|
i am seeking a second opinion.
after reading a thread on the dilemma, i got to thinking about how to make Combat Expertise more relevant to the maneuver feats which it serves as a prerequisite for. my conclusion was that direct interaction is difficult to conceive (this is a good attempt, if a little wonky), so i am going for a progressive approach here - in which the first chain-feat grants a weaker (in this case riskier) version of the second chain-feat.
Intelligence has been maintained, but as a beneficiary instead of a prerequisite. in this way, this proposal is modeled after Combat Reflexes.
finally, i have preserved the original mechanics under a new title. if this were to be implemented, certain feat trees would maintain Combat Expertise as a pre-req (ex. Improved Trip), others would use the original mechanics version (ex. Crane Style).
...
Combat Expertise (Combat)
Benefit: You may substitute your Intelligence modifier in for your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice) when calculating your combat maneuver defense. A condition that causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC causes you to lose this bonus to CMD. Also with this feat, while you are performing a combat maneuver, you instead provoke an attack of opportunity only on a failed roll.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity before you perform a combat maneuver and take a penalty to your roll equal to the damage you sustain from the attack, if any.
...
Improved Defensive Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 13, BAB +1
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
Special: You may use this feat independent from or in addition to the standard rules for fighting defensively. All penalties and bonuses stack.
|
|
i had another idea to make CE more relevant to the feats for which it is a prerequisite. again the idea is to reward but not require a high INT, while still having the feat useful for characters of INT modifier +0 and lower - again the model is Combat Reflexes.
...
Combat Expertise (Combat)
Benefit: You must declare you are using this feat on your turn before you make an attack or full attack; it's effects last for one round. . You take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks and gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1.
|
|
next idea:
leave Combat Expertise alone... add:
:
Pre-requisites: Intelligence 13
Benefit: You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against 'maneuver reprisals' (attacks of opportunity provoked via attempting a combat maneuver). You suffer no penalty to your CMB attack roll if you sustain damage from such an attack.
Special: This feat may substitute as a pre-requisite for Combat Expertise concerning various feats such as Improved Trip and other combat maneuver related feats. Finally, for every such feat you possess, you gains a +1 dodge bonus to your CMD against all maneuvers.
|
|
next:
(version 2)
Prerequisites: Strength 13, Dexterity 13, or Constitution 13
Benefits: If you meet the Strength prerequisite, you may use your HD in place of your BAB to determine your CMB. If you meet the Dexterity prerequisite, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity provoked by you attempting a combat maneuver. If you meet the Constitution prerequisite, you suffer no penalty to your CMB rolls from taking damage from an attack of opportunity.
Special: This feat may substitute for Combat Expertise to qualify for other 'maneuver feats.'
thoughts?
I -love- the combat expertise feat.
Enough to request permission to steal. I really love how you made combat expertise make sense as a prereq to combat maneuver feats.
Nit-pick:
Thematically, in my mind at least, Improved Defensive Fighting would require an intelligence or wisdom requirement, as if the combatant is carefully watching the enemy. A dexterity requirement implies something else, such as what the Dodge feat does.
Not a nit-pick:
Your Maneuver Expertise is the same as a version of Combat Expertise I posted last year, except you added the bit about attack penalties. I blame the widely-held sentiment that CE as written is unsatisfying. And practically useless. And the sentiment that if it going to be a requirement for combat maneuvers that it should aid combat maneuvers in some way, which is what you have done.
And finally, in the vein of the feats you posted:
Improved Combat Expertise [Combat]
Benefit: You add your Intelligence bonus to your base attack bonus and size bonus when determining your Combat Maneuver Bonus instead of your Strength bonus.
Normal: You add your Strength bonus to your base attack bonus and size bonus when determining your Combat Maneuver Bonus.
|
|
in defense of maintaining the INT requirement:
(alternate version 3):
Prerequisites: INT 13
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
While using combat expertise, you may roll a concentration check whenever you perform a combat maneuver (using your Intelligence modifier). If this check succeeds, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity for attempting the maneuver. You forfeit the AC bonus for 1 round whether or not you succeed.
...
caveat: the 'improved' line of maneuver feats now add their bonus to the concentration DC
My initial reaction to your first Combat Expertise feat was resounding positive. I jumped for joy. A bit more thought made me unsure. The problem is that any given character I can think of is only really benefiting from half the feat.
The fighter type, loves that he can make combat maneuvers without worrying as much about AOOs, but is not super excited about the int bonus swap (his Int is probably lower than both his Str and Dex, or if it's higher then probably not by much). The wizard, meanwhile, loves swapping his high Int for his puny Str, but never plans on making melee combat maneuvers. A skill-monkey rogue type might like both halves, I suppose. Especially considering that this leads into Imp. Steal & Dirty Trick, which he might like.
The second version, however, feels clunky to me.
The first version of Maneuver Expertise seems fine to me, although if I were to use that one I would probably remove CE as a full feat, and relegate it to something anyone can do.
The second version feels extremely awkward, with its triple set of prerequisites/benefits. While I sort of like the idea, the execution feels like three different feats held together by scotch tape.
Your last version of Combat Expertise seems unwieldy to me, because it adds concentration checks for classes that normally don't make them. If I'm the Fighter, I probably have to go look up what those are, bug my DM to find out if my lack of a caster level technically means I'm essentially just getting an Int check (RAW, yes, though I think not RAI). It stays true to the core CE, without feeling very satisfying or elegant.
I like your first version the best. I think that one has promise.
|
|
i wholeheartedly agree with you about the earlier incarnations. except that i want to keep CE mostly in-tact and make it more relevant to specializing in maneuvers in general.
speaking to version 3:
i disagree partly with the unwieldy comment. you are right in that the fighter now must be aware of another rule. no contest. but i would argue that the inclusion of the concentration check will, about half of the time, be a die roll which negates another die roll: the attack of opportunity (if successful). thus, it only adds on average +0.5 a die roll per exchange. not bad.
good catch with the caster level bit. since caster level is hurt by multiclassing, i will go with BAB. and differentiate between magical and martial concentration. any ideas here on wording?
additionally, i want the rule here to be compatible with the common houserule that maneuvers only provoke on a failed CMB check. so, granting exactly that is redundant to me.
finally, what i am also trying to get out of the feat is different usefulness for different classes. like you said - an open door to low-investment maneuver-viability for fighters, a perk on the way to Improved Steal for the rogue, a slight boost in combat maneuver defense for the wizard. dunno if i can have all that and keep the word count down but i am definitely trying. thx for your insights!
|
|
what I am currently using:
(version 4):
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
Special: When you are using this feat and performing a combat maneuver, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from your opponent unless they are also using this feat.
...
thoughts?
It's very juicy. My only criticism is that it negates a big reason of selecting any Improved combat maneuver feat. Negating the AO for any CM is a big deal compared to existing feats. How about a +4 to AC vs an AO caused by using a CM?
Or perhaps only provoking an AoO if you fail (whereas the Improved version removes the AoO entirely)?
|
|
Ciaran,
The benefit of gaining Improved Disarm (etc) is that you not only gain the +2 per the feat, but you don't have to use CE (read: -1 or more to attack) to safely perform the maneuver.
Zhayne,
I use the popular house rule in which maneuvers only provoke on a failed roll. This version of CE is useful whether or not you use such a house rule.
many folks use the popular house rule which consolidates Improved Disarm with Greater Disarm (etc); another reason to pick up the feat(s) despite CE being generalized as above and maneuver-friendly house rules.