Least favorite Feat/Feature changes between 3.5 to Pathfinder?

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Essentially what the title says: of the changes that Pathfinder made to a class feature or feat that existed in 3.5 as well, which are you least favorite? Unnecessary nerfing, restrictions, anything. I've seen a few threads discussing differences between similar things in the two games, but most of the time it ends up centered on spells, so I'm interested in the rest of it!

Personally, I don't like Pathfinder's version of Power Attack. It gives two-handers even more of a damage lead on other fighting styles and doesn't reward full-BAB classes as much compared to those with lower BAB but more options.

[Firechanter]

Actually, I think in PF Sword&Board TWF is the most efficient martial fighting style, if you can afford the feats. Dual Shields even if you're a munchkin with surgically removed good taste and decency.

I generally hate the fact that PF nerfed practically _all_ the combat maneuver feats (now broken up into two feats each), but the Cleave chain probably takes the cake. If you want to do the same thing as a 3.5 Great Cleaving fighter, you now have to invest FIVE feats. And what's more, the efficacy of Cleave is entirely in the hands of the GM. If he doesn't place his monsters adjacent to each other, you can't use it.

TBH I didn't take any of these feats in 3.5 either, but I just hate the general attitude Paizo shows towards martial classes. At the same time, the WIZARD got BUFFED for heavens' sake!

Naive players often point out "yeah, but you get more feats". Do you, really? Over the course of the first TWELVE levels, you get ONE extra feat. But you have to pay 8 (!) feats to pull off two (rather unoptimized) tricks that were a total of 4 feats in 3.5. That's a losing deal by any reckoning.

The name Paizo is really just short for Play A wIZard Olready.

[Stealth Marmot]

Actually, I think in PF Sword&Board TWF is the most efficient martial fighting style, if you can afford the feats. Dual Shields even if you're a munchkin with surgically removed good taste and decency.

I generally hate the fact that PF nerfed practically _all_ the combat maneuver feats (now broken up into two feats each), but the Cleave chain probably takes the cake. If you want to do the same thing as a 3.5 Great Cleaving fighter, you now have to invest FIVE feats. And what's more, the efficacy of Cleave is entirely in the hands of the GM. If he doesn't place his monsters adjacent to each other, you can't use it.

Cleave is actually better in Pathfinder in some cases. You don't have to drop the creature you hit to use it, so it's more intentional. I'm also not sure where you are getting 5 feats instead of 3 to get to Great Cleave. What are the 2 other feats?

That said, it now requires a standard action AND you take a -2 to AC, so when you start getting multiple attacks it really loses usefulness. The adjacency requirement is what really kills it.

Honestly, it just seems like it is a completely different feat, like a low grade Whirlwind Attack.

You also need to keep a few things in mind concerning Combat Maneuvers. Combat Maneuvers no longer have intense differences due to size. The bonus from the Improved trip feat alone negates the different in HUGE sized creatures, and with the second feat actually negates up to GARGANTUAN.

That said, creatures those size usually have obscene strength scores anyway, but the point is that tripping is somewhat more viable against larger creatures then it was in 3.5 Also the feats give secondary benefits they didn't give before. Improved trip makes you harder to trip for example. But more importantly, Greater trip turns that attack you get to take into an attack of opportunity. That means that your other combat allies get to take a swing as well. Improved Disarm makes you harder to disarm now and Greater Disarm makes it so that the weapon flies away 15 feet instead of at their feet, which is a significant difference.

Your point still stands though, those are a LOT of feats to be throwing into the mix and we don't get that many extra. In fact we don't have ANY extra from 3.5-Pathfinder until 5th level, and then you don't get 2 ahead until 11th level.

[Firechanter]

Why I said five feats: 3.5 Great Cleave is more similar to PF Improved Cleaving Finish, which has Great Cleave and Cleaving Finish as Prereq.
In 3.0/3.5 Great Cleave is a decent feat in lowlevel games -- a Fighter can get it online at level 4, and it's sometimes fun to mow through lowlevel enemies like the reaper in the wheat.

In my very first PF game, there was a Fighter with Cleave in the party. That group used the 3.5 Cleave rules. During our little adventure, the Fighter's Cleave triggered 17 times, from either oneshotting enemies or finishing off wounded foes. I mentally kept track how often the PF version of the feat would have procced: exactly _zero_ times. Not once were two enemies adjacent to each other.
Basically I don't like feats where the DM gets to decide if and when I can use it, and can prevent me from using it so easily just by placing his creeps 10' apart.

[Offtopic rant: similarly, I ended up regretting picking Great Weapon Master in our 5E game. Over the course of 9 levels, I used the Power Attack feature in maybe three fights. Simply because our DM preferred to use high-AC enemies like Hobgoblins, and the feat only has an "On" and "Off" switch, giving a -5 To Hit if you use it.]

[martixy]

In general I agree. Seems like a combo between 3.5 and PF version both preserves the usefulness and extends the versatility without altering its power signature.

Me, I dislike Power Attack and Combat Expertise. They removed player choice, making them strictly on/off features. That's just silly.

[Vhaidara]

You also need to keep a few things in mind concerning Combat Maneuvers. Combat Maneuvers no longer have intense differences due to size. The bonus from the Improved trip feat alone negates the different in HUGE sized creatures, and with the second feat actually negates up to GARGANTUAN.

That said, creatures those size usually have obscene strength scores anyway, but the point is that tripping is somewhat more viable against larger creatures then it was in 3.5

You might have had a point here, if PF didn't also blacklist several combat maneuvers (bull rush, drag, overrun, reposition, trip) from being used against enemies more than one size bigger than you. Additionally, in 3.5, tripping a flying enemy would cause them to fall to the ground. Now fliers are immune, legless creatures are immune, and multilegged enemies get +4 for every pair of legs. And you have to invest 2 feats for the benefit of one old feat (since they even only give half the bonus).