Eight New Feats

[Elder-Basilisk]

ALTERED REPERTOIRE (General)
Prerequisite: Sorcerer or Bard
Instead of applying the caster's CHA bonus to number of spells per day, it is applied to the number of spells known. Items or spells providing temporary increases (or poisons or spells which decrease CHA) do not affect this.

(so yes, it'll give you 4 or 5 new known spells, at the price of reducing your spells/day by an even larger amount.)

This is an interesting option, but IMO this should be a houseruled alternate subclass (like specialist wizard) instead of a feat. Doing this would completely change the way the bard class works (esepcially with all of the levels where he only gets his cha bonus spells in spells/day). It would also dramatically change the sorceror--especially at high levels when a sorceror's charisma is often 30+.

Personally, I think that this is too good for a feat although I think it's a dramatic enough change that it would need playtesting to really know if it would work. In any event though, it should probably only be selectable at level one and it needs to be specified whether long-term charisma boosts (like a cloak of charisma) effect it--and if they do whether the a sorceror loses the bonus known spells if he takes off the cloak. . . .

EXPANDED SPELLS(General)
Prerequisite: Bard, Paladin, Ranger, or Psychic Warrior
Choose four spells on the spell list of the "parent" class (Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, and Psion, respectively) to be added to the caster's spell list, at a level one higher than for the parent class.
Bards and Psychic Warriors do not automatically know the spells, but may select these as known spells/powers when given the opportunity to select new spells/powers. Paladins and Rangers may memorize the new spells freely.
(need a better name for this one)

Nope. For most spells it would work fine but you'd always get the bard gunning for Cone of Cold, Shield, or Polymorph Self (or other) or the psychic warrior adding a powers that were intentionally left off of his list because they'd be too advantageous for a higher hit point, higher BAB, higer AC class.

Changing spell lists should be a domain of prestige classes like the Eldritch Master rather than feats.

SPELL FINESSE (General)
Prerequisite: Spellcasters only, INT 15+, WIS 15+, or CHA 15+
The caster may, at the time of casting, reduce his caster level by 2 to increase Save DC by 1. This may be done multiple times per spell, although caster level can never be reduced below what is needed to obtain the spell.

(This one is a balance nightmare, I know, since there are spells that don't really need caster level, but I'm trying to make a Power Attack for casters)

Balance nightmare it is--do you really want to see DC 29+int bonus disintegrate spells (16+9 (since the minimum caster level is 11) +4 greater spell focus), DC 31+int bonus polymorph others, or DC 27 +int bonus fireballs (Since the damage caps at level 10, why cast it at a higher clvl (except to beat SR)). This feat would reverse the normal rule that the higher level the spell, the harder it is to save against and would make low level spells impossible to save against instead (DC 34+int bonus color sprays at 20th level).

The power attack for casters is. . . . Power Attack with a touch spell.

ENHANCE SPELL (Metamagic)
Caster level is increased by 2 for Enhanced spell. This is done after level-based caps have been applied (which allows a Fireball to reach 12d6, for example, or a Dispel Magic to be caster level 12). Save DC also increases by 1. Prepare as a spell two levels higher.

(I just wanted one metamagic for people who can't decide. It's like 1/4th of a Extend Spell, 1/4th an Enlarge, half an Empower, and one level of Heighten (except it doesn't help against a Globe of Invuln.); 2.5 for the price of 2. It also makes Dispel Magic a bit stronger. If you're not sure on the power, I haven't clarified whether the +2 works against SR.)

This would definitely be an interesting metamagic feat. I like it.

IMPROVED COMBAT REFLEXES (Combat)
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes
The player may perform multiple Attacks of Opportunity on a single target; each attack must be in response to a separate opportunity. These attacks follow the character's normal attack progression, as if he were taking a Full Attack option. In addition, the movement of an enemy with Spring Attack can draw an Attack of Opportunity, at a -4 attack penalty (in addition to the -4 provided by Mobility).

(That is, if I get 4 AoOs per round and my attack bonus is +14/+9/+4, my first AoO on you is at the full +14. If I choose to take a second on you, it's at +9, and a third would be at +4. I can't take more than those three, and it's worse than getting the full +14 against 4 different opponents)

I think this is probably balanced but it shouldn't negate the no AoOs benefit of spring attack. There aren't any feats at the moment which allow bad guys to negate the players' feats and it should stay that way. (The possible exception is Close Quarters Fighting vs. OA's Improved Grapple but OA is really its own game and portions of it don't mesh well with standard D&D anyways (Iajutsu Focus/Iajutsu master anyone?)).

This should have a prerequisite BAB of at least 6+ too. It's a high powered feat and more significantly, it couldn't be used before that anyway.

SHARPSHOOTER (Combat)
Prerequisites: Blind-Fight, DEX 13+
The player has been trained to attack with only a glimpse of the target and around obstacles. Cover and Concealment are treated as one level lower (except that Total Cover or Concealment is never reduced).

There's already a Sharpshooting feat in Sword and Fist (although it's not as good as this one--it only gives +2 to hit targets which have cover). You might want to change the name to avoid confusion.

Despite the name, however, the wording gives no indication that this is for ranged attacks only. Is that your intent? (It would be quite useful for meleers as well--perhaps more so since blindfight is more useful to meleers).

You might also want to require 5 ranks of spot, a wisdom of 13+, or alertness. Those would fit with the theme quite well.

POLEARM FIGHTING (Combat)
When using any rigid weapon with extended reach (spears, polearms, but not whips or spiked chains) you may attack any enemies inside the user's natural reach with the shaft of the weapon instead of your normal attack. The shaft does 1d6 bludgeoning damage (x2 crit), although it may be fitted with a spike to turn into a piercing weapon, increasing the threat range to 19-20/x2. A strike with a magical shaft keeps the weapon's Enhancement bonus to the attack roll but does no extra damage; no other special abilities affect the shaft. When using the Defending ability, the attack penalty applies to attacks with all parts of the weapon.
(Note that this lets you threaten adjacent squares, so you can take AoOs as people close on you, but if they're heading towards you the AoO takes place on the inner square, where you can't use the weapon head.)

This seems like a reasonable feat. I'd make two changes though.

First 19-20/x2 is usually the crit range for slashing weapons like swords or daggers. 20/x3 is usually the crit range for spears.

Second, I'd use game terms rather than just descriptive terms for the qualifications. "Large, inflexible, hafted weapons" would be a better way to express this (it would also keep this feat from working with the heavy lance which is good).

IMPROVED POLEARM FIGHTING (Combat)
Prerequisite: Polearm Fighting
Weapons that may be used by the Polearm Fighting Feat (spears and polearms) may be gripped closer to the head, reducing the reach of the weapon by the natural reach of the wielder (to a minimum of 5') at will. The weapon may also be used as a double weapon; the shaft (statistics listed in the Polearm Fighting Feat) may be used as an off-hand weapon, and is always considered to be a light weapon; the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting apply. [/B]

This seems like it would be reasonably balanced as well. (Although the glaive would become the weapon of choice for double weapon wielders--as it would have reach for the first round of combat and would deal as much damage as a double sword or double axe on a full attack but would deal more damage on attacks of opportunity and partial attacks).

 

[Spatzimaus]

Responses to EB:

Altered Repertoire: Actually, this is exactly how I've errata'd all Sorcerers in my world. Note that you can't really get a CHA of 30+, because only your INHERENT CHA matters here. A Cloak of Charisma doesn't help. But yes, by level 20 you could still have a CHA in the high 20s if you use 5 wishes at once. That gives you maybe a dozen new known spells, at the cost of less spells per day.

Expanded Spells:
Note the "+1 level" part. Shield is a good spell, but as a 2nd-level Bard spell? Cone of Cold at 6, where they can't take it until level 16? Also remember the Feat doesn't actually give the spell; they still have to select the spell as a known spell, so it's costing them a 2nd-level slot. (Paladins and Rangers don't have that drawback, but for them the +1 level thing is MUCH more painful)
I suppose you could balance it by saying that all four spells have to be from the same school of magic, and that Bards can't take Evocation. We actually came up with this one for a Psionic Warrior who wanted Body Adjustment for its dinky self-healing; as a 3rd-level power it's double the normal PP cost (Torc of Psionic Might).

Spell Finesse:
Not sure on your math. A level 20 Wizard could only increase the Disintegrate DC by 4 with this Feat (note the 2-for-1 part) by reducing caster level to 12. This is comparable to the Greater Spell Focus Feat, with a drawback (lower caster level means lower ranges, durations, caster level checks vs SR, etc) to balance the increased flexibility.
Yes, it makes the really low-level stuff hard to resist. On the other hand, those spells aren't very effective, especially when you lower caster level. Originally, I had the cap be that you could only apply it once per spell level (that is, a 9th-level spell could go +9, a 5th +5, etc.) but it led to strange situations like a 9th-level instadeath spell with a caster level of 1 for an insane DC.
The question is, is there a way to balance the basic concept? Just saying "once per time you take this Feat" is too weak, IMHO, unless you raise the ratio to 2-for-2 or something.

Improved Combat Reflexes:
Actually, this one wasn't really mine, it was from this board a year ago. The Spring Attack thing was one of the things people were asking for; it's just too absolute. It's still a -8 to attack the person, so it's not a guaranteed hit by any means. But if you don't like it, pull that part out.

Sharpshooter:
Yeah, I know, the name sucks. It was actually made as a class ability for a jungle fighter prestige class, and was translated to a Feat. It's not ranged-only; it's more an increase in your senses than anything else, so I guess Alertness would be a good prereq. Probably rename it "Hawk Eye" or something.
(I also added a "1/10th Cover" category for Bucklers, etc., that only gives a +1 AC against melee attacks; it's like standing behind a chair or curtain, where it might interfere with weapons a little but not enough to really matter. So with this Feat you won't see it go to zero all the time.)
Question: the Sharpshooting Feat you refer to doesn't have the "not effective against Total Cover/Concealment" clause, does it?

Polearm Fighting:
Clarify: the 19-20/x2 is just the threat range for the shaft if you sharpen it. It's more of a dagger than a spear when you use the back end (it's based on an old Greek spear design). I actually originally just said "The back end is either blunt (treat as Light Mace) or sharpened (treat as Dagger)" but a dagger only does 1d4 and it needed to be a little stronger. Actually, I found that most people take the blunt end anyway since there aren't any reach bludgeoning weapons, so mixing damage types works well against stuff resistant to slashing/piercing.

Improved PF:
In fact, these two feats were designed for a Glaive; too many people just go with swords, and I thought polearms would be much cooler. What I figured, though, is that you're spending TWO Feats to make a double weapon that:
1> Can be used as a single-end reach weapon
2> Can take AoOs as a person closes (and with this Feat you can use either end)
3> Has a lousy offhand weapon (1d6 damage, can't give it enchantments).
I don't know, it doesn't seem too bad for a price of 2 Feats; you could just take the Kusari-Gama or Spiked Chain proficiency for less to get the same effect. 1&2 together are just like adding 5' to a sword's reach.
Maybe make it a Move-Equivalent Action to "choke up" on the shaft (or have it be the same as drawing the weapon, so that Quickdraw would work). This'd keep people from instantly using it as a double weapon all the time, and it'd prevent you from using the pointy end for movement AoOs.
So let's see... you need Polearm Fighting (originally it was named Shaft Fighting but people made all kinds of jokes), Improved Polearm Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Quickdraw, maybe Improved 2W Fighting.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Altered Repertoire: Actually, this is exactly how I've errata'd all Sorcerers in my world. Note that you can't really get a CHA of 30+, because only your INHERENT CHA matters here. A Cloak of Charisma doesn't help. But yes, by level 20 you could still have a CHA in the high 20s if you use 5 wishes at once. That gives you maybe a dozen new known spells, at the cost of less spells per day.

Really, I have no idea how this one would work out in practice having little experience playing high level sorcerors. I have played one and I know that more spells known would be a big power boost. (Of course, I think sorcerors are underpowered until high levels anyway). . . .

I missed the bit about Inherent Cha. You could still hit cha 28 if you start with an 18 cha use all your stat increases and 5 wishes at once (or a +5 tome). If you're an Aasmar, you could hit 30. But 26 is probably a much more typical inherent cha score by 20th level.

Expanded Spells:
Note the "+1 level" part. Shield is a good spell, but as a 2nd-level Bard spell? Cone of Cold at 6, where they can't take it until level 16? Also remember the Feat doesn't actually give the spell; they still have to select the spell as a known spell, so it's costing them a 2nd-level slot. (Paladins and Rangers don't have that drawback, but for them the +1 level thing is MUCH more painful)
I suppose you could balance it by saying that all four spells have to be from the same school of magic, and that Bards can't take Evocation. We actually came up with this one for a Psionic Warrior who wanted Body Adjustment for its dinky self-healing; as a 3rd-level power it's double the normal PP cost (Torc of Psionic Might).

Shield would still be a good second level spell for wizards. I doubt many bards would think twice about taking it at second level. For Shield at second level, Fireball at 4th, Stoneskin at 5th and teleport at 6th, I think a bard would happily spend a feat. I don't know about Psionic Warriors because I've never used psionics. Still, all it would take is one abusive spell combination to break the feat. Given the number of spells out there (and how quickly they're increasing), I think that giving players carte blanch to alter their spell lists is not a good idea.

Spell Finesse:
Not sure on your math. A level 20 Wizard could only increase the Disintegrate DC by 4 with this Feat (note the 2-for-1 part) by reducing caster level to 12. This is comparable to the Greater Spell Focus Feat, with a drawback (lower caster level means lower ranges, durations, caster level checks vs SR, etc) to balance the increased flexibility.
Yes, it makes the really low-level stuff hard to resist. On the other hand, those spells aren't very effective, especially when you lower caster level. Originally, I had the cap be that you could only apply it once per spell level (that is, a 9th-level spell could go +9, a 5th +5, etc.) but it led to strange situations like a 9th-level instadeath spell with a caster level of 1 for an insane DC.
The question is, is there a way to balance the basic concept? Just saying "once per time you take this Feat" is too weak, IMHO, unless you raise the ratio to 2-for-2 or something.

Good catch on the math--I missed the 2 for 1 thing. I still think it's a pretty significant problem though. It may be comparable to greater spell focus, but it also stacks with greater spell focus. This is actually more serious than it sounds because the effect of small changes to the DC becomes more dramatic as the DC increases.

For instance, a 20th level wizard with a 32 effective int and greater spell focus: evocation. The ordinary DC to save against his fireball spell is 28. A typical PC going up against such a caster might be a 16th level fighter. Assuming a 12 dex, lightning reflexes, and a +5 cloak of resistance, the fighter would have a reflex save of +13. In order to beat the DC of this relatively low level spell, the fighter needs to roll a 15 or better. If the wizard were to use spell finesse on the fireball, the DC would go up to 33. Now the fighter only saves on a natural 20. The odds of the fighter saving against the fireball just decreased by almost 90% (88.75% to be exact).

For a number of spells with damage caps, there's also little reason not to use this to boost the save DCs. As a DM, I wouldn't want to see fireball suddenly aquiring the DC of an 8th level spell while still taking up a 3rd level slot.

Spell resistance is a valid concern, but I still don't think the tradeoff is enough to make the idea balanced.

Improved Combat Reflexes:
Actually, this one wasn't really mine, it was from this board a year ago. The Spring Attack thing was one of the things people were asking for; it's just too absolute. It's still a -8 to attack the person, so it's not a guaranteed hit by any means. But if you don't like it, pull that part out.

It's still a good feat. I just don't like the idea of negating a PCs feats. Put it this way, if you as a fighter had the cleave, sunder, and improved disarm and you kill a mook and attempt to cleave the big bad guy, how would you feel if the DM say "No, you can't do that. He has the anti-cleave feat." Then you attempt to sunder the bad guy's weapon. DM: "OK, he takes his attack of opportunity." Player: "But I have the sunder feat, I don't provoke AoOs for sundering." DM: "But he has Anti-Sunder. Sorry." Player "OK, I'll disarm him." DM: "He'll take an AoO for that. He has Anti-Disarm too." That scenario is probably a little farfetched but it should make the point. Feats are there to expand characters' options in combat. If they start to be entirely negated by anti-feats then combat will tend to come down to "I swing, I hit/miss" which is precisely the situation feats are meant to avoid.

Sharpshooter:
Yeah, I know, the name sucks. It was actually made as a class ability for a jungle fighter prestige class, and was translated to a Feat. It's not ranged-only; it's more an increase in your senses than anything else, so I guess Alertness would be a good prereq. Probably rename it "Hawk Eye" or something.
(I also added a "1/10th Cover" category for Bucklers, etc., that only gives a +1 AC against melee attacks; it's like standing behind a chair or curtain, where it might interfere with weapons a little but not enough to really matter. So with this Feat you won't see it go to zero all the time.)
Question: the Sharpshooting Feat you refer to doesn't have the "not effective against Total Cover/Concealment" clause, does it?

The S&F Sharpshooting feat doesn't need to say it's not effective against total cover. If a character has total cover, you can't hit them at all. OTOH, it doesn't effect concealment at all.

Re: Bucklers, I don't think the 1/10 cover category is necessary. Bucklers provide an armor bonus. The only things that provide cover are the shield spell, tower shields, and well, cover. I would have no problem saying that standing behind a knee high wall or a light mist doesn't help at all against the "Hawk Eyed" sniper.

Polearm Fighting:
Clarify: the 19-20/x2 is just the threat range for the shaft if you sharpen it. It's more of a dagger than a spear when you use the back end (it's based on an old Greek spear design). I actually originally just said "The back end is either blunt (treat as Light Mace) or sharpened (treat as Dagger)" but a dagger only does 1d4 and it needed to be a little stronger. Actually, I found that most people take the blunt end anyway since there aren't any reach bludgeoning weapons, so mixing damage types works well against stuff resistant to slashing/piercing.

That's a good point about most people wanting bludgeoning anyway. . . .

Improved PF:
In fact, these two feats were designed for a Glaive; too many people just go with swords, and I thought polearms would be much cooler. What I figured, though, is that you're spending TWO Feats to make a double weapon that:
1> Can be used as a single-end reach weapon
2> Can take AoOs as a person closes (and with this Feat you can use either end)
3> Has a lousy offhand weapon (1d6 damage, can't give it enchantments).
I don't know, it doesn't seem too bad for a price of 2 Feats; you could just take the Kusari-Gama or Spiked Chain proficiency for less to get the same effect. 1&2 together are just like adding 5' to a sword's reach.
Maybe make it a Move-Equivalent Action to "choke up" on the shaft (or have it be the same as drawing the weapon, so that Quickdraw would work). This'd keep people from instantly using it as a double weapon all the time, and it'd prevent you from using the pointy end for movement AoOs.
So let's see... you need Polearm Fighting (originally it was named Shaft Fighting but people made all kinds of jokes), Improved Polearm Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Quickdraw, maybe Improved 2W Fighting.

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to have a allow this feat to make a glaive the ideal double weapon. (Although, why not allow both ends to be enchanted?). Given the number of feats it takes to make double weapon fighting work anyway, I don't think that's a problem. I was just pointing out the likely effect.

So let me see: Human Ftr
1. Ambidex, TWF, Polearm Fighting
2. Improved Polearm Fighting
3. Wp Focus: Glaive
4. Wp Spec: Glaive
6. Combat Reflexes, Imp Combat Reflexes
8. Imp TWF
9. Imp Crit: Glaive
10. Quickdraw
12. Power Crit: Glaive, Supreme TWF (of whatever the MotW feat is)

I don't think that that kind of a fighter is going to be unbalanced at all. He's made a lot of sacrifices (Power Attack, Cleave, Iron Will, Blindfight, Expert Tactician, prestige classes, and multiclassing) in order to become effective with that weapon style. . . .

 

[Spatzimaus]

First of all, I try to balance things at around 12th-13th level. The number was kinda arbitrary, but it's generally where people are just starting to get the good stuff from Prestige Classes, and before they get a +5 Wish bonus. Numbers just get way too out-of-control if you can raise a stat to the 30s.

Expanded Spells:
Getting Fireball at 4th spell level may seem much, but realize that they can't get it until 10th character level at the earliest, and won't be able to cast nearly as many as a Sorcerer. Go read Piratecat's Story Hour; Nolin (the Bard) has a prestige class that lets him cast Fireball, among other things.
I just don't think it's that much of a problem. You could argue that all four spells chosen have to be linked (thematically, spell school, whatever), and that it's still subject to DM's approval.
Mainly I wanted this Feat for 2E conversions. I had a Bard in AD&D (Blade kit) that used some of these spells, and now they've been taken away.

Spell Finesse:
You're using a 20th-level Wizard, starting at 18 INT, who wished himself 5 INT and is optimized for Evocation spells, versus a level 16 tank with bad reflex saves and a 12 DEX? Hardly a fair comparison. I could just as easily argue that the target is a level 16 Rogue who started with 18 DEX, increased it 4 times, has +6 DEX gloves, a +5 Cloak of Resistance, and Lightning Reflexes for a total of +26; he'd save on a 2, even against your level 20 damagemeister, and with Improved Evasion he probably wouldn't care if you could increase the DC by a few points. Also, since at high levels you might be practically guaranteed to have SR items, lowering the caster level would be catastrophic.

Once you get to the really high levels and start using Wishes for stats, these sorts of debates just get ridiculous. It ends up as a rock-paper-scissors thing where a tank beats a rogue/monk beats a caster beats a tank.

Improved Combat Reflexes:
Isn't Spring Attack already one of those "anti-Feats" you're talking about? There are Feats that let you take AoOs in more advantageous ways (I like Stand Still, PsiHB), and Spring Attack prevents you from using them. Personally I don't have a problem with being told "The bad guy hits you anyway"; it's like watching the bad guy (who has Deflect Arrows) grab your projectiles and throw them away, he's doing something you didn't think was possible. That's what Feats are for, IMHO.

Sharpshooter:
I forgot that we changed the phrasing, it doesn't affect magical Concealment (Blur or Displacement).
The 1/10th Cover thing was proposed here long ago simply because there's a 9/10ths Cover category already. Also, there were too many situations where 1/4 Cover (standing behind a 3' wall) was just too severe. I'm fighting in a dining room, and there's a chair between me and the enemy. Nothing critical is protected, it's just going to get in the way a bit on melee attacks.
As for the Buckler comment, I forgot that we use a house rule to make shields better. Shields don't provide an Armor bonus, they provide Cover. Bucklers provide 1/10th Cover (1 AC against melee), for example.
This way it stacks with armor but not with mundane cover or the Shield spell. Also, unlike normal cover you lose it if flat-footed. Since it's not an armor bonus you keep it against Touch spells.

Improved PF:
The reason I don't allow the other end to be enchanted is for balance. It also makes it clear that the shaft is NOT a real weapon in its own right. According to the core rules, a double weapon has each end enchanted separately; so, while you CAN have them be entirely different enchantments, you effectively HAVE to enchant both ends. (Note that NWN changed this, a fix I think worked nicely)
According to the PHB the shaft of an enchanted weapon still gains benefits (hardness and HP) from an Enhancement bonus on the head. So, I wanted that to be reflected a bit in the statistics for the shaft.
So, let's compare a Two-Bladed Sword +3 (both ends enchanted separately) with a Glaive +4 that costs roughly the same:
Sword:
Main hand +3+STR attack, 1d8+STR+3 damage (19-20/x2)
Off hand +3+STR/2 attack, 1d8+STR/2+3 damage (19-20/x2)

Glaive:
Main hand +4+STR attack, 1d10+STR+4 damage (20/x3)
Off hand +4+STR/2 attack, 1d6+STR/2 damage (20/x2 for blunt)

So the main hand improved by +1 attack and +2 damage, while the offhand gained +1 attack but lost 4 damage.

If you play the NWN variant where a double weapon has one enchantment, so that the sword is now +4, the difference becomes +1 damage on the main hand but -5 damage on the offhand. This combo will never be better than existing double weapons for someone who fights with that style; it's more of a fallback for people who use polearms.
Also, since you can't put other abilities on the shaft, if your weapon has things like Flaming instead of pure Enhancement, the shaft gets even weaker.

As for your Human Fighter, he definitely needs Power Attack. Given the suckiness of the shaft end, he probably wouldn't want Improved TWF.

One of the characters in my campaign is a female Half-Elf Ranger 1/Psychic Warrior 11 named Kai who wanted these. Her Feats:
1 (Ranger)> Improved Initiative, and the usual Ranger stuff
2> Combat Reflexes
3> Speed of Thought, Polearm Fighting
6> Psionic Weapon, Power Attack
7> Weapon Specialization: Glaive
9> Stand Still, Psionic Charge
12> Deep Impact, Blind-Fight

No Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Cleave, Dodge/Mobility/etc., and she hasn't even taken Quickdraw, Improved Polearm Fighting, or Improved Combat Reflexes yet. So yes, I'd agree it's moderately balanced.

Most of these Feats were designed for a primitive jungle-dwelling Wood Elf culture IMC, where most of them are Barbarian/Rangers with a little bit of Rogue, Druid, or Psychic Warrior. Got a neat Prestige Class for them, too, based on the old Stalker kit and the DMG Assassin.

 

[The Forsaken One]

Looks decent~!

 

[Wolf72]

Can I post my armor feats too?

[inspired from Rokugan CS]


Armor Feats: each of these feats requires a specific armor feat to use properly (light, medium, heavy, sheild). The feat chain only applies towards one armor type (light, medium, heavy, shield) and must apply towards the same type of armor.

 Focused Armor (general, fighter) [by Wolf72]
You excel in the use of a particular armor or shield.
Prerequisite: appropriate armor feat (light, medium, heavy, shield)

Benefits: Choose one specific type of armor, you get -1 ACP and +1 max dex bonus. Shields only benefit from the –1 ACP.


 Armor Specialist (general, fighter) [by Wolf 72]
Your superior skill with armor allows you to use it more effectively.
Prerequisites: +3 BAB, Focused Armor

Benefit: With the specific type of armor you are focused you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC (it stacks with other dodge stuff). You lose this bonus any time you would lose a normal dodge bonus.

Special: You do not need the Focused Armor feat if you want to specialize with a shield (buckler, small, large).

 Armored Mobility (general, fighter) [by Wolf72]
You are an expert at moving in heavier armors.
Prerequisites: +2 BAB, Focused Armor

Benefit: Armor counts as one category less for you (minimum of light). This allows you to move faster with medium armor (or use a ranger’s special abilities), or use the full run ability in heavy armor.

Special: This feat does not stack with any other ability that lessens the weight or encumbrance of armor, specifically mithral (a suit of mithral half-plate will not count as light armor)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Spell Finesse

Spell Finesse:
You're using a 20th-level Wizard, starting at 18 INT, who wished himself 5 INT and is optimized for Evocation spells, versus a level 16 tank with bad reflex saves and a 12 DEX? Hardly a fair comparison. I could just as easily argue that the target is a level 16 Rogue who started with 18 DEX, increased it 4 times, has +6 DEX gloves, a +5 Cloak of Resistance, and Lightning Reflexes for a total of +26; he'd save on a 2, even against your level 20 damagemeister, and with Improved Evasion he probably wouldn't care if you could increase the DC by a few points. Also, since at high levels you might be practically guaranteed to have SR items, lowering the caster level would be catastrophic.

Once you get to the really high levels and start using Wishes for stats, these sorts of debates just get ridiculous. It ends up as a rock-paper-scissors thing where a tank beats a rogue/monk beats a caster beats a tank.

Well, the reason I avoided the rogue as an example was to avoid the rock/paper/scissors situation.
Consider the same wizard hitting the fighter with a polymorph other. DC=14 (level)+4 greater spell focus)+11 (32 int)=29 or 35 with spell finesse (min clvl 7; cast at 8th level for +6 DC). The fighter has a pretty good fort save. +10 level, +5 cloak, +4 con (I'm assuming the fighter can't have a really good con since he probably spent most of his money on strength items etc. These are both characters that are built on 28-32 point buy. A +4 con item is still pretty reasonable for this level). Total +19 fort. Normally, the fighter needs to roll a 10 (which he'll do 55% of the time) in order to succeed at what is probably his best save. With spell finesse, the fighter needs to roll a 16 (Which he'll do 25% of the time--less than half as often). The fighter's chance to save was cut in half by the +6 DC. I don't think that is a balanced situation. In fact it only serves to enhance the rock/paper/scissorsness of a high level game.

It may be argued that the fighter would in all likelihood have a better fort save than +19 (due to multiclassing and prestige classes or being a dwarf (assuming the same base stats and items a dwarf would have +24 against that spell IIRC). However, the wizard can also do better than those DCs by picking prestige classes, making use of non-core spells (triple empowered fox's cunning or Monte Cook's BOEM Greater Magical Flow Enhancer, etc.) or prestige classes so I think the possibilities for ramping up are about equal on both sides.

The wizard is semi-maximized to demonstrate the effects of stacking. He could be much worse (As it stands 16 int+5 level increases+6 headband+5 wish/tome is pretty standard. The wizard could easily be 18 +5 level +5 wish/tome +6 headband for 34 effective int and if you allow grey/sun elves, he could be 20+ all that for 36 effective int. He could also have archmage or elemental savant levels to boost the save even more.) In any event, the point is that +4 DC isn't always +4 DC. Greater spell focus itself is only +2 DC for one feat (there's another +2 from spell focus which is its prereq). However, since this would stack with all of the other ways to increase DCs, it would be that much more powerful.

The essential argument is that the power of stacking DC enhancing abilities is exponential. Spell focus is powerful by itself but becomes much more powerful when you add another +2 with greater spell focus. Both of those become more powerful when you add a headband of intellect, etc. Adding another way to increase DCs has that same exponential effect (except that this way to increase DCs increases them much more than spell focus, greater spell focus, the headband, stat increases, or wishes--in fact you will often need to add two of those other ways together in order to equal the Spell Finesse DC). The wizard v fighter demonstration is primarily intended as an example of this.

As to the SR argument, it doesn't wash with me. I played in a short term 15th level game and nobody except the monk had SR of any kind. We were all relatively new to the game but that does say something. The only common ways I can think of to gain SR are:
1. Being a monk
2. Armor of spell resistance (rather weak SR that is pretty useless at high levels)
3. Holy Aura, etc.
4. Spell Resistance (the clerical spell)
There may be others but I'm not sure what they are. In any event, SR is far from guaranteed in high level PC vs NPC encounters.