Skill points are fine at 4+Int bonus per level, I agree, Syonique; it's the combat stuff that is a little too strong. I take your point about the feats, Syonique, but remember that the type of mind-blade taken isn't fixed - it is really up to the player if they want to spend their feats on this just as a fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin would have to choose a fighting style feat if they want one and a weapon appropriate to that feat. The original soulknife never had bonus feats - if you wanted to dual-wield, you had to buy the feat like anyone else. People still did it, because it was worth it.

"Skill points are fine at 4+Int bonus per level, I agree"

UH. That's kinda what I was complaining about. I think it should be (or at least would very much like) 6+Int bonus, like a Ranger. >_>

"remember that the type of mind-blade taken isn't fixed - it is really up to the player if they want to spend their feats on this just as a fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin would have to choose a fighting style feat if they want one and a weapon appropriate to that feat."

No, no, NO. You just missed the point with a natural 1 on the die.

If you are making a Skirmisher, and you do not have Two-Weapon Fighting, you CANNOT FUNCTION properly. You just went from "Ok, I dual-wield weapons" to "Ok, either I have a single shortsword, while that guy over there has a greatsword... or I have two shortswords and I suffer -4/-8 on all my attacks, yet I'm still somehow supposed to keep up with the greatsword guy."

This would be comparable to saying, "Ok, Paladins, here's the scoop: You can Smite Evil, but ONLY if you are using an Exotic Weapon favored by your deity. Ok? So if you want to Smite, you HAVE to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or just suck up the -4 penalty on all your attack rolls. Enjoy!" Is that fair? NO. You shouldn't HAVE to spend your starting 1st level feat on a single, specific, pre-determined feat just to take advantage of a native class feature. Paladins everywhere would be screaming, and the argument "But it's a BENEFIT that you get Smite Evil, stop complaining!" would fall on deaf ears.

Or take spellcasters. What if, in order to cast Evocation and Conjuration spells, a Sorc must first spend a feat on a specific Nuking Magic feat? You could argue, "It is really up to the player if he wants to use a certain style" and point out that he still has all his same spell slots, so he could just as easily pick a different casting style... but if you add that restriction, you basically just cut out a sizable chunk of the class to anyone that DOESN'T take that particular feat.

To have a base class with a 1-out-of-3 path that specifically SPECIALIZES in dual-wielding from level 1, and yet not have that class grant Two Weapon Fighting to that path... is stupid. That's like having Rangers start out with no innate proficiency with bows or crossbows, and then arguing that it's their choice if they want to take the archery weapon style.

You make the paths sound like just a flavorful justification to give the SK free feats.

*A* free feat, at level 1, to specifically support the character's chosen combat style.

Monks get Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows and several exotic weapon proficiencies specifically matching their funky martial arts. They don't get general-purpose exotic weapon proficiencies like Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe.

Rangers get all Simple and Martial weapon proficiencies (including bows and crossbows) and can choose a combat style which then grants them bonus feats specifically tied to that combat style.

Rogues get simple weapons and traditional thief-like weapons: hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and shortsword. They get a free Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, but it's one that is tied to the specific combat style of the class (stealthy sneak attacks), which is why they get tiny hand crossbows and not massive Dire Flails.

Druids specifically get proficiency with any natural attacks from forms they assume using their class feature, wild shape.

Bards get proficiency with simple weapons and longsword, rapier, sap, shortsword, shortbow, and whip. Whip is an Exotic Weapon, too; yet another example of a class-granted feat specifically to support that class's combat style.

A class that is all about psionic dual-wielded weapons of psionic energy had better have Weapon Proficiency with those weapons and Two-Weapon Fighting, and those should be granted by the class specifically. "A class that is all about psionic dual-wielded weapons of psionic energy" is exactly what a Skirmisher is.

I mean, seriously. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (mindblade) is arguably a free feat, too. Should THAT be taken away, and the character forced to spend a feat on it? What about Striker form? Should a soulknife have to spend a feat specifically on Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword) before he can use Striker form effectively?

In all fairness, one could argue that ALL soulknives should get Two Weapon Fighting for free, since the ability to reconfigure the mindblade into Skirmisher form is available to all soulknives, and without that feat Skirmisher form is pretty useless. Skirmishers get proficiency with (mindblade: greatsword) and (mindblade: shield) after all, so why shouldn't the other two forms gain proficiency with dual-wielding shortswords? As demonstrated above, many classes gain feats (exotic weapon proficiency) that they rarely rely upon (most rogues don't rely on hand crossbows for damage during dungeon crawls, and most monks aren't heavily encumbered with an arsenal of exotic weapons), so it would hardly be something new.

Syonique, I'm not missing the point at all. You forget that without the paths, there is no functional reason for calling any kind of soulknife a skirmisher, defender or striker; the mind blade can be formed into different sizes and numbers of weapons or defences, yes - in the same way, a fighter can buy any combination of weapons he wants. The Soulknife has proficiency with his mind blade, therefore he can use his mind blade - if he wants to do fancy tricks by making two of them and fighting with both, then he has to take the feats in the same way that a fighter has to take Two Weapon Fighting if he buys a pair of shortswords. Proficiency is not the issue here; being able to do extra stunts is.

{Edit: That or as you say, ALL soulknives should have TWF with their mindblades as you say above, because it is an option for all of them.}

If you look at the Ranger and their fighting styles, they don't get their first feat until 2nd level. So what do they do at first level? No one complains that their dual wielding ranger doesn't have TWF at first level - if they want to dual wield at first level, then they take the feat like anyone else, and take a different bonus feat at 2nd level.

Tsailanza wrote:

You make the paths sound like just a flavorful justification to give the SK free feats.

Where bonus feats are used in other classes in this way, they are a fundamental part of the class and they get the bonus feats instead of additional abilities, not as well as those abilities. I am not saying they are a bad thing, I just think that they should be incorporated into the Blade Skills for reasons of balance with other combat classes.

Dab little confused here: how does the Monk and Ranger gain their bonus feats instead of other abilities?? the Rogue does, but that's because the feat comes from a class feature that can also provide other benefits. Not so with the Monk/Ranger or as it stands the SK.

Just curious, but how many people here have played the current SK in a normal, non-hilghy optimized game?? from what it sounds like, most of you feel or think the SK is overpowered, which nice but did you know some people feel Pun-Pun is legal and normal??(if you don't know who Pun-Pun is, google him, then cry)

What does pun pun have to do with anything?

Bonus feats are ussually considered a ¨strong¨ class feature for anyone to have (hence most talents being compared to feats for power). Bade Skills are a very strong class feature, since many of them are better than a single feat. And Psychic Strike is another strong class feature (by lvl 5 is only 0.5 damage below cavaliers and paladins when their abilities are only x/times per day).

Come on this is not hard math, they have 3 strong class features one stacked upon the other (and it feels it is done in a sense of vindication of such a cool concept being a piece of crap for so much time), and that on top of it´s flavorfull ones (wild talent, thrown mind blade, quick draw). why is it so hard to see the problem there?

I don´t mind it having a lot of class features (hell the paladin does), however all his abilities are combat oriented, the SK is just an overpowered fighting machine with a lot of skill points. (ironically same as the cavalier and barbarian who are both sub par to the fighter, however the SK is equal or better at fighting than the later).

I´m not gonna get tired of repeating this, I have experimented with it already, change the bonus feats for a non combat oriented abiity and tune down the blade skills for a great result.

"If you look at the Ranger and their fighting styles, they don't get their first feat until 2nd level. So what do they do at first level? No one complains that their dual wielding ranger doesn't have TWF at first level - if they want to dual wield at first level, then they take the feat like anyone else, and take a different bonus feat at 2nd level."

Not so. If someone plans for their Ranger to be a dual-wielder long-term, then they just don't dual-wield for one level, unless they specifically don't mind WASTING a feat just to avoid penalties for a single level. NO ONE with a modicum of sense specializes in Two Weapon Fighting but picks Archery style just so they can dual-wield from level 1 rather than level 2. Rangers put up with no dual-wield until level 2 because they get so many free dual-wield feats later down the road if they take that style.

Again: Skirmisher form represents some 1/3 of the class for Defenders and Strikers, but IS THE CORE OF THE CLASS for Skirmishers! Denying Skirmishers Two-Weapon Proficiency is like denying Monks Unarmed Strike! Are you going to tell Monks, "Oh, just suck it up and spend your 1st level feat on Improved Unarmed Strike like everyone else!" ? As you say, "The Soulknife has proficiency with his mind blade, therefore he can use his mind blade"... except that without Two-Weapon Fighting, a Skirmisher effectively DOESN'T have proficiency with his chosen configuration, and as a result CANNOT use his mindblade! What happens when you use a weapon without a proficiency feat? -4 to your attack roll. What happens when you try to use Skirmisher form without a certain feat? -4 to your attack roll, and twice that on your offhand attack roll. Two Weapon Fighting basically IS a proficiency feat! It doesn't let you do something you would otherwise be physically UNABLE to do, like the later feats in the chain; ANYONE can dual-wield, just like ANYONE can swing an exotic weapon. All Two-Weapon Fighting does is eliminate what are essentially nonproficiency penalties.

It's the exact same as if you make mindblade an Exotic weapon, and don't grant the soulknife automatic proficiency. Sure, he CAN use it if that's his choice, but he has to spend his 1st level feat or suffer the appropriate attack penalty. If Fighters want to use exotic weapons, they have to spend a feat, so that makes it fair, right?

thankfully this thread is going to be locked soon, otherwise the sheer n utter nonsense being spewed forth could very make my brain explode.

to take a que from Jason over @ Paizo, please playtest these classes in actual games as opposed to hypothetical tests n mathmatical formulas.

Lordmonkeysama wrote:

Dab little confused here: how does the Monk and Ranger gain their bonus feats instead of other abilities?? the Rogue does, but that's because the feat comes from a class feature that can also provide other benefits. Not so with the Monk/Ranger or as it stands the SK.

Pathfinder core rulebook, page 66, table 3-12. Look down the list of the ranger's Special collumn and you will see that they usually get 'combat style feat' as their only increase for that level, the only exception being 10th level when they also get a bump in their favoured enemy as well. For fourteen of twenty levels they get only one 'special' per level.

Now look at the paladin: for the first four levels they get a lot of minor abilities, then it's just one special per level (for sixteen out of twenty levels) as well.

I didn't specifically mention the monk, I was thinking of the other full-on combat classes, but even so although the monk gets lots of special abilities, they are infamous for not synergising well with combat, many of their abilities are weak (getting a bonus feat alongside being able to slow fall for an extra ten feet, for example, is hardly game-breaking), and even so for seven levels they get only one per level.

The fighter gets one Special per level for fifteen levels, on those where he gets two the second is always a bonus feat and an increase in bravery - not universally considered to be the strongest of class abilities.

The Barbarian gets increases in two special abilities in eight out of twenty levels, the rest get just one.

The soulknife has only five levels where they gain only one special ability for that level, and many of those their abilities are strong and synergise well. That's 15/20 for the SK, vs 6/20 for the ranger, 4/20 for the paladin, 8/20 for the barbarian and 5/20 for the fighter. It's 13/20 for the monk, but he has other limitations.

Lordmonkeysama wrote:

Just curious, but how many people here have played the current SK in a normal, non-hilghy optimized game?? from what it sounds like, most of you feel or think the SK is overpowered, which nice but did you know some people feel Pun-Pun is legal and normal??(if you don't know who Pun-Pun is, google him, then cry)

I don't think I could persuade any DM to consider any DM letting me play this class, currently. I will run it by a few I know on the Pathfinder boards and give you their feedback.

Syonique wrote:

Not so. If someone plans for their Ranger to be a dual-wielder long-term, then they just don't dual-wield for one level, unless they specifically don't mind WASTING a feat just to avoid penalties for a single level. NO ONE with a modicum of sense specializes in Two Weapon Fighting but picks Archery style just so they can dual-wield from level 1 rather than level 2. Rangers put up with no dual-wield until level 2 because they get so many free dual-wield feats later down the road if they take that style.

Or alternatively they take TWF at level one as one of their basic feats, and improve it at level two. They have a choice. If the feat is a waste, what's the point in giving it away? A free feat is a free feat. You could use this argument to have the form focus integrated into the blade skills and take it at level two, which is what I advocate.

Syonique wrote:

Again: Skirmisher form represents some 1/3 of the class for Defenders and Strikers, but IS THE CORE OF THE CLASS for Skirmishers! Denying Skirmishers Two-Weapon Proficiency is like denying Monks Unarmed Strike! Are you going to tell Monks, "Oh, just suck it up and spend your 1st level feat on Improved Unarmed Strike like everyone else!" ? As you say, "The Soulknife has proficiency with his mind blade, therefore he can use his mind blade"... except that without Two-Weapon Fighting, a Skirmisher effectively DOESN'T have proficiency with his chosen configuration, and as a result CANNOT use his mindblade! What happens when you use a weapon without a proficiency feat? -4 to your attack roll. What happens when you try to use Skirmisher form without a certain feat? -4 to your attack roll, and twice that on your offhand attack roll. Two Weapon Fighting basically IS a proficiency feat! It doesn't let you do something you would otherwise be physically UNABLE to do, like the later feats in the chain; ANYONE can dual-wield, just like ANYONE can swing an exotic weapon. All Two-Weapon Fighting does is eliminate what are essentially nonproficiency penalties.

Can you show me this "Skirmisher" class? No. There is no "Skirmisher" class. What you are talking about is a soulknife who uses a particular fighting style - just as a fighter, a barbarian, or a ranger can choose a fighting style. Until he chooses to spend feats on that style, he has the option of using the two-handed mindblade, the medium-sized mind-blade (with or without mind shield) or the small mind-blade.

Syonique wrote:

It's the exact same as if you make mindblade an Exotic weapon, and don't grant the soulknife automatic proficiency. Sure, he CAN use it if that's his choice, but he has to spend his 1st level feat or suffer the appropriate attack penalty. If Fighters want to use exotic weapons, they have to spend a feat, so that makes it fair, right?

The fighter has automatic martial weapon proficiency and can choose from a wide range of martial weapons with that - if he wants to use something special like an exotic weapon or two weapons at once, he has to pay for it. The soulknife likewise has proficiency with his mind-blade and can still choose a wide range of effects with it. If he wants to use two at once, then like the fighter who wants to use two martial weapons at once he has to pay for it. What's wrong with that? It works for every other class under the sun - you get the basics, you pay for the extras. Two-Weapon Fighting is not a basic for any other class, even for the ranger choosing his fighting style. Remember, I'm not arguing to remove the free feats, I just wanted to subsume them into the blade skills. You could still get your TWF at 2nd level just like the ranger.

If you feel that the soulknife should be able to use all of his mindblade options with the same facility, that's a different matter. I can understand arguing for all soulknives having TWF, but then should they only get it with the mindblades? If so it breaks the changes Pathfinder made in not giving feat-effects but giving full feats (as in the changes in the Ranger).

Lordmonkeysama wrote:

to take a que from Jason over @ Paizo, please playtest these classes in actual games as opposed to hypothetical tests n mathmatical formulas.

Someone did that. Their feedback was that is was overpowered. That's the only feedback thus far. But the rest of us aren't running 'mathematical formulas' we're just comparing it with other classes with the same role.

Frerezar wrote:

What does pun pun have to do with anything? Bonus feats are ussually considered a ¨strong¨ class feature for anyone to have (hence most talents being compared to feats for power). Bade Skills are a very strong class feature, since many of them are better than a single feat. And Psychic Strike is another strong class feature (by lvl 5 is only 0.5 damage below cavaliers and paladins when their abilities are only x/times per day).

Note that psychic strike is useable once a round (twice occasionally) without feats, and that's if all you do is charge it and attack, over and over again. And it's effectiveness is reduced rather easily (face it, creatures immune to mind-affecting abilities are not that uncommon).

Quote::

Come on this is not hard math, they have 3 strong class features one stacked upon the other (and it feels it is done in a sense of vindication of such a cool concept being a piece of crap for so much time), and that on top of it´s flavorfull ones (wild talent, thrown mind blade, quick draw). why is it so hard to see the problem there?

Because not everyone puts the same weight on some of these class features as you do. D&D balance is NEVER simple math, because it's objective. You can run the math a million times, but it means nothing without actual playtesting to back it up. And we've only seen one playtest, using a highly optimized build.

Quote::

I don´t mind it having a lot of class features (hell the paladin does), however all his abilities are combat oriented, the SK is just an overpowered fighting machine with a lot of skill points. (ironically same as the cavalier and barbarian who are both sub par to the fighter, however the SK is equal or better at fighting than the later).

The barbarian is not sub par to the fighter. They excel at different things, but it is not sub par at all. I've seen this in play. I don't have players available at the moment due to scheduling, so I have not seen the cavalier in play. And I would still play a fighter tank before I'd play a defender (armour training is freaking awesome).

Dabbler273 wrote:

Or alternatively they take TWF at level one as one of their basic feats, and improve it at level two. They have a choice. If the feat is a waste, what's the point in giving it away? A free feat is a free feat. You could use this argument to have the form focus integrated into the blade skills and take it at level two, which is what I advocate.

The blade skills are the core of this class at the moment. They should not have to be used to take feats that you require to be functional (and skirmishers do absolutely require TWF and the rest of that chain to function). While I agree that waiting until 2nd level like the ranger would be fine (considering very few 1st level creatures get missed, period), removing the Form Focus ability is pretty much a non-option, and folding it into the Blade Skills is even more of one.

Dabbler273 wrote:

Someone did that. Their feedback was that is was overpowered. That's the only feedback thus far. But the rest of us aren't running 'mathematical formulas' we're just comparing it with other classes with the same role.

Using an admittedly highly-optimized build. High optimization does not make for a good balance judgement, as literally any class that has a good optimizer can be broken.

MaverickWolf wrote:

Using an admittedly highly-optimized build. High optimization does not make for a good balance judgement, as literally any class that has a good optimizer can be broken.

This is very true, but they accounted for that in their feedback. Nor does that invalidate the other comparisons with other melee classes. Quite simply, the soulknife gets a lot more than any other class, and you need to find a way to cut that down somehow.

I think the blade skills are a fantastic concept, make no mistake, but the mind-blade itself aside you also have the psychic strike (a strong feature), form-focus feats (also fairly strong), other bonus feats or feat-equivalents (more flavourful but still useful), and some other special abilities AS WELL as the blade skills (which are already very strong). Something has to give, somewhere, and integrating some of the other abilities into the blade skills is the only way I can think of keeping those features and keeping the class balanced with the other combat classes.

If you can think of another way of toning down the class, great, but toned down it needs to be.

"Or alternatively they take TWF at level one as one of their basic feats, and improve it at level two."

Ack, crap. I had a brain-fart there, a carryover from 3.x. Forgot that Rangers actually can get other two-weapon style feats at level 2 in Pathfinder, not just the basic Two-Weapon Fighting. My bad there, sorry. Let me amend:

No Ranger is going to spend a feat on Two-Weapon Fighting at level 1, and then spend the bonus feat on the same basic Two-Weapon Fighting feat. THAT's all I'm asking for: basic proficiency, not the advanced dual-wield feats later down the chain. There's a big difference between asking for Weapon Proficiency for free and Weapon Focus for free. A Skirmisher should be able to use his mindblade without being slapped with a -4/-8 nonproficiency penalty at level 1.

(With regards to delaying Form Focus to level 2: if you did that, then the only fair thing to do would be a throwback to earlier versions, in that the ONLY form a soulknife can do at level 1 is a single basic shortsword, only learning Shape Mindblade at later levels. And that would suck. Just... no.)

Syonique wrote:

"Or alternatively they take TWF at level one as one of their basic feats, and improve it at level two." Ack, crap. I had a brain-fart there, a carryover from 3.x. Forgot that Rangers actually can get other two-weapon style feats at level 2 in Pathfinder, not just the basic Two-Weapon Fighting. My bad there, sorry.

Happens to us all mate!

Syonique wrote:

Let me amend: No Ranger is going to spend a feat on Two-Weapon Fighting at level 1, and then spend the bonus feat on the same basic Two-Weapon Fighting feat. THAT's all I'm asking for: basic proficiency, not the advanced dual-wield feats later down the chain. There's a big difference between asking for Weapon Proficiency for free and Weapon Focus for free. A Skirmisher should be able to use his mindblade without being slapped with a -4/-8 nonproficiency penalty at level 1.

Well in the case of the ranger, he has a choice of feats at 2nd level - if he already has TWF he can take Double Slice, for example. The Form Focus feats follow the same pattern. If you could take TWF at level 1 so you can fight effectively in your chosen style, at level 2 the ranger (or whatever) can take a further feat from the TWF tree that he or she qualifies for - Double Slice, Improved Shield Bash or Quick Draw.

I do follow you, and as I said before, giving all soulknives TWF with their mindblades is a different issue for me.

Syonique wrote:

(With regards to delaying Form Focus to level 2: if you did that, then the only fair thing to do would be a throwback to earlier versions, in that the ONLY form a soulknife can do at level 1 is a single basic shortsword, only learning Shape Mindblade at later levels. And that would suck. Just... no.)

Why? You can do things the way the Ranger can do them, if you want to. There's no incongruity in my mind between having the ability to create two mind blades being separate to having the skill to use them effectively in combat - logically, you should need to manifest the mind blades before you learn to use them after all. The only problem with this is that if you want to be the awesome duel-wielder you'd have to take the TWF feat with your level 1 feat, and gain the bonus feat at level 2.

Like I said above to MW this is just a suggestion - but as Frerezar said, the Blade Skills + Psychic Strike + Bonus Feats are three strong class features where other combat classes usually just get one or two at most. Putting the form focus into the Blade Skills is just one way of re-balancing the class, if you can think of another I'm all ears.

"There's no incongruity in my mind between having the ability to create two mind blades being separate to having the skill to use them effectively in combat - logically, you should need to manifest the mind blades before you learn to use them after all. The only problem with this is that if you want to be the awesome duel-wielder you'd have to take the TWF feat with your level 1 feat, and gain the bonus feat at level 2."

The thing is, a Ranger isn't 'locked in' at using dual-wielding weapons at level 1. A Skirmisher soulknife starts out specializing down a certain path at level 1.

Let me put it this way: What if, in order to take the two-weapon tree, a Ranger HAS to start out at level 1 dual-wielding? What self-respecting Ranger would hobble along the entire level swinging at a horrible -4/-8 penalty?

Or, if you want it even easier, consider this one TIIIIINY change:

Rangers CANNOT take Two-Weapon Fighting as their second level feat. They have to purchase it with a standard feat.

Think about that for a moment. The Ranger still gets all the other dual-wield feat options at level 2 if they're going down that path, so it's not like they have FEWER feats... but they HAVE to spend a standard feat on Two-Weapon Fighting just like anyone else.

See how unfair that is? That basically means that ALL dual-wield Rangers would HAVE to spend their 1st level feat on Two-Weapon Fighting, just because they made the choice to use Combat Style A rather than Combat Style B. Similarly, ALL dual-wield Soulknives would HAVE to spend their 1st level feat on Two-Weapon Fighting, just because they made the choice to use Combat Style A rather than Combat Style B or C.

FORCING someone to spend their 1st level feat on a single specific feat, just because they chose a certain Combat Style granted by their class? Unfair and uncool. That's not flexibility, that's restriction.

So, that's why Skirmisher soulknives MUST be granted Two-Weapon Fighting at level 1 as a class feature... the style just isn't feasible otherwise. Now, the other styles don't NEED that feat, although they certainly could benefit from getting it for free (with it, swapping to Skirmisher form is feasible; without it, Skirmisher form is nigh-pointless); they should either get it for free too, or they should get another feat that specifically benefits their own style (which is what Form Focus does).

(For the record: Two-Weapon Fighting ONLY applying to mindblade? Totally fine.)

A soulknife HAS to use his two mindblades at level one in the same way that a ranger HAS to use two weapons at level one. In short, he doesn't have to at all. He can use any other combination of his mindblade he wants until level 2. Like the ranger, he has the option of taking TWF at level 1 and then improving it at level 2. There's absolutely nothing unfair about it, but you seem to be locked into the idea that if you are going to become a 'skirmisher' you should be using two mindblades right from the start - and you don't have to at all, unless you want to, and if you want to, you can take the feat early just like the ranger. If it's good enough for the ranger, it's good enough for the soulknife.

That is the main problem with the ¨paths¨, they force people int an image of a characters, and if that sn´t acomplshed since the beggining all hell breaks loose.

Make the path be chosen at a level when a blade skill becomes available and make free path feats a blade skill, before that you are free to do whatever you want with your blade without forced paths.

Ok, before I lock this thread down, I want to throw a question out there.

If the class lost Wild Talent (as a feat) and simply gained a "Psionic" class feature which allows it to count as a psionic creature, thus being able to gain psionic focus and so forth - would that help?

What about Throw Mindblade - essential, or not? Perhaps turn it into a Blade Skill?

Throw Mind Blade as blade skill is an interesting development, but really being able to throw the mind blade at level one rather than level two isn't a big deal. Wild Talent isn't the issue either, really - it's another way of saying that they are psionic is all.

The issue is three strong, very synergistic class features that all escalate as you increase in level - Blade Skills + Psychic Strike + Form Focus feats. No other melee class gets that much. Either their abilities don't synergise as much (like the monk and paladin), or they get one strong combat class feature and some less strong ones (some of which are usually defensive rather than offensive, like Uncanny Dodge or Armour Training).