be strictly worse. I had completely forgotten about Battle Blessing, so thanks!

Calhoun County


Craven and Darkstalker, for a Rogue. Shock Trooper and Dungeon Crasher for Fighter. Completely agreed on Battle Blessing. I'd argue against Natural Spell on a Druid; personally I remove it from the game.

I'm planning on dividing the Druid into a weaker caster/wildshaping class and a full caster/companion class (and swapping the Ranger/Druid companion progressions), so Natural Spell will probably just be a high level feature for the former.


I'll take a look at Grod's revisions. Thanks!

[martixy]

Improved binding seems to be a no-brainer and thus seems like it should be a class feature, rather a separate feat. Of course you might just consider it a feat tax.

[The Viscount]

There are ACFs and feats that allow Paladins to use smite with ranged weapon, and to treat the damage from smite as good aligned. The first I was shocked to discover was not a normal part of it, the second isn't quite as necessary, but is still a small thing that really helps.

[bekeleven]

I always thought all spells had the same predetermined aesthetics unless they took that feat. Huh.

The book doesn't really specify one way or the other. Flickerdart's point is that, within reason, you can do what you want as long as it has no mechanical effect. Just make sure the GM and the players are on the same page about it.

[Prime32]

I always thought all spells had the same predetermined aesthetics unless they took that feat. Huh.The book explicitly states that your spells can look however you want. Examples included a fireball with green sparkles, and a magic missile spell that summoned a demonic head to spit energy. The line was drawn at descriptions that would grant you some kind of benefit, like making your fireball invisible.
(There was also a suggestion that a monk player could replace the "Balance" skill on their sheet with "Rice Paper Walk" and constantly announce in-character "I am about to use Rice Paper Walk" :smallsigh:)

A specific case of this was that Dragon article on the Umbragen where their spells were described as always looking like "shadow energy", to the point where cure light wounds looked like ribbons of shadow stitching the target's body back together.

IIRC Pathfinder does forbid changing the fluff of spells though.

[Flickerdart]

(There was also a suggestion that a monk player could replace the "Balance" skill on their sheet with "Rice Paper Walk" and constantly announce in-character "I am about to use Rice Paper Walk" :smallsigh:)
Footpaddin'. :smallyuk:

[bekeleven]

The book explicitly states that your spells can look however you want. Examples included a fireball with green sparkles, and a magic missile spell that summoned a demonic head to spit energy. The line was drawn at descriptions that would grant you some kind of benefit, like making your fireball invisible.
(There was also a suggestion that a monk player could replace the "Balance" skill on their sheet with "Rice Paper Walk" and constantly announce in-character "I am about to use Rice Paper Walk" :smallsigh:)

A specific case of this was that Dragon article on the Umbragen where their spells were described as always looking like "shadow energy", to the point where cure light wounds looked like ribbons of shadow stitching the target's body back together.

IIRC Pathfinder does forbid changing the fluff of spells though.

Contrast with: Later books explicitly describing spell effects.


Green-white fog rises from the ground as you intone this spell, and great feline shadows takes shape within the misty cloud. The first of a pride of golden-pelted lions with silver eyes emerges from the fog

Not all that much wiggle room.


Laughing at death, you assume a ghostly form in which you can pass through walls.

MFW Casting Ghostform: :elan:

Edited to add: The second on customizing, which includes the "renaming skills and adding new skills" section, does not discuss spells. Where is the green sparkles demon head thing? I can't find it.

[eggynack]

Exalted Wildshape or Dragon Wildshape eventually make it less relevant, anyway. Unicorns and Dragons are fully capable of making whatever verbal and somatic components are required for spellcasting. (While I don't understand how Unicorns can make somatic components, the Celestial Charger rather proves the point.)
Those monsters can definitely cast spells, but I don't think you can when changing into them. By the rules of alternate form, the form in question needs humanlike hands, and neither the unicorn nor likely the dragon has those. Dunno why the whole setup operates that way, but that seems to be the underlying operation nonetheless. Though, come to think of it, a combination of fangshields druid substitution levels (or gloves of man), a pearl of speech (or simply a form with these speech capabilities), and eschew materials (because components are another thing that natural spell allows access to), could allow some form of natural spell copying. It's so crazy how much work it takes to copy that feat, but I digress.

To the base discussion, meanwhile, the goal of this plan seems to be to eliminate feat taxes, but I'm not certain that all feat taxes should necessarily be eliminated. There needs to be some distinction between, "This feat is letting me do something I need to do to operate efficiently," and, "This feat is so good that I'd be a dope not to take it, and it propels me to new and greater heights." Natural spell definitely fits in the latter group, I think, and it might be best to just leave that feat tax in. Craven kinda fits that group too, in a different way, though I'm not sure if that means it shouldn't be made a class feature. It's definitely not a feat that rogues strictly need

[Pex]

Pathfinder - Selective Channeling feat for clerics and Life oracles. You just don't want to heal the enemy. If you Channel for damage, you usually just don't want to hurt your party members.

[Esprit15]

Because it bears repeating several times over: Power Attack on any full BAB class. If you don't take it, your damage will not scale fast enough, and on nearly every melee character (a swordsage and factotum excluded) I have made, it was either their first feat or in a rare case, the second.

[ben-zayb]

I only rarely see Crusaders without Extra Granted Maneuver. Tomb-Tainted Soul for DN, although not every DN can utilize it (good or non-living DN). And while I appreciate the feat flexibility analogue compared to the wizard, why would you put the relevant details of the Psicrystal next to the Psion, instead of the monster entry itself, if you are not automatically giving Psicrystal Affinity anyway?

[Grod_The_Giant]

To the base discussion, meanwhile, the goal of this plan seems to be to eliminate feat taxes, but I'm not certain that all feat taxes should necessarily be eliminated. There needs to be some distinction between, "This feat is letting me do something I need to do to operate efficiently," and, "This feat is so good that I'd be a dope not to take it, and it propels me to new and greater heights." Natural spell definitely fits in the latter group, I think, and it might be best to just leave that feat tax in. Craven kinda fits that group too, in a different way, though I'm not sure if that means it shouldn't be made a class feature. It's definitely not a feat that rogues strictly need
Both categories are worth eliminating from a game design standpoint, I think. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter because, well... If everyone automatically picks an option, on every build, that option is
A) Not really optional
B) Almost certainly too strong
From a designer's perspective, the option should either be folded into the base rules as part of the assumed power (ie, Druids can cast normally while transformed) or weakened until there are reasons to pick another option in its place (ie, Natural Spell is now a metamagic feat)

[Morty]

Power Attack is an excellent example of a feat that should be available as a combat option. The same goes for many combat feats, really.

[Triskavanski]

I personally don't think Power Attack should be a combat option, but an 'advanced' version of a combat option.

Rather the combat option should follow Fighting Defensively's example, then an advanced character option would be Power Attack.

[eggynack]

Both categories are worth eliminating from a game design standpoint, I think. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter because, well... If everyone automatically picks an option, on every build, that option is
A) Not really optional
B) Almost certainly too strong
From a designer's perspective, the option should either be folded into the base rules as part of the assumed power (ie, Druids can cast normally while transformed) or weakened until there are reasons to pick another option in its place (ie, Natural Spell is now a metamagic feat)
Maybe, though I think an adaptation of the current setup could work. Y'know, druids automatically get natural spell, but they don't have their 6th level feat at all. It's a method that has some advantages to it, largely in the fact that forcing a delay on the 6th level feat, the first one gained in a world where wild shape is a thing, is a meaningful reduction in power. You don't necessarily want them running around with aberration wild shape at 6th, after all.

[GilesTheCleric]

Maybe, though I think an adaptation of the current setup could work. Y'know, druids automatically get natural spell, but they don't have their 6th level feat at all. It's a method that has some advantages to it, largely in the fact that forcing a delay on the 6th level feat, the first one gained in a world where wild shape is a thing, is a meaningful reduction in power. You don't necessarily want them running around with aberration wild shape at 6th, after all.

I'm not sure that taking away the choice so forcibly is a good idea. Just because almost all druids take it at level 6 doesn't mean that removing that character's level 6 feat is a good idea. To me it seems much more like stick than carrot, and it also runs into problems when multiclassing or involving LA/ RHD. In any case, a clever Druid with the option available is going to retrain a feat to natural spell at 5, then pick some other feat at 6. Doing this takes away that option, one that can certainly be useful if working on a complex build.

[Agincourt]

I'm not sure that taking away the choice so forcibly is a good idea. Just because almost all druids take it at level 6 doesn't mean that removing that character's level 6 feat is a good idea. To me it seems much more like stick than carrot, and it also runs into problems when multiclassing or involving LA/ RHD. In any case, a clever Druid with the option available is going to retrain a feat to natural spell at 5, then pick some other feat at 6. Doing this takes away that option, one that can certainly be useful if working on a complex build.

A druid cannot do that. You have to have met the prerequisites at the time the feat became available to you.

If the new feat has prerequisites, not only must your character meet them in his current state, but you must also be able to show that he met them at the time you chose the previous feat.

[GilesTheCleric]

A druid cannot do that. You have to have met the prerequisites at the time the feat became available to you.

A druid gains wildshape at 5, right? That's the prereq for Natural Spell.

[Jay R]

The base assumption seems to be that if a Feat is so valuable that everybody takes it, then it's clearly over-priced and we need to eliminate the cost.

That makes no sense. If there were an easy way to affect the cost of Feats, then that Feat should cost more, or other Feats should cost less.

[Agincourt]

A druid gains wildshape at 5, right? That's the prereq for Natural Spell.

Where is your confusion? At the time he choose the previous feat, he did not have wildshape. At level 3 (presumably when he got his last feat) he did not meet the prerequisites. The rules are very clear on this. Reread the retraining rules on page 193 of the PHBII. There is even an example showing that you cannot retrain a feat into a new feat that you did not qualify for at the time.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The base assumption seems to be that if a Feat is so valuable that everybody takes it, then it's clearly over-priced and we need to eliminate the cost.

That makes no sense. If there were an easy way to affect the cost of Feats, then that Feat should cost more, or other Feats should cost less.

I was under the impression that the base assumption was that if a feat is so necessary, not valuable, that everyone needs to take it make their build work then perhaps that feat should have been folded into the base class.

[GilesTheCleric]

Where is your confusion? At the time he choose the previous feat, he did not have wildshape. At level 3 (presumably when he got his last feat) he did not meet the prerequisites. The rules are very clear on this. Reread the retraining rules on page 193 of the PHBII. There is even an example showing that you cannot retrain a feat into a new feat that you did not qualify for at the time.

Ah, you're right. My apologies. I must have been thinking of PF's retraining rules.

[illyahr]

Fighters should get the weapon focus feat tree for free, spread out over a few levels. Seriously, they're the only ones who can use them anyway.

[Morty]

I personally don't think Power Attack should be a combat option, but an 'advanced' version of a combat option.

Rather the combat option should follow Fighting Defensively's example, then an advanced character option would be Power Attack.

The combat options that exist in the rules are of debatable utility, so they shouldn't be used as an example. The point is that the significant majority of characters who specialize in close combat will take Power Attack. Those who can't take it need to compensate for it somehow. Might as well just give it to them.

[Jay R]

I was under the impression that the base assumption was that if a feat is so necessary, not valuable, that everyone needs to take it make their build work then perhaps that feat should have been folded into the base class.

That's semantically identical to making it free because everybody is willing to pay for it.

[Triskavanski]

The point is that the significant majority of characters who specialize in close combat will take Power Attack. Might as well just give it to them.

I really don't think that is the right attitude to take there for what or how feats should be blended into classes/non-feat combat options.

[Cosi]

The base assumption seems to be that if a Feat is so valuable that everybody takes it, then it's clearly over-priced and we need to eliminate the cost.

That makes no sense. If there were an easy way to affect the cost of Feats, then that Feat should cost more, or other Feats should cost less.

A feat being so good at its cost that everyone in some class takes it is bad design. It means that any character of that class is one feat less interesting. So the solution needs to be either making it free (so that characters have a free feat slot) or expensive until it's an actual decision. Which one you do is situational, but making it free certainly doesn't "make no sense".

[Morty]

I really don't think that is the right attitude to take there for what or how feats should be blended into classes/non-feat combat options.

It sounds like the whole point of this exercise to me.

[Jay R]

A feat being so good at its cost that everyone in some class takes it is bad design. It means that any character of that class is one feat less interesting. So the solution needs to be either making it free (so that characters have a free feat slot) or expensive until it's an actual decision. Which one you do is situational, but making it free certainly doesn't "make no sense".

In what way are they "less interesting," given that every person playing that class is interested in playing it with that Feat?

Making it free doesn't affect that Feat; it just adds some other, new Feat. So what you're saying is any Feat so good that everybody takes it implies that the class isn't powerful enough, so we should make it more powerful.

If you were saying, "Let's make that Feat automatic, and balance it out by reducing the class in some other way," then that would make logical sense. But there is no logical path from "This is a really cool Feat that everybody loves" to "Let's make the class more powerful."

[Troacctid]

Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization and friends for Fighters.

Extra Invocation for Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts. Also, you should be able to get a familiar via invocation.

Arcane Fusion for Sorcerers.

Educated Wilder for Wilders.

Spontaneous Domain Casting (the PH2 variant) for Clerics. They need the variety. If you want spontaneous healing, take the healing domain.

[Pex]

Spontaneous Domain Casting (the PH2 variant) for Clerics. They need the variety. If you want spontaneous healing, take the healing domain.

No. Spontaneous healing was the absolute best thing 3E did for clerics. It actually made them not be heal bots because they were free to prepare whatever spells they wanted for whatever tactics but still be able to heal when the time is necessary.

[Troacctid]

No. Spontaneous healing was the absolute best thing 3E did for clerics. It actually made them not be heal bots because they were free to prepare whatever spells they wanted for whatever tactics but still be able to heal when the time is necessary.
We'll agree to disagree then. I'd rather see more diversity among Clerics by putting more emphasis on their choice of domain.

[Triskavanski]

It sounds like the whole point of this exercise to me.

Not what I gather.

Just because something is popular shouldn't mean we cram it into a class.

Power attack is popular no doubt. A lot of melee characters get it but hardly any one else does. So why should it be jammed into every character?

Rather than jamming feats like that into characters, I believe the combat options should be opened up, yes, modeled after Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Why would combat options that open different avenues of combat ability that currently exist be debatable and we shouldn't base anything on them rather just give a feat away?

[NeoPhoenix0]

The healer should always take the dynamic priest feat if allowed, to become SAD. Then again the healer needs a lot of love to compete. I just like the class for the flavor.

[martixy]

We'll agree to disagree then. I'd rather see more diversity among Clerics by putting more emphasis on their choice of domain.

I'm with you on this one.

+1 rule for my set of house-rules.

Thanks for making me aware of it.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Power attack is popular no doubt. A lot of melee characters get it but hardly any one else does. So why should it be jammed into every character? Why would combat options that open different avenues of combat ability that currently exist be debatable and we shouldn't base anything on them rather just give a feat away?

Well that's what I'm proposing to do, for PA at least. Turn it into a combat option instead of a feat, because it's practically required for anyone specializing in melee.



In what way are they "less interesting," given that every person playing that class is interested in playing it with that Feat? Making it free doesn't affect that Feat; it just adds some other, new Feat.

The character, not the feat, is what I believe they're calling less interesting. The idea behind this exercise is to allow more diverse choices in feats among similar characters by removing what could be considered a tax to have the class function the way people expect it to. You're right in that taking Power Attack free just adds some other, new feat, but since this version of things hasn't had thousands of people analyzing the optimal choices for everything for years, people will then take something that seems fun to them and still have the competency that the 'required' feats give.


If you were saying, "Let's make that Feat automatic, and balance it out by reducing the class in some other way," then that would make logical sense. But there is no logical path from "This is a really cool Feat that everybody loves" to "Let's make the class more powerful."

The power they already had was the best option anyway, so any power increase they may experience is minor. To carry on the Power Attack example, why even give most Barbarians a feat at first level if they're taking Power Attack anyway? So that two first level barbarians have differing build choices.

[Jack_Simth]

The book explicitly states that your spells can look however you want. Examples included a fireball with green sparkles, and a magic missile spell that summoned a demonic head to spit energy. The line was drawn at descriptions that would grant you some kind of benefit, like making your fireball invisible.Core, even. I retyped it for a quote quite recently. Hold a moment....

3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide page 34, right hand column, section "Describing Spell Effects":
magic is flashy. When characters cast spells or use magic items, you should describe what the spell looks, sounds, smells, or feels like as well as its game effects.
A magic missile could be a dagger-shaped burst of energy that flies through the air. It also could be a fistlike creation of force that bashes into its target or the sudden appearance of a demonic head that spits a blast of energy. When someone becomes invisible, he or she fades away. A summoned fiend appears with a flash of blood-red energy and a smell of brimstone. Other spells have more obvious visual effects. A fireball and a lightning bolt, for example, appear pretty much the way they are described in the Player’s Handbook. For dramatic flair, however, you could describe the lightning bolt as being a thin arc of blue lightning and the fireball as a blast of green fire with red twinkling bursts within it.
You can let players describe the spells that their characters cast. Don’t, however, allow a player to use an original description that makes a spell seem more powerful than it is. A fireball spell that creates an illusion of a dragon breathing flames goes too far.
Spells without obvious visual effects can be described as well. Since a target who makes his saving throw against a spell knows that something happened to him, you could describe a charm spell or a compulsion spell as a cold claw threatening to enclose his mind that he manages to shake off. (If the spell worked, the target would not be aware of such an effect, for his mind would not be entirely his own.)
Sound can be a powerful descriptive force. You could say that a lightning bolt is accompanied by a clap of thunder. A cone of cold sounds like a rush of wind followed by a tinkling of crystalline ice.(Emphasis added)

There we go.



A feat being so good at its cost that everyone in some class takes it is bad design. It means that any character of that class is one feat less interesting. So the solution needs to be either making it free (so that characters have a free feat slot) or expensive until it's an actual decision. Which one you do is situational, but making it free certainly doesn't "make no sense".

The trick is to not make it free. The trick is to add it to the class as part of rebuilding the class. So for a Druid and Natural Spell, one might, say, get rid of it as a feat, put it in as a 6th level Class Feature for a druid, and slow down the wildshape progression in some way. Perhaps, say... one less use per day than the standard at 6th+, delay the size increases by two levels each.

[eggynack]

I'm not sure that taking away the choice so forcibly is a good idea. Just because almost all druids take it at level 6 doesn't mean that removing that character's level 6 feat is a good idea. To me it seems much more like stick than carrot, and it also runs into problems when multiclassing or involving LA/ RHD. In any case, a clever Druid with the option available is going to retrain a feat to natural spell at 5, then pick some other feat at 6. Doing this takes away that option, one that can certainly be useful if working on a complex build.
Well, yes, it is a stick. I'm not at all convinced that there shouldn't be such a stick, and I'm even less convinced that there should be a carrot. Suffice to say that I don't think that a system where you're free to pick up aberration wild shape at 6th because you're getting natural spell for free would be a good one. If that means sticking with what we have, or making what's implicit now explicit, or some third outcome that's also somewhat annoying, then so be it.

[daremetoidareyo]

stunning fist should just be a monk class feature. On top of which they can have a monk bonus feat. Most of the stuff dealing with monks assumes that they have stunning fist anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Power attack is popular no doubt. A lot of melee characters get it but hardly any one else does. So why should it be jammed into every character?

Rather than jamming feats like that into characters, I believe the combat options should be opened up, yes, modeled after Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Why would combat options that open different avenues of combat ability that currently exist be debatable and we shouldn't base anything on them rather just give a feat away?
If we're just making houserules, it's a lot easier to say "everyone gets Power Attack" then to write new game rules and adjudicate their interaction with pre-existing material. Same reason it's easier to give more skill points than to merge skills.

[Endarire]

The Sorcerer really should have more interesting options than it does. See the Fun, Powerful Sorcerer (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15797.0) as an example on how to fix.

[Morty]

Not what I gather.

Just because something is popular shouldn't mean we cram it into a class.

Power attack is popular no doubt. A lot of melee characters get it but hardly any one else does. So why should it be jammed into every character?

Rather than jamming feats like that into characters, I believe the combat options should be opened up, yes, modeled after Fighting Defensively/Total Defense. Why would combat options that open different avenues of combat ability that currently exist be debatable and we shouldn't base anything on them rather just give a feat away?

It's not popular, it's necessary. If you're fighting with weapons, without using magic, you're probably going to need it. If your chosen combat style can't use it, it's a disadvantage you'll have to compensate for. Without Pathfinder, ranged combat's big problem is that it has no Power Attack. PF gives Power Attack equivalents to ranged combat and finesse weapons. It tells us a lot about it being a necessary feat tax.

And yes, non-martial characters won't use it. Just like martial characters won't be casting defensively, and a magician probably isn't going to trip or bull rush. What's the problem?