Report on Combat Expertise

perhaps people should post their own house-rules for CE/PA and we can all see how they handled them.

I luckily never had any meta-game abuses of CE or PA...

To be entirely honest, if a fighter wants to give up all his offensive abilities to be a wall, he's welcome to it. Anything that gives a fighter versatility besides walk up and roll the normal roll to attack something is a good thing, and it's not as if it's that particularly breakable–at it's very worse it makes the combat longer by making both the fighter and monster hit less often (Which very often aligns with cinematic combat normally, where two master swordsmen sit chopping at each other for several minutes before one of them lands a blow.) It seems silly to be glad that fighters loose their options–it means that they become tactically less interesting to play because they can only do one or two tricks (which they do quite well). Being a roadblock is a less than interesting one, but it can situationally make the fighter shine.

Well given how much houseruling that usually went on in 3.X games anyways, I'm sure many people wouldn't mind houseruling the old PA and CE back in.

No, no, no!

This is the wrong answer.

If I have to write houserules to make the game playable, then why don't I just write my own game?

Agreed; houserules should cover such things as campaign-specific flavour ("In my world, gnomes are fey, whose favoured class is druid...", etc).

They should not be needed to make base rules workable.
Combat Expertise (and by association, Int 13+) should not be (and should never have been) the pre-requisite for any of the Improved Combat Maneuver feats, for which Int is irrelevant.

If Int is relevant to CMB, then I look forward to reading the PF Bestiary, and seeing that wolves have been improved to Int 13, since it is apparently impossible for any creature of lesser intelligence to learn a technique for knocking their opponent prone without incurring AoO.

To be entirely honest, if a fighter wants to give up all his offensive abilities to be a wall, he's welcome to it.

Bingo!

In my RttToEE campaign, the BBEG was scrying on the party and saw this tactic used. So in the future, the BBEG's spellcasters were told to concentrate on AOE effects or ray of enfeeblement on that front-line fighter. :)

I never thought Combat Expertise had any problems. I think people who take it don't truly realize the potential behind it. I've had many players choose the feat for the extra AC, because their attack bonus was still high enough to hit the creature they were targeting. It also perpetuates strategy among the players, it gets them thinking whether to go all out defensive, halfway, or a little bit like one or 2 points. I even had one take Improved Combat Expertise and he does a great job being the bait by maxing his AC bonus out while the others hack away at the enemy. He prides on never being hit (but, the wonderful balance is, he rarely hits also).

I say leave it the way it was originally. Why change it?

So how would you have Paizo fix CE and PA?

Personally, I just read and read and read the two feats.

CE states "Add an amount equal to your Int Mod (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 1) as a dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round."

I think it should say "whichever is higher" so that you can have a high int and low bab or a high bab and low int and it would still be useful.

example: Low Level

Int 18 , level 1, Wiz level 1 bab 0. Using CE, int gives +4 to dodge bonus to ac.
Int 13, level 1, fighter level 1 bab 1, using CE, +1 to dodge bonus to ac.
Int 14, level 1, wiz level 1, bab 0, Using CE, int gives +2 to dodge bonus to ac.

Example High level
Int 20, level 8, wiz level 8, bab 4, using CE, int gives +5 to dodge bonus to ac
Int 15, level 8, fighter level 8, bab 8, using CE, +8 to dodge bonus to ac.
Int 16, level 8, wiz level 8, bab 4, using CE, bab gives +4 to dodge bonus to ac (int gives +3, so the higher comes into play)

The same goes for Power attack, fighters will have more benefit from it than anyone who isn't str based with +1 bab/level.

But it seems to me that the change of lower to higher makes both usable usable feats even at high levels.

Edit: I would add that power attack should give extra damage capping at +20, regardless of what kind of weapon they use.

So how would you have Paizo fix CE and PA?

I would have it a bit more complicated and violate the KISS rule.

2/3 base attack bonus, rounded down.
Only allowed to grant -1, sets of -5, or all they can.
+ 1/2 strength bonus for power attack to limit of minus, but not more than base attack.
+ 1/2 dexterity bonus for combat expertise to limitof minus, but not more than base attack.

This makes the feats usable by all with a full base attack, but grants favor to those with the proper stat.

This style would also limit the "dial a bonus" effect problem with the feats that slowed combat down, as well as limit the meta gaming a bit making things not as advantageous to them.

DM_Blake wrote:

Bard-Sader wrote:

Well given how much houseruling that usually went on in 3.X games anyways, I'm sure many people wouldn't mind houseruling the old PA and CE back in.

No, no, no!

This is the wrong answer.

Clearly the current version of Combat Expertise does not achieve this reasonable goal.

Hence, the right answer is not for Paizo to assume we will houserule it ourselves, but to actually fix it before the game is released.

Now that would be the right answer.

So how would you have Paizo fix CE and PA?

OK, here goes:

Power Attack:
I never houseruled this one in 3.5 edition. I think it's fine as it is. I did suggest to my players who had it to take a few minutes to make a little chart on a 3x5 card of their hit and damage modifiers, counting everything, at each level of Power Attack, so that they could quickly pick which line they wanted from the card. They could do the math while the party cleric was roleplaying in his church, instead of doing the math during battle.

Then players started getting lazy. Updating the card every time their BAB went up, or they got a new magic weapon, or gained weapon focus, or whatever, got too laborious. So I insisted - I wouldn't let them use the feat unless they could, round by round, show me the line on their index card that they were using for Power Attack.

Insisting on these cards "fixed" power attack. There was no delay in combat. Fighter looked at the monster, decided it had high, low, or middle AC, then decided which line to use that he felt gave him good chances of hitting and doing decent damage, then rolled the dice. No math, no delays, and the feat worked the way it was intended - flexibility for the fighters (et. al.) to optimize their combat values (hit and damage) on the fly.

Combat Expertise
In 3.5 edition, I changed the INT requirement to DEX, and propagated that down the feat chain so any other feat for which CE was a requirement was switched to DEX.

My reasoning was that expertise in the fast, furious hack and slash of melee is not about logic, or reasoning, or out-thinking your foe. It's about being quicker. Being better trained. Knowing yourself, knowing your weapon, knowing your combat style, all so well that you move and react and attack instinctively without your brain getting in the way. Fastest way to lose of a fight is to stand there thinking about what to do while your opponent hacks you to pieces.

All my martial arts instructors trained this mentality. "The end of art is nature" my Aikido instructor used to say. Your combat expertise becomes nature. Natural. Instinct. No thought required.

Other than that, I also removed the cap. If someone wanted to drop 15 points of their BAB to turn it into AC, that was their choice.

Then I insisted on the index cards (see my explanation above under the Power Attack example).

Now for both:
I houseruled that these two feats actually reduce your BAB (not just a penalty on attack rolls), and your number of iterative attacks is calculated off of your adjusted BAB. So A fighter with 12 BAB decides to use Power Attack, subtracting 8 of his BAB to get +12 damage with his gretsword. His new BAB is only 4, so he only gets one attack instead of 3.

I did this for several reasons:

1. It imposes a self-capping mechanism. Nobody every dropped all their BAB, even when trying to hit the broadside of a barn, because they wanted to get a second or 3rd attack, if possible.
2. Take a severe enough penalty to your BAB, and your last attack, maybe even second to last attack, have little or no chance of hitting anyway, so why roll them - just wasting time. In fact, having 3 attacks where only the first one can hit takes longer than rolling just that first attack - I think this rule speeds up combat.
3. Take a small enough penalty to not lose iterative attacks, and you gian a small bonus to damage and keep all your iterative attacks - in which case it works exactly like 3.5 where it's just a penalty to the roll.
4. The most important one: An unrelated houserule removed criticial confirmations. If you roll a threat, you have already scored the critical hit and just roll the extra damage. This makes critical hits much more deadly, because nobody ever fails the confirmation rolls. This means that those iterative attacks, where you need a 20 to hit the monster, suddenly get very deadly. By 3.5, if you're lucky enough to get a natural 20 and get that hit with your worthless 4th attack, you still need another natural 20 to confirm, but in my houserule, you just rolled a successful critical hit. By removing the worthless iterative attacks, I remove the chances of the single natural-20 critical hits on these worthless attacks.

Everyone loved the two feats. They were widely used. They grumbled a little when they made up the charts on the index cards, but they had to admit that combat went smooth and fast when they used the index cards.

Both feats fixed.

That's how I did it in 3.5, and likely, that's how I would houserule it in Pathfinder.

The big difference?

If I went to a convention, or joined a new group as a player, and the 3.5 DM played the RAW versions of those feats, I didn't feel like they were especially broken.

This is not true of Pathfinder.

If these two feats are not changed in the RAW, I will consider them broken and will not use them. I will avoid wasting a feat to get them. Which means I will be blocked from getting anything else for which they are prerequisites. But there are plenty of other feats that aren't broken, and I will spend my limited feat resources there instead.

That's why I am so serious about having Pathfinder fix these feats. It's not just the difference of whether they are cool or not cool, as it was in 3.5.

It's the difference between whether they are useable or almost totally broken - that needs to be fixed.

Power Attack:

I never houseruled this one in 3.5 edition. I think it [was] fine as it is. I did suggest to my players who had it to take a few minutes to make a little chart on a 3x5 card of their hit and damage modifiers, counting everything, at each level of Power Attack, so that they could quickly pick which line they wanted from the card. They could do the math while the party cleric was roleplaying in his church, instead of doing the math during battle.

That's more or less exactly what I did, too. If you didn't list variantions of your power attack on the character sheet, with the math done, you didn't get to use it. Very similar to the game-saving rule "if you don't know exactly what your spell does when you cast it, you lose the spell."

So how would you have Paizo fix CE and PA?

After pondering a bit, I would go for a flat bonus/penalty, scalable with BaB:

Power Attack (Combat)

Combat Expertise (Combat)

Of course, number could be adjusted (especially for CE, I thought that a -3/+3 was too much).
Just my 2c.

Bard-Sader wrote:

So how would you have Paizo fix CE and PA?

After pondering a bit, I would go for a flat bonus/penalty, scalable with BaB:

Power Attack (Combat)
** spoiler omitted **

Combat Expertise (Combat)
** spoiler omitted **

Of course, number could be adjusted (especially for CE, I thought that a -3/+3 was too much).
Just my 2c.

Sorry I don't like your feats at all. They are too simple, why bother take the power attack over overhand chop and backswing, and dodge over combat expertise. I don't see a balance.

Also these feats become useless probably past level 7-9 as their bonuses are not significant.

In short, they are too simple and do too little.

My vote is for both to be capped by BAB, rather than a stat mod, as that is a true indicator of combat skill, and importantly, can be anticipated by GMs and scenario writers, at whatever party level being played. Far better than trying to second-guess what max Str or Int may be available to the PCs.

But, whatever the final cap on PA and CE, they need to be scalable.

We need the ability to make tactical decisions, round-by-round, to drop 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever from the attack bonus, based on the changing conditions.

If I get a flank, I can afford to gamble 2 more on PA; if my target gets a Barkskin, I can dial back.

Same with CE; I need the flexibility to decide if I'm actually supposed to be killing these opponents quickly, or holding a breach and playing for time.

Yeah I don't understand why CE was capped at -5 and you needed Improved CE to do it all the way to your BAB.

Yeah I don't understand why CE was capped at -5 and you needed Improved CE to do it all the way to your BAB.

Maybe the game designers valued it more because it was a dodge bonus and you ability to damage is dependent on your ability to hit, but you defense is not dependent on you ability to hit.

Well yes but having no offense (and also missing on all your AoOs) means your enemies will just ignore you anyways so it's not really *all* that good.

Well yes but having no offense (and also missing on all your AoOs) means your enemies will just ignore you anyways so it's not really *all* that good.

Well that has changed I believe, or should.

Zaedus wrote:

We use a point by system, so the characters are equally powerful. For every 2 points I put in to int, I can use combat expertise and get a +1 ac with a -1 to hit. I could have instead put those points in to dexterity and get all the bonuses of combat expertise with none of the detriments ...all the time, without using a feat. Not to mention dexterity also helps reflex saves and ranged attacks.

This right here is the real problem with this feat.

There is absolutely no reason, in a point-buy system, to dump points into INT just to use this feat.

As Zaedus said, put those same points into DEX and get the bonus AC without taking the -1 to hit. You'll also improve your REF save and your +Init, and your + to hit with ranged weapons.

No, the INT requirement on Combat Expertise makes it useless to any melee class, unless you're playing a campaign where you roll for stats and just happed to get at least 4-5 ability scores over a 12, so you can put a decent score in INT.

Now, if we only want this feat to be used by rogues and bards, then it's not too bad as is - those guys usually have a decent INT, and they could benefit greatly from more AC, but they also have lower BAB so they are more likely to miss in combat than melee classes, so taking penalties to hit makes them even more likely to miss. Still, at least they can use the feat.

My stance. CE should use DEX.

I do take issue that INT is dump stat. Fighter should in point buy at least a bit of Intelligence just to boost their low skills. 2+int mod per level so you need at least a 12 and 14 being better. I think the Dump stat for fighter is Charisma. It's usefull but you really don't need it. I mean you need Strength for to hit and damage, you dex for weapone finesse if STR isn't as high, for AC and Ref save. You need con for HPs and Fort saves. You Need Int for skills. You need Will for will saves. Charisma you really don't need unless you want the leadership feat and it works with 10 Charisma anyways if you are high enough level.

So the INT is not a fighter dump stat unless you really don't care about skills.

Thanks DM_Blake, great rules. I appreciate the thought you put into them. We're just switching over to Pathfinder and I didn't read these feats - didn't expect them to be changed.

Looking forward to seeing someone, anyone, actually taking CE as a feat.

Love the idea of the index cards - we all have kids, so we're sleepier and stupider than your average gamers.

I've read through all this interesting thread, and I agree that the new version of CE is a suboptimal choice for any combat oriented class, but only for the maths involved (that thing that rising Dex is better than rising Int and buying this feat)...

I do not agree on concerns about using Int as the base for the bonus... I've ever thought of CE as a "clever" way of fighting, putting your opponent in the worst conditions to attack or yourself in the best conditions to defend through a series of "calculated" moves, not as a mere trained automated reaction...

Yet the PF version is not optimal, despite better adhering to this concept...

I think these are the important points to take into consideration...

- Int must stay, because is part of the basic concept of the feat...
- BAB should stay as it is, because training is still important to express the full potential of the feat...
- The feat should grant an advantage that is at least equal to that of similar feats, like Power Attack, which uses the same mechanics...
- The doubled feat benefits for shields should be added, to compensate the "two-hander advantages" of PA...
- The BAB prerequisite should not be added, to grant use of this feat also to non combat-oriented classes from 1st level, as it is now...

So, how do we balance all this?

Simply by removing the attack penalty... No other changes are required...

In this way, the Int bonus is no more suboptimal when compared to a high Dex score and the expense of a feat grants a real, if small, benefit to the character...
So we have a feat that adds the Int bonus (or BAB, whichever is LOWER) to AC, double the Int bonus if fighting with a shield... A pretty good one...

PA is still balanced with this CE, because it adds another benefit to a stat that has already many uses in combat, not requiring to raise another score...

I actually think both Power Attack and Combat Expertise are fine as they are.

You can still do a ton of damage with PA, and Barbarians are far better with it than any other class (due to rage bonus to str), which makes sense -- it's their job to hit things as hard as possible.

CE was never a good choice. It's almost useless for non-melee classes, because you have to use the attack action in melee to benefit from the AC boost. For those who can use the feat, hitting is hard at lower levels; you need every point of BAB you can get. At higher levels, hitting is easier, but AC becomes almost irrelevant, so why take a penalty to hit if it barely benefits you?

Improved CE was also a bad choice in 3.5. The increased AC bonus might be useful at higher levels, but if you're taking a -BAB (or close to it) to hit, you're not hitting, barring extreme circumstances/tons of buffs (which could go towards AC, anyways). You're also spending two feats to do it, one of which becomes useless after taking ICE.

Paizo's CE combines both 3.5 CE feats, helps justify the Int 13 prerequisite (you'll get at least +1 AC from it, same as Dodge), while still giving the feat a substantial cost. The Int synergy also greatly benefits Duelists.

Overall, I'd say CE and PA are now balanced rather nicely against the other core feats.

I do take issue that INT is dump stat. Fighter should in point buy at least a bit of Intelligence just to boost their low skills. 2+int mod per level so you need at least a 12 and 14 being better. I think the Dump stat for fighter is Charisma. It's usefull but you really don't need it. I mean you need Strength for to hit and damage, you dex for weapone finesse if STR isn't as high, for AC and Ref save. You need con for HPs and Fort saves. You Need Int for skills. You need Will for will saves. Charisma you really don't need unless you want the leadership feat and it works with 10...

For a fighter, as you've said, STR is vital. Even dex-based fighters need plenty of STR, though for them it may not be their primary stat. DEX is also vital, for REF saves, Initiative, AC, ranged attacks. CON is vital for HP and Fort saves.

I think for any fighter, or primary melee classes, those three ability scores are the 3 most important.

Then balancing WIS vs. INT may be a bit of a tough call. With WIS, you gain WILL saves which as we know are fighters' Achilles heel, and you also gain bonuses to useful skills like Perception. With INT, you gain more skill points, and you gain access to Combat Expertise and that chain of feats. This is a close call, but clearly these are 4th and 5th.

Then CHA comes in last in terms of requirements for a fighter.

(Note: all that is based on class priorities, not on your particular RP goals - if you want a high-INT, high-CHA diplomat/fighter who hangs out with nobles, charming the ladies and trouncing kings at chess, that's your choice, but those are not class priorities).

Now, drop the INT requirement from Combat Expertise, and the question of which ability score (INT or WIS) is 4th or 5th most important becomes easier to answer.

Now consider this. You're doing a point-buy system. You've already put a 16 on your STR, 14 CON, 8 CHA, and 10 WIS. You have enough points left to go with 13 DEX or 13 INT but not both. (I didn't do any real math here, so don't add up my points and tell me if I'm right or wrong - the only part that's relevent is the last 3 points anyway).

Now, you could put those 3 points on INT, then spend a feat on Combat Expertise, and any time you want you can take -1 to hit and get +1 AC for it. And you get a bonus +1 skill point every level.

Or, you could put those 3 points into DEX, in which case you automatically get a +1 AC all the time without taking -1 to hit and you get this without spending a feat for it, and you get +1 to initiative rolls and REF saves. But, you don't get that +1 skill point per level.

(note: when I say "all the time" I clearly mean all the time you can get DEX or Dodge bonuses - there are times your DEX mod doesn't apply to your AC, but at those times, you can't use Combat Reflexes either).

Considering that, I cannot justify anyone putting those points into INT, unless their character concept justifies it for roleplaying reasons, or they're desperate to get the rest of the feat chain for their character concept.

I actually think both Power Attack and Combat Expertise are fine as they are.

You can still do a ton of damage with PA, and Barbarians are far better with it than any other class (due to rage bonus to str), which makes sense -- it's their job to hit things as hard as possible.

Not just barbarians. Every melee class has the same job requirement, to "hit things as hard as possible".

CE was never a good choice. It's almost useless for non-melee classes, because you have to use the attack action in melee to benefit from the AC boost. For those who can use the feat, hitting is hard at lower levels; you need every point of BAB you can get. At higher levels, hitting is easier, but AC becomes almost irrelevant, so why take a penalty to hit if it barely benefits you? .

PA and CE aren't much of a problem at high levels, when "hitting is easier" on your first iterative attack.

Where they take their toll is on your 3rd or 4th iterative attack, making those pretty much useless (especially in 3.5).

Improved CE was also a bad choice in 3.5. The increased AC bonus might be useful at higher levels, but if you're taking a -BAB (or close to it) to hit, you're not hitting, barring extreme circumstances/tons of buffs (which could go towards AC, anyways). You're also spending two feats to do it, one of which becomes useless after taking ICE..

Agreed. Two feats to gain unlimited conversion of your BAB to AC is pointless, since at higher levels, AC (in 3.5, and somewhat in Pathfinder too) doesn't scale as well as the monsters' attack modifiers. So dropping 15 points of attack to get 15 points of AC and still get hit nearly all the time anyway, but now you're missing most of the time, is a bad trade-off, made worse by wasting two feat slots to get the bad trade-off.

Paizo's CE combines both 3.5 CE feats, helps justify the Int 13 prerequisite (you'll get at least +1 AC from it, same as Dodge), .

Except putting your point-buy into DEX instead of INT gives you +1 AC all the time (any time you could use Combat Reflexes, anyway) and +1 REF saves and +1 init and +1 to hit with ranged attacks, and you don't have to spend a feat for the privelege of taking -1 to your attack rolls when you want that +1 AC.

I guess, if you're rolling ability scores and get enough decent rolls to put a 13 on INT without sacrificing a more useful primary fighter ability score, then you might as well learn CE because it's not a sacrifice to use it (other than the -to hit).

while still giving the feat a substantial cost. .

Not much cost to just putting those point-buy points into DEX in the first place, other than that you won't have that extra skill point per level that you could have had with a 13 INT.

The Int synergy also greatly benefits Duelists..

ARe you suggesting that CE has become a duelist-only feat? Or at least nearly so?

I'd rather make it useful to all melee classes without making it prohibitively costly to get the feat.

Overall, I'd say CE and PA are now balanced rather nicely against the other core feats.

PA isn't too bad, but it is much worse than it used to be, especially for classes with MAD, like paladins or rangers.

Regarding CE, if by "balanced" you mean balanced for campaigns where you roll for ability scores, but only for those melee classes who rolled lots of high scores and/or play duelists, then yeah, I'd say CE is balanced.

Otherwise, I have to disagree.

You know, at this point, dead horse.

I would go into detail how it is bad, but its way too late now to do anything about it.

You know, at this point, dead horse.

I would go into detail how it is bad, but its way too late now to do anything about it.

Too true, too true.

Well, if Paizo didn't fix it before they went to press, maybe this thread is in time for the official post-release errata...

I agree with the person who was suggesting that you keep it simple.
I am not sure about dex instead of intelligence I mean it already needs intelligence requiring two stats means that you're not going to be strength based.

Anywho i think the old version was not that bad.
I do use a lot of books beyond PHB, but just the complete for base classes and PHB2.
Just something like this is fine like the old versions.

By subtracting from your attack to a maximum of your base attack bonus(max 5.) you gain that much defense

and you just have that feat from PHB2 also that allows you get improved combat expertise where you take the cap of max five from it.
but i do think the int 13 is fine.
Dex may make you move faster but it doesn't mean you think faster most of the marshal artists i know are reasonably intelligent they're not going to cure cancer but they're not a box of rocks as someone said.

I think the power attack series is plenty to represent the 'dumb' fighters people who just use brute force to overwhelm there opponent

I agree with the person who was suggesting that you keep it simple.

I am not sure about dex instead of intelligence I mean it already needs intelligence requiring two stats means that you're not going to be strength based.

The intention is that the requirement would be changed to be Dex.

That was sort of implied..... ..

Bard-Sader wrote:

Well given how much houseruling that usually went on in 3.X games anyways, I'm sure many people wouldn't mind houseruling the old PA and CE back in.

...and in fact I seriously doubt there are many tables that dare using PF's version of Power Attack or Combat Expertise (Not mine for one).

Just had to say that we *have* been using the PF version of Power Attack, and it's been working just fine. Better than 3.5 in fact, since it works on light weapons.

I have to say I agree with DM_Blake on this -- we're using point-buy, and INT is the official dump stat in our "melee-focused" (barbarian, cleric/barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue) party. In fact, the rogue could probably pick CE, if he wanted to, but the rest... no chance. So I'm with also in the camp that if it's not linked to BAB, CE should be based on DEX and not INT. Of course, you *can* put 14 in your INT, or use a stat boost on it as you level up, but what about your DEX *and* CON? Or WIS? Using it a dump stat leads to problems with mid and high level WILL saves.

An example: using the Epic point buy (25 points), this is what you could have for a min-maxed human fighter, if you're willing to dump your CHA to 7:

STR 16 + 2 = 18 (-10)
DEX 14 (-5)
CON 15 (-7)
INT 14 (-5)
WIS 12 (-2)
CHA 7 (+4)

Or another, using 10 as the "minimum" stat:

STR 16 + 2 = 18 (-10)
DEX 13 (-3)
CON 15 (-7)
INT 14 (-5)
WIS 10
CHA 10

And that INT 14 is the minimum this Feat is good for, because investing in Dodge and Acrobatics nets you the same (+2) eventually *without* any need for INT.

If the game had several "fighting style" feats keying off INT, *then* it would be different, and making a "tactical genius"-type of fighter with high INT might actually be a viable choice. On its own and as it is now, this is Feat is useless to most fighter PCs, unless they're elves.

I'm going to use the 3.5 version of Combat Expertise for now, but am planning to make a +5/-5 version to all as a combat option, capped at BAB if BAB < +5, and similarly for Power Attack, with the feat versions allowing more (capped at BAB), and all entirely variable.

Or another, using 10 as the "minimum" stat:

STR 16 + 2 = 18 (-10)
DEX 13 (-3)
CON 15 (-7)
INT 14 (-5)
WIS 10
CHA 10

With that build, your Combat Expertise would allow you no more than -2 to hit for +2 AC (limited by your 14 INT).

Now take that CON down to 14 and the INT down to 10 and add +2 to your DEX.

You gain +2 AC all the time (well, any time you could use Combat Expertise, anyway), but without taking -2 on your to hit rolls, and without wasting a feat slot to eat that -2. Even better, you also gain +2 to your initiative rolls and +2 to your REF saves. It's maybe about an even trade on your skills (gain +2 on a DEX skills, lose -2 on INT skills).

But, you would lose 2 skill points per level.

Which is more important to a melee character (Combat Expertise can only be used in melee)? -2 to hit, -2 Init, -2 REF to gain 2 skill points per level? I don't think so.

Broken feat.

I think youre missing a very vital part of this feat - it isnt designed for every jackoff to pick up.

It is DESIGNED for someone with high intelligence that is attempting to wade into melee - thats the whole point.

I have absolutely zero desire to argue back and forth about the matter; but I will say this: Im 5 session (and 2 level ups) into a Rogue/Ranger headed Assassin, and the feat works just fine for me. Obviously, a high Dex/Int build is going to benefit from the feat - but I think thats kind of the point. Taking a feat that increases caster level wouldnt make much sense on a fighter or barbarian - why would you suddenly think that, because its a melee-combat feat, it shoud automatically fit every melee class? I wouldnt take power attack on my rogue, just like I wouldnt take combat expertise on my barbarian - its not a matter of the feat being broken, its a matter of using the feat in the way its made to be used.

At level 5, +4 Dodge bonus to AC, for a measley -4 to attack? Coupled with invisibility, flanking and/or favored enemy, it can (and does) serve as a nice way of maintaining a rock-solid defense while allowing you to still be offensively active. Hell, Id be happy to face off against a fighter/barb with power attack - lets see how he deals with a threat that has massive AC and still maintains the potential to be vastly more mobile, able to avoid AoOs with ease AND able beat the ever-loving crap out of him.

Ill tell you how he deals: He dies. I laugh. I loot his big dumb sword and armor so I can buy a fancy rapier and Int/Dex+ items.

And now, I wash my hands of this weirdness....

I think youre missing a very vital part of this feat - it isnt designed for every jackoff to pick up.

Maybe you're right.

But it is a prerequisite for some neat combat feats. Feats like Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, and Whirlwind Attack - all of which are ideal for just about all melee classes.

But first they have to waste a feat on this broken Combat Reflexes. Assuming they even have the INT for it to begin with.

Good point.

Since about, oh I'll hazzard a guesss, 1 character out of 20 actually cares enough about melee to want a feat like this AND has the INT for it (primarily rogues who like front-line combat, such as your rogue/ranger), there is a niche where this feat is quite nice.

But then, consider those classes that fill the niche, and most of them are not fighters. They don't get a feat every level. And they have other concerns too, like maybe being better at finding/disabling traps, or maybe improving their sneak attacks.

So now what we really need is someone who has the INT, likes front line melee, and can't find a better feat on the list.

That is narrowing it down even farther.

I'm glad you like it, but for my taste, the space on the page in the rulebook could be better filled with just about anything else. Even just a little more art would be nice. At least everyone could look at the art and enjoy it, while not everyone, not even 1 player out of 20 or more, will enjoy this feat.

It is DESIGNED for someone with high intelligence that is attempting to wade into melee - thats the whole point.

Fairy rare right there.

D_R_024 wrote:

I have absolutely zero desire to argue back and forth about the matter;

Yet you brought it up, resurrecting a long-dead thread.

D_R_024 wrote:

but I will say this: Im 5 session (and 2 level ups) into a Rogue/Ranger headed Assassin, and the feat works just fine for me.

Sure.

You're the 1 in 20 that can use it.

D_R_024 wrote:

Obviously, a high Dex/Int build is going to benefit from the feat - but I think thats kind of the point.

Very rare to find a build like that that also partakes in much front-line combat and that has no better feat to take in place of Combat Reflexes.

D_R_024 wrote:

Taking a feat that increases caster level wouldnt make much sense on a fighter or barbarian - why would you suddenly think that, because its a melee-combat feat, it shoud automatically fit every melee class?

I wouldn't think either of these things.

D_R_024 wrote:

I wouldnt take power attack on my rogue,

Why not?

Doesn't he like doing extra damage?

Or maybe getting Cleave and Grat Cleave?

D_R_024 wrote:

just like I wouldnt take combat expertise on my barbarian

Why not?

Oh, yeah, you would never have a barbarain with a high enough INT to qualify. If you did, then you probably rolled for your ability scores, and either had unbelivable luck (that your worst roll, or second worse, was a 13) or just didn't build a very mechanically sound barbarian.

If you did have a barbarian who could qualify, it would still be questionable to drop your attack for a paltry bit of AC - barbarians are all about finishing the fight first, and bandaging their wounds later. Hence the low AC and high HP, and class abilities that increase their damage output and their HP but lower their AC even further.

D_R_024 wrote:

- its not a matter of the feat being broken, its a matter of using the feat in the way its made to be used.

For that rare, 1 in 20 character who can use it and can't find a better feat? Sure, you're right.

D_R_024 wrote:

At level 5, +4 Dodge bonus to AC, for a measley -4 to attack?

Measly?

I'm assuming your level 5 character is Ranger3/Rogue2 (or else he likely doesn't have the BAB 4 that is required to get +4 AC out of this feat).

And he has an INT of 18? On a melee character?

You rolled very well.

A rogue is very much about landing those sneak attacks and rolling that handful of d6. -4 to attack means landing a lot fewer sneak attacks. For that reason alone I would question the advisability of this feat, but it's your character.

D_R_024 wrote:

Coupled with invisibility, flanking and/or favored enemy, it can (and does) serve as a nice way of maintaining a rock-solid defense while allowing you to still be offensively active. Hell, Id be happy to face off against a fighter/barb with power attack - lets see how he deals with a threat that has massive AC and still maintains the potential to be vastly more mobile, able to avoid AoOs with ease AND able beat the ever-loving crap out of him.

Sure, that barbarian with Power Attack, coupled with See Invisibility (you get a spell, he gets a spell), Improved Uncanny Dodge (level 5 barbarian ability prevents your flanking), and Rage, will cut through your imaginary rock-solid defense like butter and will redefine "offensively active" in ways your rogue cannot imagine.

D_R_024 wrote:

Ill tell you how he deals: He dies.

I'll tell you how he deals: He cuts you to ribbons in about three rounds or less and still has more than half his HP when he's done.

D_R_024 wrote:

I laugh. I loot his big dumb sword and armor so I can buy a fancy rapier and Int/Dex+ items.

You cry. He "loots" his big dumb sword out of your big intelligent skull.

D_R_024 wrote:

And now, I wash my hands of this weirdness....

Consider them washed.