|
Requirements that build on each other are good... Requirements JUST for the sake of having requirements... THAT I hate..
Totally.
That should be tattooed on the inside of game designers' eyelids, so they can read it as they go to sleep.If the only reason is to delay the entry level, then set a character level, class level, BAB, etc. prerequisite.
That does the same job, and characters can take something worthwhile at low level while they wait.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think far too many people are getting hung up on specific class builds, rather than character-driven concept.
I will use the term Cunning Combatant from now on, to indicate any character, martial, semi-caster, or caster, who has a desire to fight with flair.
Too many posts are making the assumption that the staus quo is fine, since 'Fighters get bonus feats'. Apart from the obvious errors in this logic, pointed out in the various 'feat tax' posts, it needs to be understood that not all characters wishing to fight with flair, grace, panache, elan and, yes, expertise, are going to be members of the Fighter class, or any rigid group of classes, not least as 'class' is a metagame term that said characters have no concept of.
Why shouldn't a Paladin be profient at disarming? Such a tactic is both merciful, and allows suspected villains to be brought to a fair trial. Why is it better for them to hack their quarry to bits and arrange for a speak with dead?
Why can a Cavalier not enter a tourney, to be decided by non-lethal victory conditions? Sure, in the RAW, one can smash an opponent repeatedly with a sharp object, till they fall to negative hp, then slap a cure on them, and go for a celebratory drink with no hard feelings or long-term effects. Sure, RAW allows someone to somehow fight with the 'blunt side' of any weapon, even a spiked mace, at -4 penalty, but that is metagaming in the extreme.
A priest of healing may not wish to bash his opponents unconscious, but swear a vow to end fights as bloodlessly as possible, by removing the tools of violence. Why would you want to make this more difficult for him? Oh, well. Whatever. So much for that concept. Just kill them all and let the gods sort them out.
Why should a Rogue be forced to spend 10% of their lifetime feats (assuming a campaign runs to level 20; in practice, more like 20% of their campaign feats) on a fighting style that has a worse payoff than their default defensive fighting style? The style they can use since level 1?
|
|
I just have to do this.
Thank you Leo, and thank you Rich, for illustrating the problem so perfectly.
I just have to do this.LOL
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOL
The point being having a higher INT score doesn't do anything mechanically for a fighter other than more skills points and access to Combat Expertise.
If he wins, it's due to his RP or player ideas, not because he's better at fighting from a mechanical standpoint. AC is nice, but in D&D and PF, better offense is almost always better.
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOLThe point being having a higher INT score doesn't do anything mechanically for a fighter other than more skills points and access to Combat Expertise.
If he wins, it's due to his RP or player ideas, not because he's better at fighting from a mechanical standpoint. AC is nice, but in D&D and PF, better offense is almost always better.
And perhaps the existence of the Feat Tree behind Combat Expertise is the designers trying to make Int matter mechanically for a fighter? Seriously, the whole trend of the game, with further and further codification of the rules, it to take more things out of the area of "RP or player ideas" (or GM discretion) and codify it mechanically. This looks like another example to me. Designers wanted smart fighters to not be extinct in the game, so they created a feat path that rewards them.
It creates different options for creating wider variety of fighters that can be interesting to play, at the expense of people looking for the perfect optimized build that can do everything by having access to all the best feats and have optimized damage dealing stats.
So they fed one part of the gaming community at the expense of another part. Some people are happy and others aren't. Such is life. And we can all houserule any changes we want anyway, so long as the rest of our group agrees. Perfect rules that please everybody in every regard are an impossibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Matter mechanically" should be more than a prerequisite.
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOL
Are you kidding me?
I loved the arc that Roy was a ghost.
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOLAre you kidding me?
I loved the arc that Roy was a ghost.
Different tastes. I got frustrated with how long it took them to ring him back, which we all knew was going to happen anyway. Right now I'm a little frustrated with how slowly the Elan's father/gladiators/Linear Guild ambush arc is playing out. Maybe that just means I'm a little ADHD.
Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOLAre you kidding me?
I loved the arc that Roy was a ghost.
Different tastes. I got frustrated with how long it took them to bring him back, which we all knew was going to happen anyway. Right now I'm a little frustrated with how slowly the Elan's father/gladiators/Linear Guild ambush arc is playing out. Maybe that just means I'm a little ADHD.
Different tastes. I got frustrated with how long it took them to ring him back, which we all knew was going to happen anyway. Right now I'm a little frustrated with how slowly the Elan's father/gladiators/Linear Guild ambush arc is playing out. Maybe that just means I'm a little ADHD.Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOLAre you kidding me?
I loved the arc that Roy was a ghost.
It started off OK and now it's just dragging out by adding the Linear Guild to it.
"Matter mechanically" should be more than a prerequisite.
Was it you earlier talking about how comparatively easy the CE feat is for casters? Whoever that was had better watch out if the magnitude of the benefit is linked to INT. Suddenly wizards practically come standard with CE.
I could get behind putting CE back to 3.5 power, or any of the following changes:
CE: add your INT bonus, or some fraction linked to BAB, to AC (no stacky for Monk)
CE: add your INT bonus, or some fraction linked to BAB, to CMB
CE: use your INT bonus in place of STR or DEX for CMB/CMD
Any of those would alleviate Kaiyanwang's above complaint, but you gotta look out for how much it would help casters (and thus make life worse for fighters).
Or you could hand CE/PA to every fighter (or only those meeting original prereqs), and move ability prereqs to each maneuver. But then people are going to want to trade the CE ability (which they don't want) for a feat that they do, and suddenly we have even more archetypes. The current system allows fighters to either specialize in one style (similar to how rangers have to choose between TWF or ranged), but also gives them the freedom to invest in a bit of everything. It's not so bad.
It started off OK and now it's just dragging out by adding the Linear Guild to it.Different tastes. I got frustrated with how long it took them to ring him back, which we all knew was going to happen anyway. Right now I'm a little frustrated with how slowly the Elan's father/gladiators/Linear Guild ambush arc is playing out. Maybe that just means I'm a little ADHD.Of course, this fight and plot thread have not yet been resolved, and I'd be willing to bet the talky-man will eventually prevail, demonstrating brain+brawn>just brawn. Or at least I hope so, I didn't like OOTS as much when Roy was dead before.I just have to do this.LOLAre you kidding me?
I loved the arc that Roy was a ghost.
I think part of it is that he's updating less often now. I kinda want to get past this arc too because it's been awhile since we've seen Team Evil.
Back on topic.
For me, most of the feat trees need to be reworked. If a feat has a pre-req, then the pre-req should at least help with using the feat. Combat expertise fails this test. Using combat expertise makes you WORSE at tripping, disarming, sundering, etc.'ing. Interesting to note that in 3.5 using power attack did at least trigger cleave easier while in PF using power attack makes you worse at cleaving (because you're more likely to miss that first target). Spell Focus - Augment Summoning is another one that I have issues with. Raising conjuration DC's does not help with summoning. As a matter of fact, almost all of the feats that require spell focus X benefit from the spell focus.
One feat tree that is well designed is the combat reflexes line. For all of those feats, having combat reflexes makes you better at using those feats than someone who doesn't have combat reflexes. The dodge line is also quite good with exception to whirlwind. Compare those feat trees to the combat expertise tree. Having combat expertise doesn't make you any better at using any of those feats than someone who doesn't. That is bad design. The kind of reminiscent of the early days of Magic the Gathering. Back in the old days, whenever they wanted to print an effect that really didn't fit the usual color definitions, they printed in blue because blue was the "tricky" color. To me, expertise seems to be the same way. "Ooh this sounds like a tricky manuever, should probably have expertise as a pre-req." WotC has now been having to make a very conscious effort to steer away from that mind set for MtG and has pissed off a number of players. A similar thing is happening here.
If the feats are locked behind another feat because they're too good, then make the pre-req something that someone who specializes in the advanced feat would actually use. I know I'm never going to use expertise whenever I'm tripping. Having the 13 int isn't going to make me any better at tripping either. Having 13 Dex will help me dodge AoO's from spring attack. Having 13 Dex will help me have more AoO's to take for bodyguard. Having 13 Str will help me hit more for cleave.
With this in mind, I know that a lot of casting feats need to be reworked; no, I don't have a solution for that yet.
Was it you earlier talking about how comparatively easy the CE feat is for casters? Whoever that was had better watch out if the magnitude of the benefit is linked to INT. Suddenly wizards practically come standard with CE.
Honestly I'm not worried about CE for casters all too much because the martial / caster imbalance is resulting from a fundamental flaw in the structure of system currently. The best attempt that I've seen at closing the martial / caster imbalance was the Tome of Battle : Book of Nine Swords. While it addresses the problem of action economy that casters have over martials, it still has a long way to go on the useful-contribution-outside-of-expertise end. For example: an army of 50000 orcs are marching against the town, help defend it. Wizards can drop walls of stone as fortifications. Fighters can...
As a result of this, any attempt to balance caster / martial imbalance through numerical fudging is peturbatively unstable; so when new material comes out, things are unlikely to remain reasonably balanced. A portion of my thoughts and ideas on the topic. Though I still haven't fixed the fighter / rogue problem.
"Matter mechanically" should be more than a prerequisite.Was it you earlier talking about how comparatively easy the CE feat is for casters? Whoever that was had better watch out if the magnitude of the benefit is linked to INT. Suddenly wizards practically come standard with CE.
I could get behind putting CE back to 3.5 power, or any of the following changes:
CE: add your INT bonus, or some fraction linked to BAB, to AC (no stacky for Monk)
CE: add your INT bonus, or some fraction linked to BAB, to CMB
CE: use your INT bonus in place of STR or DEX for CMB/CMDAny of those would alleviate Kaiyanwang's above complaint, but you gotta look out for how much it would help casters (and thus make life worse for fighters).
Or you could hand CE/PA to every fighter (or only those meeting original prereqs), and move ability prereqs to each maneuver. But then people are going to want to trade the CE ability (which they don't want) for a feat that they do, and suddenly we have even more archetypes. The current system allows fighters to either specialize in one style (similar to how rangers have to choose between TWF or ranged), but also gives them the freedom to invest in a bit of everything. It's not so bad.
Int bonus to AC? super AC witches :D? Super-trippers wizards (well, telekinesis, true strike..)
What about simply remove an asinine prerequisite?
What about simply remove an asinine prerequisite?
Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters. Skip to the bottom if you want to know why I think that's important. Or see my earlier post on how the way combat works can explain why avoiding AoO's for some combat maneuvers requires "expertise," and most of it mental. Sunder/disarm are a little iffy - I could make an argument to put them in either category and I'm guessing they just put one "remove weapon from opponent" maneuver into each category.
1) CE sucks, even with high INT
2) CE, and its follow-ups, don't actually "use" INT mechanically
3) Feat trees suck (especially when the pre-req doesn't help down the line)
4) CE is easier/better for casters
5) "12 INT isn't low"
6) "My low-INT fighter should be able to do everything."
The changes I suggested could address most of problems 1-3. You have to be careful, whenever you address 2, to avoid making 4 worse.
5 isn't a great complaint to listen to. If you do, you need to be prepared for
"10 is still average"
"9 isn't far below average"
"8 isn't really an idiot"
"7 is still a PC"
As far as 6, intelligence - the ability to think back on fights and plan different reactions, anticipate your opponent's actions, analyze your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and use the flow of combat to make your opponent do what you want - does help in RL combat. A lot. In PF, the only benefit is allowing CE and some combat maneuver feats. That's the answer Roy should give: "in RL, a hell of a lot... in this game, not much." If you drop the requirement, and don't give some sort of combat boon based on INT, you will doom the already endangered species of PF fighter with an INT above 7. Do we really need more stupid fighters?
Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters.
What's the benefit for strong wizards?
ooooh I can cook popcorn just by looking at this thread! XD
Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters.What's the benefit for strong wizards?If your GM is obsessed with encumberance, the higher carrying capacity for a low level wizard is a godsend.
Party can easily chip in for a group Handy Haversack.
What's the benefit for strong wizards?
Among other things, the ability to participate in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Party can easily chip in for a group Handy Haversack.Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters.What's the benefit for strong wizards?If your GM is obsessed with encumberance, the higher carrying capacity for a low level wizard is a godsend.
Handy Haversack
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9thSlot —; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds.While such storage is useful enough, the pack has an even greater power. When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.
Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest; Cost 1,000 gp
i can understand this working for ammunition, potions, coins, wands, scrolls, and minor survival goods like rope or rations. but i don't really see it working for carrying weapons and armor looted off of slain foes with relatively humanoid anatomy. weight isn't the only factor. bulk applies too. most people tend to ignore the 'bulk limit' on these extradimensional bags as well as hold looser reins on carrying capacity. by not enforcing these limitations, they are essentially giving wizards a reason to dump strength. a handy haversack is not a cureall solution for carrying capacity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about simply remove an asinine prerequisite?
Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters.
...intelligence - the ability to think back on fights and plan different reactions, anticipate your opponent's actions, analyze your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and use the flow of combat to make your opponent do what you want - does help in RL combat. A lot. In PF, the only benefit is allowing CE and some combat maneuver feats. That's the answer Roy should give: "in RL, a hell of a lot... in this game, not much." If you drop the requirement, and don't give some sort of combat boon based on INT, you will doom the already endangered species of PF fighter with an INT above 7. Do we really need more stupid fighters?
I totally agree with you, that the concept of the Canny Combatant needs to be supported.
Surely, the best way to do that is to create, or free up, more skill/feat/class ability options that do run off Int, scale with Int, lead to other Int-based abilities, rather than appeal to tradition to prop up the single, discredited feat tree that currently exists?As an example, why does the Duelist PrC exist? All it does is take a potentially useful Int-based ability like Canny Defense, set an arbitary level 7+ prerequisite, and hide it from the sight of many players.
Take the Duelist abilities, make them feats, either in their own right, or combined. Add some extra effects to these or existing feats so they scale with Int, make them clearly visible in the main traffic area of the Core Rules, rather than the ghetto of the PrC chapter, which many will avoid reading, believing it (not unjustifiably) to be material for the GM's discretion only.
Then Combat Expertise can be led round the back of the glue factory and put out of its misery.
Don't forget the Student of War PrC from Paizo. Definitely biased towards the Int fighter (probably too biased...the knowledge checks to make the TH/DMG ability are going to strain any reasonable Int score).
Actually, the best fighting class for rewarding a high Int without making it a centerpoint was the Warblade.
As you leveled:
Int to Reflex saves.
Int to confirm crits.
Int to dmg when flanking/flat-footed opponents.
Int to CMD.
Int to TH/DMG on AoO's.
none of them game changers, but all in all a NICE reward for having a decent Int score.
==Aelryinth
What's the benefit for strong wizards?Among other things, the ability to participate in melee.
Are you serious?
Then Combat Expertise can be led round the back of the glue factory and put out of its misery.
If everything you wrote was done, sure. Until then, it's really the only thing in the core rules that rewards an INT score.
@Ellington - at low levels, yes. Edit: At higher levels, of course that ability drops off, but even then a 12 STR against a 7 or 5 can be life or death when being grappled, antimagic field, silence, etc.
@Aelryinth: What sources are those in?
@Aelryinth: What sources are those in?
i know the warblade is from the book of 9 swords. it's a 3.5 class.
it's intellegence based boons were really just there to serve as a headband tax. just put a 14 there and a magic headband could provide the rest.
|
|
Then Combat Expertise can be led round the back of the glue factory and put out of its misery.
If everything you wrote was done, sure. Until then, it's really the only thing in the core rules that rewards an INT score.
Exactly. So let's get the designers and the community making some new Int-friendly content, tweaking existing content, dismantling unwieldy feat chains, and freeing up PrC-locked existing content into general use.
That's how you encourage high-Int melee PCs. Not by punishing the ones who chose to put 'only' a 12 in the stat.
i can understand this working for ammunition, potions, coins, wands, scrolls, and minor survival goods like rope or rations. but i don't really see it working for carrying weapons and armor looted off of slain foes with relatively humanoid anatomy. weight isn't the only factor. bulk applies too. most people tend to ignore the 'bulk limit' on these extradimensional bags as well as hold looser reins on carrying capacity. by not enforcing these limitations, they are essentially giving wizards a reason to dump strength. a handy haversack is not a cureall solution for carrying capacity
Weapons and armor are frequently too heavy to loot until you get something on the order of portable hole and by then the wealth gained by looting common pieces of armor is negligible compared to WBL. Even if they really wanted to loot all that stuff, there's the good 'ole standby of floating disk. That's 100 lbs / level for 1 hour / level. In terms of bulk, it is about the size of a standard dinner table. It has a basin of approximate volume of a kitchen sink. Surely a guy with 18+ int knows how to do a good stack job. It's reasonably live at level 5 /6 .
Even conceding your point regarding haversacks, having a high strength isn't going to fix the problem. Your 13 STR allows you to carry those 10 warhammers. Where are you going to put them? In your backpack? On your back like Rambo? So having more strength really isn't going to fix anything encumberance-wise; if it can't fit in a haversack, it isn't going to fit in your backpack. So while it doesn't solve everything, it solves everything that having a higher strength would.
In my groups, encumberance is treated as "don't abuse it and I won't enforce it"; when you want to loot those 5 breast-plate, I'll just remind you about everything else that's getting handwaved.
Exactly. So let's get the designers and the community making some new Int-friendly content, tweaking existing content, dismantling unwieldy feat chains, and freeing up PrC-locked existing content into general use.
That's how you encourage high-Int melee PCs. Not by punishing the ones who chose to put 'only' a 12 in the stat.
That's a great idea, but until then, INT 13 chars are rewarded here. And it does make some amount of sense that it be here (see my other posts). "INT 12 is punished" is like saying DEX 14/16/18 builds are punished with TWF, and a neverending path to boot.
@Aelryinth: What sources are those in?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/student-of-war
From seekers of secrets.
Warblade is the 'fighter replacement class' from Book of 9 Swords, the last 3.5 book.
And actually, the warblade could do fine with a 10 or 12 Int. With a headband and inherents, he could get to 20 Int by level 20 with no other investment...but if he wanted a high Int, he profited by it. With the Diamond MInd manuvers allowing him to dump Wis if he liked, it was even viable.
==Aelryinth
|
|
@Aelryinth: What sources are those in?
The Student of War is in Seekers of Secrets.
That may be why it's not as well known, since some people may avoid what they see as a book specific to Golarion, and more specifically to Organised Play.Know Your Enemy (Ex) benefits from successful Knowledge checks vs enemy type.
These provide bonuses that can be applied to attack, damage, crit confirming, AC, saves, CMB, CMD, and avoiding AoO.
Mind Over Metal (Ex) allows Int to be used in place of Dex, for AC bonus.
I think it would be rare for Int to surpass Dex significantly on a martial PC, but it could be useful if subjected to Dex ability damage.
Deadly Blow (Su) extends successful Knowledge checks to ignore DR and crit immunity.
The other abilities are static or based on class level.
Of the three, only Mind Over Metal refers to the Int mod directly, the others are aided by Int (for stat bonus and providing skill ranks) in meeting the target DC, but the benefit is identical, whether passed via die roll, ranks or stat bonus.
Overall, it's not a PrC I would expect any player to consider, even one wishing to focus on the Canny Combatant theme. Most of the benefits are too little, too late, even compared to other martial PCs.
They would, however, make good abilities to free up into general usage, or be added as riders to existing feats.
What about simply remove an asinine prerequisite?Because as it stands it is the only benefit for intelligent fighters. Skip to the bottom if you want to know why I think that's important. Or see my earlier post on how the way combat works can explain why avoiding AoO's for some combat maneuvers requires "expertise," and most of it mental. Sunder/disarm are a little iffy - I could make an argument to put them in either category and I'm guessing they just put one "remove weapon from opponent" maneuver into each category.
** spoiler omitted **
The changes I suggested could address most of problems 1-3. You have to be careful, whenever you address 2, to avoid making 4 worse.
5 isn't a great complaint to listen to. If you do, you need to be prepared for ** spoiler omitted ** CE has the lowest ability score prereq in the game, and it's only 3 points in a point buy. It's just not that high of a requirement... unless you're comparing it to a dump stat of 7.
As far as 6, intelligence - the ability to think back on fights and plan different reactions, anticipate your opponent's actions, analyze your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and use the flow of combat to make your opponent do what you want - does help in RL combat. A lot. In PF, the only benefit is allowing CE and some combat maneuver feats. That's the answer Roy should give: "in RL, a hell of a lot... in this game, not much." If you drop the requirement, and don't give some sort of combat boon based on INT, you will doom the already endangered...
You put the ability score "complaints" on the same level. They aren't IMO. I can see an in 7 PC being not able to fight smart, but a int 11? Definitively bein able to be trained in smart tactics.
3 point can be everything. Wanna make int relevant? have them add it to initiative, AOOs, or whatever the hell you want. But please, don't justify ivory tower design 10 years old.
Hmmm, let me try to put this in a different perspective:
Is every heroic fighter inherently capable of "clever" fighting? Or perhaps, should every heroic fighter be inherently capable of "clever" fighting?
I would have to say "no".
In fiction, a lot of heroic fighters show no aptitude for that style of combat. In the real world, very few seem to have the capacity to discipline their bodies to that degree.
So potentially the question should be "which attribute best represents the cleverness and discipline needed to use those styles of fighting"? As such, I think Intelligence - which measures not only the raw smarts, but also the discipline of the Wizard - is a good choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why isn't the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat itself a sufficient pre-requisite for being able to perform said combat maneuver?
Aldin, This still does not explain the wolf or the knockdown rage power in barbarians.
seriously people, you are trying to adapt your view to a rule, instead of the other way around.
I already stated it: this game will never improve faster than in 15 years steps.
Why isn't the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat itself a sufficient pre-requisite for being able to perform said combat maneuver?
Because feats will always be acquired as opposed to inherent abilities. My question was whether everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. If not, then there should be an attribute requirement.
Aldin, This still does not explain the wolf or the knockdown rage power in barbarians.
Sure it does - all Wolves are inherently capable of tripping as part of a normal attack routine which doesn't leave them vulnerable. Barbarian rage powers are extraordinary powers that are inherent to their class.
Why isn't the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat itself a sufficient pre-requisite for being able to perform said combat maneuver?Because feats will always be acquired as opposed to inherent abilities. My question was whether everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. If not, then there should be an attribute requirement.
Except what the hell is "clever" fighting? It's some intangible thing you made up to justify the use of Intelligence as a prerequisite for a nonsensical prerequisite to items like Improved Trip or Improved Dirty Trick.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes. Are you going to propose an ability requirement to perform those combat maneuvers in the first place? No? Then you have no basis for arguing that one needs a minimum ability score to be able to use them slightly better.
Why isn't the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat itself a sufficient pre-requisite for being able to perform said combat maneuver?Because feats will always be acquired as opposed to inherent abilities. My question was whether everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. If not, then there should be an attribute requirement.Except what the hell is "clever" fighting? It's some intangible thing you made up to justify the use of Intelligence as a prerequisite for a nonsensical prerequisite to items like Improved Trip or Improved Dirty Trick.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes. Are you going to propose an ability requirement to perform those combat maneuvers in the first place? No? Then you have no basis for arguing that one needs a minimum ability score to be able to use them slightly better.
What he said, essentially. and again, you understimatye how much clever is int 13. Int 5 + training could be enough.
Except what the hell is "clever" fighting? It's some intangible thing you made up to justify the use of Intelligence as a prerequisite for a nonsensical prerequisite to items like Improved Trip or Improved Dirty Trick.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes. Are you going to propose an ability requirement to perform those combat maneuvers in the first place? No? Then you have no basis for arguing that one needs a minimum ability score to be able to use them slightly better.
First, I didn't come up with the term. I'm trying to use the term which has been used throughout the thread to talk about fighters who use certain types of combat maneuvers. It is a way to differentiate these types of fighting so that we can have a discussion.
Second, just because I can attempt to trip an Aikido master doesn't mean I'm going to get away with it. My trip attempt will provoke an attack of opportunity. I would argue that very few people both have the natural gifts and are capable of disciplining themselves to learn how to trip folks without making themselves vulnerable in the process.
You act as if the ability to trip and the ability to trip without leaving yourself vulnerable are very similar things, when in the real world, almost everyone can trip and very few indeed can do it without making themselves vulnerable. That's the difference being codified here.
First, I didn't come up with the term. I'm trying to use the term which has been used throughout the thread to talk about fighters who use certain types of combat maneuvers.Except what the hell is "clever" fighting? It's some intangible thing you made up to justify the use of Intelligence as a prerequisite for a nonsensical prerequisite to items like Improved Trip or Improved Dirty Trick.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes. Are you going to propose an ability requirement to perform those combat maneuvers in the first place? No? Then you have no basis for arguing that one needs a minimum ability score to be able to use them slightly better.
Fine, it's some intangible thing that SOMEONE made up.
It is a way to differentiate these types of fighting so that we can have a discussion.
Which would be acceptable were there even the slightest reason to differentiate Fighter A from Fighter B.
Second, just because I can attempt to trip an Aikido master doesn't mean I'm going to get away with it. My trip attempt will provoke an attack of opportunity.
So you admit that characters in the game can inherently trip people? Do they need a minimum Int of 13 to try and do it?
I would argue that very few people both have the natural gifts and are capable of disciplining themselves to learn how to trip folks without making themselves vulnerable in the process.
Good thing we are talking about people who took the Improved Trip feat as characters and not random people in real life who have no bearing on this discussion.
You act as if the ability to trip and the ability to trip without leaving yourself vulnerable are very similar things,
Of course not. The ability to trip without leaving yourself vulnerable is learned by taking the Improved Trip feat.
Sure, let's narrow it down. We'll only talk about heroic fighters in the game. They are inherently capable of tripping. However, all heroic fighters in the game are NOT inherently capable of tripping without leaving themselves vulnerable.
It may be that they lack the discipline, it may be that they lack the comprehension of what is required, it may be some other reason - the game doesn't specify. It is, however, clear that not all heroic fighters have what it takes to learn to trip without making themselves vulnerable. The way that gap between those who do have the inherent ability to learn that and those who don't is codified in a requirement of INT 13+.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, let's narrow it down. We'll only talk about heroic fighters in the game. They are inherently capable of tripping. However, all heroic fighters in the game are NOT inherently capable of tripping without leaving themselves vulnerable.
It may be that they lack the discipline, it may be that they lack the comprehension of what is required, it may be some other reason - the game doesn't specify.
I bet it's because they lack the Improved Trip feat.
It is, however, clear that not all heroic fighters have what it takes to learn to trip without making themselves vulnerable. The way that gap between those who do have the inherent ability to learn that and those who don't is codified in a requirement of INT 13+.
You are attempting to make an argument that is based on itself. The Int 13+ is needed because it exists and it exists because it is needed. You have failed to demonstrate even remotely why that is the case. Neither Int 13 nor Combat Expertise allows you to trip without making yourself vulnerable if you don't have Improved Trip. Your argument then, no matter how circular, collapses in upon itself because the only structure holding that circle up is the one based on "You have to be smart to be able to trip will!" and if neither Int 13 nor Combat Expertise let you trip will, then being smart does NOT enable you to trip well and therefore they are irrelevant to being able to do so. Also, if one needs to be intelligent to perform a combat maneuver without provoking AoO, then why isn't Int 13 or Combat Expertise required for ALL Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats?
You are attempting to make an argument that is based on itself.
Not at all. I'm saying that in the game, in the same way that some people have the ability to cast nth level spells and some don't, some have the ability to make Power Attacks and some don't, some have the ability to have eldritch bloodlines and some don't - some have the ability to learn how to use the types of maneuvers which branch off the combat expertise tree and some don't.
Why require a CHA of 13+ to take the first Eldritch bloodline feat? A Sorcerer could get it with a CHA of 11. Why require a 19 Wisdom for 9th level Cleric spells - are there no gods for the unwise and do they not have champions? What's the difference between Str 12 and Str 13 that magically makes power attacking available?
It's a game. That's why. Those ability scores represent in an abstract way the inherent abilities necessary to gain those abilities in a balanced way. INT 13 simply happens to stand in for the Fighter's inherent ability with the Combat Expertise tree. If you want to argue that stupid folks can learn to trip well, my response to that is already documented - they can't learn to do it well enough not to make themselves vulnerable at the same time.
I won't deny your rogue's gallery the right to trip, only the ability to do it without consequence. The ability to do it without consequence is reserved for those who both have the inherent ability and then discipline themselves to train that ability.
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.
Aldin: But.. but.. we are debating tabout the quality/sense of the prerequisite!
Of course in the game people cast spell, but use a mental stat (and moreover, is just one and you can just raise that) and use str 13 for power attack.
The point is that int 13 does not make sense.
It's a game. That's why. Those ability scores represent in an abstract way the inherent abilities necessary to gain those abilities in a balanced way.
Here's a fundamental flaw in your argument. The game isn't balanced.
|
|
Because there are many posts if this has already been said forgive me. Combat Expertise allows access to the "Improved" ability to trip, disarm, etc. These combat maneovers are still available to anyone (fighters included) they simply will not be as good at it.
I think many people forget that any character can do these things, the feats just make you better and having an INT requirement to be better at tactical fighting makes perfect sense.
Go ahead have a STR of 20 and INT of 5 as your fighter build. You can still trip, etc. you just won't be as good at it. You will do more damage, however, so that is the trade off.