|
Hey guys; I'm looking to collect a list of sub par feats in any pf book (though especially core, apg, um, and uc), as well as an explanation as to why they're sub par.
This could be anything from being in an inane feat chain with alot of dead weight on it, the bonus not being good enough, or ridiculous requirements that just get in the way of doing anything useful with it.
This could serve as a list of problematic things for the guys at paizo on the low end, as well as being a springboard list of stuff for people to fix in houserules. I'll certainly be taking notes.
Feel free to rebutt anything that someone else lists as too weak or overpriced or what have you if you disagree, but try to give a reason, and try to provide your own examples at the same time, so we aren't bogged down with just one or two feats. If you disagree, try to post your reason, and then move on. Lets not argue about it and try to keep the content flowing.
I'll start this off with a couple I think are worth mentioning:
I see this as a sort of patch to how full attack is too restrictive and the amount of damage thats lost every time you move to a new target. I think there should be more options to make combat more interesting for the melee characters and feel they're too restricted in their options. I see it as a new option, and not an increase in power. Personally I think you should get these for free when you get a new attack instead of having them cost you a feat.
Combat Casting: That was the case in 3.5, but not in PF anymore.
In 3.5 Concentration was an actual skill you had to increase, in PF it scales by level already:
1d20 + CL + Ability mod
Spellcraft doesn't factor into it at all, and spell focus can't be taken for it.
Also casting defensively is harder in PF than it was in 3.5 (15 + double spell level, instead of 15 + spell level in 3.5), so as you get higher in level, you might want those +4.
Hey guys; I'm looking to collect a list of sub par feats in any pf book (though especially core, apg, um, and uc), as well as an explanation as to why they're sub par.
This could be anything from being in an inane feat chain with alot of dead weight on it, the bonus not being good enough, or ridiculous requirements that just get in the way of doing anything useful with it.
This could serve as a list of problematic things for the guys at paizo on the low end, as well as being a springboard list of stuff for people to fix in houserules. I'll certainly be taking notes.
Feel free to rebutt anything that someone else lists as too weak or overpriced or what have you if you disagree, but try to give a reason, and try to provide your own examples at the same time, so we aren't bogged down with just one or two feats. If you disagree, try to post your reason, and then move on. Lets not argue about it and try to keep the content flowing.
I'll start this off with a couple I think are worth mentioning:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Good point about the spellcraft. I'm not familiar enough with vital strike to comment. WIll look it over later.
Concentration checks are caster level checks + casting ability modifier aren't they, skill focus spellcraft wouldn't help this at all..
I disagree on vital strike, though I think it should be able to be bought with a single feat, as well as have a feat added to increase it's use in special actions like spring attack and charge
I'd add all the metamagic feats, with some rare exceptions having some use but are still fairly restrictive, metamagic rods on the other hand are overpowered and infinitely more useful than the feats.
Endurance, certainly not a worthwhile feat by itself
Run, yea.. maybe we can roll this one together with mobility somehow and rename it to... say mobility ?
master craftsman, nice for an npc, but otherwise quite unlikely to be taken requiring too much investment and too little benefit
whirlwind attack, not sub par as such as having too many requirements, which might not be particulary fitting
|
|
Good start on the list.
I totally blanked on it being a CL check in PF, I was thinking it was a spellcraft check.
vital strike was definitely more useful before they nerfed it; I could *Maybe* see nerfing it if you combined the entire feat line into one scaling feat. Though I'm still of the opinion that it shouldnt cost any feats. If youre going to have a feat make it be to use it with a charge and spring attack. But maybe I'm just getting bored of standing still and full attacking. lol.
Agreed on the rest though I'd like more information on the "why" of the feats being weak. I agree about whirlwind attack though for sure. its not weak by itself, but it shouldnt require all the feats that it does.
Fleet
You are faster than most.
Benefit: While you are wearing light or no armor, your base speed increases by 5 feet. You lose the benefits of this feat if you carry a medium or heavy load.
Waste of a feat for a lot of classes. Get rid of the armor penalty and it might be worth it.
Fleet
You are faster than most.Benefit: While you are wearing light or no armor, your base speed increases by 5 feet. You lose the benefits of this feat if you carry a medium or heavy load.
Waste of a feat for a lot of classes. Get rid of the armor penalty and it might be worth it.
You could argue a lot of feats are a waste for a lot of classes. Most wizards wouldn't take Intimidating Prowess. How about a fighter taking Combat Casting?
Fleet is designed primarily for the light armor and less classes (wizard, sorcerer, monk, rogue, bard, witch, summoner, alchemist, magus). And for any of those classes, higher mobility can be huge, especially if melee is involved.
Faster movement isn't commonly appreciated by newer players.
I would add Combat Expertise.
While I like to make defensive builds, this feat just doesn't cut it. The fact that it's a programmed bonus without any flexibility (unlike in 3.5) means it's pretty much crap. It also maxes out at +5 to your AC, which means you don't really get a turtle option (yes, in 3.5 you had to take a second feat to get past +5, but at least at low level you could use that full +5).
Honestly I think the designers wrongly over weighted the importance of AC. Yes, in certain circumstances it is really nice. But it's just covering one hole, and there's other ways to crack that nut.
I think the feat should either allow you to choose the tradeoff amount you want, or give you a 2 for 1 deal like power attack does. As it is, the feat merely sits as a toll to get to other feats.
Definitely second combat expertise. You'd have to be trying to gimp your character to use it regularly.
I disagree on combat expertise, it might not be for every character but it can be pretty useful, and easily save you alot of damage
|
A third for combat expertise. It is very similar to power attack, yet significantly weaker.
I would find a way to change it to follow power attack very closely, i.e.:
1. Power Attack with light weapon, x1 bonus; Combat Expertise without shield used defensively or giving up off hand attacks, x1 bonus
2. Power Attack with one handed weapon, x2 bonus; Combat Expertise with a weapon in each hand or double weapon, but offhand attacks not used (essentially parrying only) x2 bonus
3. Power Attack with two handed weapon, x3 bonus; Combat Expertise with shield (used defensively, no attacks) x3 bonus
Options 2 and 3 give up more offensive power (i.e. possible attacks) than just their attack bonus to defend more heavily in a bad situation.
A third for combat expertise. It is very similar to power attack, yet significantly weaker.
I would find a way to change it to follow power attack very closely, i.e.:
1. Power Attack with light weapon, x1 bonus; Combat Expertise without shield used defensively or giving up off hand attacks, x1 bonus
2. Power Attack with one handed weapon, x2 bonus; Combat Expertise with a weapon in each hand or double weapon, but offhand attacks not used (essentially parrying only) x2 bonus
3. Power Attack with two handed weapon, x3 bonus; Combat Expertise with shield (used defensively, no attacks) x3 bonusOptions 2 and 3 give up more offensive power (i.e. possible attacks) than just their attack bonus to defend more heavily in a bad situation.
very good Jess. I will steal it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.
Which sort of makes you wonder whether it actually sucks, or if people just think that anything that gets nerfed at all is automatically over-nerfed. To say that taking the feat is deliberately gimping yourself is a sign of ignorance, because I happen to be using it in PFS and doing quite well. Just because you have to use it in different situations than you used to doesn't mean it sucks. It means you don't know how to adjust.
That said, I do think there's a bit of mismatch between what I assume is supposed to be a flavor of intelligent tactics (the name "Combat Expertise" and the tactical nature of most feats that have it as a pre-requisite) and the very narrow effect of just being more defensive. If it represents a level of "expertise" that opens the door to advanced tactics, shouldn't it be a little broader itself?
I agree on Fleet needing to drop that conditional rider. The concept is already addressed by the general rules of how armor reduces your speed, yet if you get an ability that prevents that reduction (like being a dwarf or a high-level fighter), the feat still shuts off due to your armor despite your speed being otherwise unaffected. Seems pretty counterintuitive.
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.
It was certainly better in 3.5 as it was actually flexible. You got to choose how much to hit you traded off for AC (up to +5). You also had access to the whole +5 AC once you hit 5th level.
Though I doubt it is only 3.5 vets who complain about it. I don't really know of anyone who uses it (and I pay a fair amount of PFS).
Which sort of makes you wonder whether it actually sucks, or if people just think that anything that gets nerfed at all is automatically over-nerfed. To say that taking the feat is deliberately gimping yourself is a sign of ignorance, because I happen to be using it in PFS and doing quite well. Just because you have to use it in different situations than you used to doesn't mean it sucks. It means you don't know how to adjust.
Oh, well it is good to know I'm ignorant then.
Conversely, you could simply have no idea what actual optimal choices are, and your character is gimptastic in practice. I've sat at enough PFS tables with people who thought their characters were the end all be all, but were in fact a boat anchor. You might well be in the category.
Excuse my bias, but I prefer the latter explanation.
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.
It was highly situational in 3.5 I had it on several characters and can't remember ever using it. Why on earth, as the fighter, would i ever want to make it HARDER for me to do my primary job of hitting the other person? Will i get hit? Sure. Thats why i have lots of hit points and ranks in profession: masseuse so i can suck up to the cleric.
Which sort of makes you wonder whether it actually sucks, or if people just think that anything that gets nerfed at all is automatically over-nerfed. To say that taking the feat is deliberately gimping yourself is a sign of ignorance, because I happen to be using it in PFS and doing quite well. Just because you have to use it in different situations than you used to doesn't mean it sucks. It means you don't know how to adjust.
I know how to use it. It still blows chunks on its own. You would have been better off getting dodge or even improved natural armor to up your armor class without taking the hit to you hit chance. In what situations do you find it useful?
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.
Which sort of makes you wonder whether it actually sucks, or if people just think that anything that gets nerfed at all is automatically over-nerfed. To say that taking the feat is deliberately gimping yourself is a sign of ignorance, because I happen to be using it in PFS and doing quite well. Just because you have to use it in different situations than you used to doesn't mean it sucks. It means you don't know how to adjust.
That said, I do think there's a bit of mismatch between what I assume is supposed to be a flavor of intelligent tactics (the name "Combat Expertise" and the tactical nature of most feats that have it as a pre-requisite) and the very narrow effect of just being more defensive. If it represents a level of "expertise" that opens the door to advanced tactics, shouldn't it be a little broader itself?
I agree on Fleet needing to drop that conditional rider. The concept is already addressed by the general rules of how armor reduces your speed, yet if you get an ability that prevents that reduction (like being a dwarf or a high-level fighter), the feat still shuts off due to your armor despite your speed being otherwise unaffected. Seems pretty counterintuitive.
That does not make the feat good. Casters that blast can do well, but we all know the majority opinion on that.
Who said it was "deliberately gimping yourself"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who said it was "deliberately gimping yourself"?
Me. it was a feat tax in 3.x , in pathfinder its probably illegal in texas.
It was highly situational in 3.5 I had it on several characters and can't remember ever using it. Why on earth, as the fighter, would i ever want to make it HARDER for me to do my primary job of hitting the other person? Will i get hit? Sure. Thats why i have lots of hit points and ranks in profession: masseuse so i can suck up to the cleric.
Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.
A fighter played by a player of mine had a good use of it switching from full DPR to defense in several rounds to make retaliatory enemy attacks wasted (but he used the superior, uncapped CE and a defending weapon in top of that).
It needs some imagination and a "gut" for the right tactic.
Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.
Its not that i'm not imaginative, don't have a "gut" that agrees with you. Its simply not the right tactic. As long as you have 1hp left you fight at full strength. If 2 points of ac is going to make the difference between you having 1 hp and being dead at the end of the fight, then running through that many bad guys is probably a bad idea. You are also partially negating the entire reason for running through those bad guys in the first place: you are making it less likely that you will hit your intended target.
Each -1 you take removes a bit more than 1/20th of your damage and decreases the damage taken by 1/20th. If someone is important enough to run past all those mooks for, then they're important enough to make sure you hit when you get there.
If you're a fighter type and your damage isn't higher than the mooks you're running past then something has gone horribly wrong. It should still be a bad idea after a 2 or 3 to one consideration.
You assume the players were always in the optimal situation. But I didn't put them in the optimal situation.
Switch a single round - just to gain some time - to a defensive tactic has been proven as useful.
I do agree that generally "nuke" is the best option. But sometimes being hit by maybe the first iterative can keep you alive in the right moment.
Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.
A fighter played by a player of mine had a good use of it switching from full DPR to defense in several rounds to make retaliatory enemy attacks wasted (but he used the superior, uncapped CE and a defending weapon in top of that).
It needs some imagination and a "gut" for the right tactic.
Of course you are talking about the 3.5 version, which I agree is acceptable. I personally put it to good use much of the time on my own fighter. However Pathfinder really gutted the feat. Having to be 20th level to be comparable to 5th in 3.5 is a pretty hefty nerf bat (and even then you aren't as good).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess if the definition of "fighter" that's been accepted is just "hits things and has hit points" (Dorkness Rising, anyone?), then yes, CE is counterproductive. But put it in a high-AC, multi-option build and it can become very helpful in the right circumstances:
• I've activated it when fighting enemies with low ACs but multiple attacks, using it as a sort of more precise Fighting Defensively. Going from a 75% to 70% chance to hit while gaining +1 AC against an enemy with 3 attacks per round is actually fairly useful.
• When your to-hit with a disarm is +4 higher than a normal attack and you're in a situation where you'd want to disarm anyway, taking a -1 to hit is practically a freebie - I activate CE almost every time I disarm, and I still have a great success rate.
As for "maybe you just don't know you suck", feel free to ask Deanoth, Mike Schneider, or MisterSlanky/Ryan Bolduan (or Andrew Christian, if he can remember the one session we played together a couple months ago) whether my fighter ("Cledwyn") seemed like dead weight. In my session with MisterSlanky, one of the other players (Wraithcannon, IIRC) corrected my assertion that I had taken on half the baddies in a certain fight (some dhampir pirates) by stating that it was nearer the truth to say I'd taken on all of them. Feel free to ask around.
Point is, you guys are criticizing a feat based on how it looks on paper. Meanwhile, I speak from actual experience.
Anyways, them's the facts & numbers, so enough with the (admittedly fun) thread derailment. Anyone have experience with the critical feats? They look like they wouldn't be very worthwhile, but I haven't actually used them.
Of course you are talking about the 3.5 version, which I agree is acceptable. I personally put it to good use much of the time on my own fighter. However Pathfinder really gutted the feat. Having to be 20th level to be comparable to 5th in 3.5 is a pretty hefty nerf bat (and even then you aren't as good).Is not intuitive but can work. As an example, you use mobility (:D great build) and move against the target, decreasing the chances of being hit by enemies around.
A fighter played by a player of mine had a good use of it switching from full DPR to defense in several rounds to make retaliatory enemy attacks wasted (but he used the superior, uncapped CE and a defending weapon in top of that).
It needs some imagination and a "gut" for the right tactic.
Yes as I said above, was 3.5, was uncapped because of complete warrior, and a defending weapon was used togheter. This allowed one turn of "can't touch me".
Not more than one, because of course enemies will adapt and as BNW said, the best thing is in generaly deal damage until every enemy stop moving.
I think that the feat can hae an use in PF too. Just needs more the synergies, like the +4 AC two handed weapons feat, defending weapons and such.
Yeah, took a little bit of nerfbat for sure.
Cleave - Why do I want to give up a standard action and take an AC hit just to hit 2 targets when I get 3+attack at higher levels. This version has them having to stand RIGHT NEXT to each other and in reach. Most enemies are intelligent enough to flank or are single BBEG monster types making the feat next to useless. As you level it gets to be an increasingly worse option where in 3.5 it was always a nice benefit when you could pull it off, especially with reach weapons. Didn't always get to use it, but really nice when you could.
Great Cleave - This feat was horrible in 3.5 and needed a buff, but instead got a Nerf.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Almost none of these weapons are worth thanking except for one now the Falcata. Spiked chain used to too powerful, but that was fixed when the trip rules were, but still got the nerf stick beating of a lifetime anyway.
P.S. EWPs singlular are really worth a trait, the least PF could have done is given you multiple EWPs for the cost of a feat.
How much damage combat expertise prevents depends alot on which foes you fight, a -4 to hit/+4 AC might reduce the chance to be hit from a 15+ to a 19+ that is 30% to 10%, so on average you get only 1/3 of the damage you would usually get.. it just seems to me that many people underestimate the value of AC. The higher your AC the more powerful the feat really becomes, possibly making you very hard to hit for high CR opponents, or likely neutralizing the opponents ability to freely use power attack for significant benefit.
It is a feat that is mostly of strategic use, allowing you and your party to buy time while the dealing with the easier to hit mooks before ganging up on tougher foes, it also increases touch AC and CMD significantly, I'd possibly have it start out at -2 to hit and +2 AC though so not to be overshadowed by defensive fighting at the very start and increase the penalty/bonus by -1/+1 every 4 levels onward.
My impression is people dislike it because :
- it used to be better in 3.x
- they dislike to have it as a prerequiste in feat chains
- they do not appreciate tanking tactics
- because at low levels it is in some regards inferior to defensive fighting, making it appear a bit awkward
- because power attack is so awesome, though I do not think every feat should be held against another must have feat, that would just result in ever more powerful feats (spells, classes, PrC, magic items, etc)
- because they do not like to put a 13 in a 'dump stat'
I don't consider any of those arguments valid for a variety of reasons, a fair number of people take combat expertise at my table and it sees good use, but it is probably not for the very vocal DPR crowd
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Cleave - Why do I want to give up a standard action and take an AC hit just to hit 2 targets when I get 3+attack at higher levels. This version has them having to stand RIGHT NEXT to each other and in reach. Most enemies are intelligent enough to flank or are single BBEG monster types making the feat next to useless. As you level it gets to be an increasingly worse option where in 3.5 it was always a nice benefit when you could pull it off, especially with reach weapons. Didn't always get to use it, but really nice when you could.
To be fair, it can be really good at low levels when you don't have iterative attacks yet. Or at least, so I hear from the people I've seen use it. I don't actually know this one first hand.
Gotta agree with you on EWP, though. None seem worth burning a feat for. Picking the right deity for? Maybe. But a feat? Not so much.
Point is, you guys are criticizing a feat based on how it looks on paper. Meanwhile, I speak from actual experience.
All you have to do is compare with alternatives to see the deficiencies. Better feats:
DodgeShield Focus
Greater Shield Focus
As I mentioned before, I like defensive builds. My PFS fighter is sword(well falcata) and board and runs around with his nice high AC laughing at flunkies. In theory I could pursue CE, but I consider it not worth the trouble. The opportunity cost is too high. Not only as you skipping a better feat, but you are having to pad another stat and give up some DPR. Even though fighters appear to have a surfeit of feats, I am very careful with each choice as there are always others I would like as well. Combat expertise doesn't ever make the grade as there are always better options.
Even if we want to play the disarm game, heck it's PFS, so you might as well sunder instead. Then the pre-requisite feat (power attack) is far better.
Anyways, them's the facts & numbers, so enough with the (admittedly fun) thread derailment. Anyone have experience with the critical feats? They look like they wouldn't be very worthwhile, but I haven't actually used them.
I run home games more than I get to play them, and PFS doesn't go high enough to really allow you to get to the good critical feats.
I did make myself a DPR calculator a while back, and I was surprised at how much critical focus ended up improving my DPR, so I will be taking that.
As for my home games, well one did get people to 15, but nobody took any of the critical feats (iirc).
Yes as I said above, was 3.5, was uncapped because of complete warrior, and a defending weapon was used togheter. This allowed one turn of "can't touch me".
Actually that was an additional feat you needed to get past +5 that came in Complete Warrior. Back in 3.0 you could go to +20 on the base feat.
Seems like designers have had it in for expertise since 3.5 (that was the original name).
FWIW, I thought Combat Expertise was a feat tax even in 3.5. Worse, it's also a stat tax, forcing you to have a high INT on a fighter who wants to be good at tripping.
It has some niche uses, but it's just not good enough to be worth a feat. Unless you're plugging a narrow corridor for a party full of spellcasters and archers, enemies are just going to ignore you and target people with less AC unless your GM is merciful or bad at tactics. Most viable tanking options that don't involve GM charity (for example, maybe you're some kind of high reach tripping build) tend to suffer as much from -HIT as they benefit from +AC in most cases.
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.
In 3.5, Power Attack and Combat Expertise increased 1-1 with BAB, though Expertise capped at 5. However, the most I saw anyone actually use Combat Expertise itself rather than as bridge feat for Improved [something] were 3/4 BAB classes. Now - since it scales 4-1, it is basically useless for 3/4 BAB or less classes because the AC doesn't scale compared to your opponents' to-hit and it isn't useful for full BAB classes either who would get a better early return putting points in Acrobatics and fighting defensively.
Being a mediocre feat chain step and a stat tax is now compounded by being crap. I have NO idea who balanced this feat but wow.
Great Cleave - This feat was horrible in 3.5 and needed a buff, but instead got a Nerf.
It was buffed. It was actually made less situational. The framing situation itself is still unchanged and rather unlikely past level 5, but it's otherwise better. If you want a useless feat, look at Whirlwind Attack. It's still stupid and almost never going to occur at the level you qualify for the feat - the earliest you can qualify is level 5 with any class. Never mind all the idiotic redundant feat requirements that hurt classes that might get something like Spring Attack and Combat Expertise for free but can't take Whirlwind without taking Dodge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much damage combat expertise prevents depends alot on which foes you fight, a -4 to hit/+4 AC might reduce the chance to be hit from a 15+ to a 19+ that is 30% to 10%, so on average you get only 1/3 of the damage you would usually get.. it just seems to me that many people underestimate the value of AC. The higher your AC the more powerful the feat really becomes, possibly making you very hard to hit for high CR opponents, or likely neutralizing the opponents ability to freely use power attack for significant benefit.
Trust me, I like AC, and go for high AC builds because they can work better than people around here give credit. You just have to make sure you are still a threat in the process of having that AC. Thus a feat which lowers your DPR is a no-no. When you only have so many feats to get, CE is a lousy choice in the AC enhancement field.
It is a feat that is mostly of strategic use, allowing you and your party to buy time while the dealing with the easier to hit mooks before ganging up on tougher foes, it also increases touch AC and CMD significantly, I'd possibly have it start out at -2 to hit and +2 AC though so not to be overshadowed by defensive fighting at the very start and increase the penalty/bonus by -1/+1 every 4 levels onward.
Better yet, you can choose feats which will boost your AC without the tradeoff. Maybe, at high level CE would be justified to get that last bit more AC which becomes rather hard to come by. However I know in the 12 level span of PFS, I could never justify it.
My impression is people dislike it because :- it used to be better in 3.x
I don't dislike it because of this reason. I dislike it because it's not worth burning a feat anymore while it was in 3.5
- they dislike to have it as a prerequiste in feat chains
A fair complaint by people, though I generally have no interest in those feat chains.
- they do not appreciate tanking tactics
Not me. I like tanking builds. It's just that a tank better have a gun or people will ignore it.
- because at low levels it is in some regards inferior to defensive fighting, making it appear a bit awkward
No, the problem is that at low levels there are two other feats which are far better options which give the benefit without the penalty (three if you're Half Orc or Dwarf).
- because power attack is so awesome, though I do not think every feat should be held against another must have feat, that would just result in ever more powerful feats (spells, classes, PrC, magic items, etc)
I think that Power Attack gives a good example of how a trade off should be. You get something good for sacrificing accuracy. A single point of AC isn't worth it, while 2(or 3) points of damage are.
- because they do not like to put a 13 in a 'dump stat'
This is a very valid concern depending on stat generation methods.
I don't consider any of those arguments valid for a variety of reasons, a fair number of people take combat expertise at my table and it sees good use, but it is probably not for the very vocal DPR crowd
It not a good choice if you take a close look at opportunity cost. You don't have to be a DPR junkie to realize that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even if we want to play the disarm game, heck it's PFS, so you might as well sunder instead. Then the pre-requisite feat (power attack) is far better.
I very seriously considered it when I was building Cledwyn. I went with disarm instead for a few reasons:
• A disarm weapon gives you a +2 on your attempt, making it easier to get extra reliability on your attempts.• ImpDsrm shares a prereq with ImpTrp, which I was also considering (and eventually took).
• Even if you succeed on your sunder check, you still have to roll damage. Most weapons and armor have hardness 10, and to give the broken condition you have to deal around 5-10 damage (beyond the hardness), depending on the weapon. And that just gives them penalties. To actually get rid of the weapon, you need to deal twice that. And of course, magic weapons gain extra hardness AND hit points, so it gets harder as you go. Disarm, on the other hand, leaves them unarmed just from the successful CMB roll, and leaves them spending actions (their most precious resource) to get their crap back, and taking AoO's on the way (nice time for a trip, btw).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise must've been pretty good in 3.5 (I wouldn't know), since the only people who ever complain about it are 3.5 vets.In 3.5, Power Attack and Combat Expertise increased 1-1 with BAB, though Expertise capped at 5. However, the most I saw anyone actually use Combat Expertise itself rather than as bridge feat for Improved [something] were 3/4 BAB classes. Now - since it scales 4-1, it is basically useless for 3/4 BAB or less classes because the AC doesn't scale compared to your opponents' to-hit and it isn't useful for full BAB classes either who would get a better early return putting points in Acrobatics and fighting defensively.
Being a mediocre feat chain step and a stat tax is now compounded by being crap. I have NO idea who balanced this feat but wow.
Honestly, despite my success with CE so far, I wish not so much that it was stronger (though I wouldn't complain!), but that it did something else entirely. As I stated up-thread, another variation on fighting defensively doesn't really communicate "expertise" to me, and seems unrelated (aside from its name) to the sorts of tactical masteries that it unlocks in various feat chains.
I'm not sure what I wish it did, but something more... "expertise-y".
It was buffed. It was actually made less situational. The framing situation itself is still unchanged and rather unlikely past level 5, but it's otherwise better. If you want a useless feat, look at Whirlwind Attack. It's still stupid and almost never going to occur at the level you qualify for the feat.
Yeah, I don't see how anyone could say it got a nerf. It's a lot better than it was. The only situation where 3.5 Great Cleave was better was fighting an army of mooks. You practically never see that (heck I only saw exactly one combat in 3.5 where it would have been nice).
The current Great Cleave is not mook dependent. It's much more flexible really. I've actually been in a number of fights in PFS where I think I would have liked to have it. Not enough that I've bothered to take it, but a number nonetheless.
Even if we want to play the disarm game, heck it's PFS, so you might as well sunder instead. Then the pre-requisite feat (power attack) is far better.I very seriously considered it when I was building Cledwyn. I went with disarm instead for a few reasons:
• A disarm weapon gives you a +2 on your attempt, making it easier to get extra reliability on your attempts.
• ImpDsrm shares a prereq with ImpTrp, which I was also considering (and eventually took).
• Even if you succeed on your sunder check, you still have to roll damage. Most weapons and armor have hardness 10, and to give the broken condition you have to deal around 5-10 damage (beyond the hardness), depending on the weapon. And that just gives them penalties. To actually get rid of the weapon, you need to deal twice that. And of course, magic weapons gain extra hardness AND hit points, so it gets harder as you go. Disarm, on the other hand, leaves them unarmed just from the successful CMB roll, and leaves them spending actions (their most precious resource) to get their crap back, and taking AoO's on the way (nice time for a trip, btw).
There's a simple solution to the sunder issues you bring up. You use an adamantine weapon. Once that's in place, hardness is moot. My PFS fighter uses a +2 adamantine falcata. There's not much I cannot break in a single hit.
I do see the appeal of doing multiple maneuvers once you've paid for CE, but while trip is great against the right targets, it's completely useless against the wrong ones (big stuff and/or stuff with lots of legs or flyers). Sunder also suffers from this problem (sunder vs. monster = nevermind). I took sunder as a throwaway bit of finesse in combat. The prerequisite is close to mandatory anyway, and sunder does come in handy on a regular enough basis (chopping shields and armor off of people is good for attitude adjustment).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's a simple solution to the sunder issues you bring up. You use an adamantine weapon. Once that's in place, hardness is moot. My PFS fighter uses a +2 adamantine falcata. There's not much I cannot break in a single hit.
I do see the appeal of doing multiple maneuvers once you've paid for CE, but while trip is great against the right targets, it's completely useless against the wrong ones (big stuff and/or stuff with lots of legs or flyers). Sunder also suffers from this problem (sunder vs. monster = nevermind). I took sunder as a throwaway bit of finesse in combat. The prerequisite is close to mandatory anyway, and sunder does come in handy on a regular enough basis (chopping shields and armor off of people is good for attitude adjustment).
And a very valid (and fun, I imagine!) route you took. On the other hand, you don't get to loop people, taking them out of the fight from round 1. I had a fight at level 3 where one of the mooks, after the surprise round, was never again both armed and standing at the same time. Died on his feet without a weapon. Fun times. :D
@ Buzzard, I do not discount your arguments completely, I would say you can still hold that 'gun' that makes enemies consider you a threat not to be ignored, you can just choose to shoot it in this particular round or not, you either go on defnse or you shoot your opponent in the face.
Also while this might hamper your combat ability against the big boys, you are usually perfectly fine using it while clearing the mooks and enjoying reasonable protection while doing it.
Players sometimes use it to go into defensive mode and trigger an aid another action and allowing party members to flank, when they have a poor chance to actually contribute to DPR and are in danger of falling to a dangerous foe.
I don't disagree that iron hide or in particular dodge are useful feats, though expertise adds considerably more defense at higher levels, like I said though expertise has an on/off switch you do not have to use it all the time, you only use it when the (touch)AC/CMD really counts.
PA been turned into a bit of a must have feat in this incarnation, I feel it has been made a bit too powerful in PF, stacking damage output a bit too high while that really wasn't anything that needed fixing much, DPR types were already doing it rather well. It is just that the modifications to PA make CE look worse than it really is.
The int 13 requirement might be a valid argument, I just think it is a disadvantage of the pointbuy method which doesnt work well with MAD classes and certain feats with requirement. I consider that a flaw in pointbuy not in MAD classes specifically or in CE. At my table we do use pointbuy, but only as an option after someone rolled the dice, so it sets a minimum of ability not to cause too much difference in powerlevel within the party.
I think if you look at expertise as a tactical option rather than an 'always on' DPR nerf the feat is worthwhile, at least not what I'd describe as sub par, though not a must have like PA
And a very valid (and fun, I imagine!) route you took. On the other hand, you don't get to loop people, taking them out of the fight from round 1. I had a fight at level 3 where one of the mooks, after the surprise round, was never again both armed and standing at the same time. Died on his feet without a weapon. Fun times. :D
Possibly my 'problem' is that I build for the high level game, and don't really worry about the low level game. To be honest I find low level stuff mostly a walk through anyway, so I don't really worry. I instead plan ahead for when the game actually gets pretty rough. Of course the problem is that PFS gives you a very small window of playing at the higher levels, so I might not really be spending my focus well. Though from what I understand, in the future you will be able to opt to cut rewards in half if you like, which is something I will likely do at high level just to be able to play longer at those levels.
Because of my focus (and too much experience in LG), I have an approach to high level play which ignores tricks and really goes for opportunity cost considerations. If something isn't likely to help me in the hardest fights, I probably don't want it.
I think if you look at expertise as a tactical option rather than an 'always on' DPR nerf the feat is worthwhile, at least not what I'd describe as sub par, though not a must have like PA
However I'm not really comparing it to DPR stuff. I'm comparing it to other defensive options,and I think those are appreciably better. You get AC benefit without a cost. It is a while before CE can become a high enough number to matter, and while I might consider it at those levels, I don't really expect to reach them often in the game I actually get to play.
My beef with it is that you pay a lot for a not terribly good option (certainly not very good at lower levels). I honestly cannot imagine someone taking it at a low level without prerequisite considerations in mind.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And a very valid (and fun, I imagine!) route you took. On the other hand, you don't get to loop people, taking them out of the fight from round 1. I had a fight at level 3 where one of the mooks, after the surprise round, was never again both armed and standing at the same time. Died on his feet without a weapon. Fun times. :DPossibly my 'problem' is that I build for the high level game, and don't really worry about the low level game. To be honest I find low level stuff mostly a walk through anyway, so I don't really worry. I instead plan ahead for when the game actually gets pretty rough. Of course the problem is that PFS gives you a very small window of playing at the higher levels, so I might not really be spending my focus well. Though from what I understand, in the future you will be able to opt to cut rewards in half if you like, which is something I will likely do at high level just to be able to play longer at those levels.
Because of my focus (and too much experience in LG), I have an approach to high level play which ignores tricks and really goes for opportunity cost considerations. If something isn't likely to help me in the hardest fights, I probably don't want it.
Hm, see, for me, I don't know how far my character will even advance. So I look ahead a few levels, but I don't plan everything out in excrutiating detail. Granted, at level 1 I was outshined by the cookie-cutter Power Attackers because it's pretty easy to one-shot a mook who has like 8-10 HP when you're hitting for 2d6+9 or whatever (versus my 1d8+4). Even so, when the Power Attacker misses and I can hand him an AoO to make up for it by forcing the guy to stand up/retrieve his weapon, that seems "good enough". And once the enemies start having multiple hit dice, being able to keep the wizard safe while he spends a round summoning (instead of half-killing one mook who proceeds to disrupt the spell anyway) can be very useful.
But we're getting off-track again. What about Toughness? I haven't used it, but I wonder if a character who doesn't expect to make it to higher levels in PFS might consider it just for the increased low-level survivability. Thoughts?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think if you look at expertise as a tactical option rather than an 'always on' DPR nerf the feat is worthwhile, at least not what I'd describe as sub par, though not a must have like PA
However I'm not really comparing it to DPR stuff. I'm comparing it to other defensive options,and I think those are appreciably better. You get AC benefit without a cost. It is a while before CE can become a high enough number to matter, and while I might consider it at those levels, I don't really expect to reach them often in the game I actually get to play.
My beef with it is that you pay a lot for a not terribly good option (certainly not very good at lower levels). I honestly cannot imagine someone taking it at a low level without prerequisite considerations in mind.
To be fair, I don't think anyone's trying to argue that Combat Expertise is the bomb-diggity. Rather, its defenders are just trying to say that it's not the zero-use, "you're just self-gimping" noob-trap that others seem to think it is. It's pretty "meh", but not 100% useless and you're not automatically an idiot for taking it. I think that's as much as anyone's trying to say.
To be fair, I don't think anyone's trying to argue that Combat Expertise is the bomb-diggity. Rather, its defenders are just trying to say that it's not the zero-use, "you're just self-gimping" noob-trap that others seem to think it is. It's pretty "meh", but not 100% useless and you're not automatically an idiot for taking it. I think that's as much as anyone's trying to say.
Well, it depends. Because of the stat tax, it depends a lot on how you generate stats.
Are you playing a fighter in a 15 point buy campaign? Yeah, I think you're seriously gimping yourself by taking it.
I think if you look at expertise as a tactical option rather than an 'always on' DPR nerf the feat is worthwhile, at least not what I'd describe as sub par, though not a must have like PA
However I'm not really comparing it to DPR stuff. I'm comparing it to other defensive options,and I think those are appreciably better. You get AC benefit without a cost. It is a while before CE can become a high enough number to matter, and while I might consider it at those levels, I don't really expect to reach them often in the game I actually get to play.
My beef with it is that you pay a lot for a not terribly good option (certainly not very good at lower levels). I honestly cannot imagine someone taking it at a low level without prerequisite considerations in mind.
I can agree with that, it isn't great till you can get at least +3 ac, partly since defensive fighting is an option even without the feat. It would be better if it improved upon defensive fighting right from the bat, I would prefer it to be something like this :
Combat Expertise - When defensive fighting you get either +2 to hit or an additional +2 to AC
Sharp Senses. It gives a net +2 bonus to Perception. Skill Focus Perception gives a +3 to Perception (+6 once you have 10 ranks). Alertness gives you +2 to Perception AND Sense Motive (+4 once you have 10 ranks). Both options are better. The only reason I can imagine taking Sharp Senses is if you wanted to be the King of Perception and already have Alertness and Skill Focus Perception, and feel like spending a 3 feat on a skill you already get a +7 to, not counting skill ranks and Wisdom modifiers. Sharp Senses should be a trait.
Weapon Specialization net. Nets don't cause any damage, so +2 to damage does not apply.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To be fair, I don't think anyone's trying to argue that Combat Expertise is the bomb-diggity. Rather, its defenders are just trying to say that it's not the zero-use, "you're just self-gimping" noob-trap that others seem to think it is. It's pretty "meh", but not 100% useless and you're not automatically an idiot for taking it. I think that's as much as anyone's trying to say.Well, it depends. Because of the stat tax, it depends a lot on how you generate stats.
Are you playing a fighter in a 15 point buy campaign? Yeah, I think you're seriously gimping yourself by taking it.
Yes, in a 15-point-buy it'd be pretty rough. But myself and others were not arguing against a position of "it sucks in 15pt, but otherwise I guess it might be okay". The statements being argued against were not conditional. Big difference.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sharp Senses. It gives a net +2 bonus to Perception. Skill Focus Perception gives a +3 to Perception (+6 once you have 10 ranks). Alertness gives you +2 to Perception AND Sense Motive (+4 once you have 10 ranks). Both options are better. The only reason I can imagine taking Sharp Senses is if you wanted to be the King of Perception and already have Alertness and Skill Focus Perception, and feel like spending a 3 feat on a skill you already get a +7 to, not counting skill ranks and Wisdom modifiers. Sharp Senses should be a trait.
/agree
Weapon Specialization net. Nets don't cause any damage, so +2 to damage does not apply.
That hardly seems like the feat's fault. ;)
You assume the players were always in the optimal situation. But I didn't put them in the optimal situation.
I in no way said, hinted, suggested, or in any way implied that the players needed an optimal situation. My argument does not require "optimal conditions"
In fact the opposite is true, the usefulness of combat expertise relies on the DM making situations where its useful: narrow bridges or corridors and monsters to hold off and a party of ranged people behind you AND some reason why the foes need to be held off rather than simply carved through AND the foes are targeting your armor class and not your fort saves, reflex saves, will saves etc. I dislike a feat for MY character that becomes useful when the DM thinks it should be useful.
If the fighter is taking huge penalties to attack, Its usually expedient to simply walk around him and attack someone else.