Blackwaltzomega |
Athaleon wrote:Combat Maneuver feats should have no prerequisite, certainly not Combat Expertise and Int 13.Why?
Perhaps it has nothing to do with the mechanical benefit of Combat Expertise, but tactical fighting should require an expertise of combat and a modicum of intelligence.
Athaleon wrote:Furthermore the Improved + Greater Maneuver feats should be combined back into one feat like they were in 3.5.And they weren't one feat back in 3.5. There just wasn't the "Greater" option. The improved option did exactly what it does now, you just didn't have the option to take greater for even further benefit.
I'm sorry, but Dirty Trick is a combat expertise feat, as is Tripping and Disarming.
Do you really think understanding how to cast fireball and "instead of just hitting him, I'm gonna kick this guy in the balls to sicken him/try to knock him over/try to wrestle that weapon out of his hands" require the exact same amount of intelligence to pull off? Because if so, magic users really need to get off their high horses about how much work magic is.
It is important to keep in mind that the average human being in the real world has 11 or less intelligence. A +1 doesn't sound like much, but in practice it means that requiring 13 int means you need to be significantly smarter than the average man in the real world to try and fight dirty without getting punched in the face. Which, since tripping people and throwing sand in their eyes is typically the style of dumb schoolyard bullies, doesn't seem likely to me.
Nicos |
After looking at this thread a couple of months ago I decided to make CE obsolete in my games. The next one to GM agreed and now it seems to be gone forever. I really can't see a reason to 1 require a feet that penalizes my trip action to take improved trip, 2 discourage tactical fighting and 3 nerf the martials. It works really good for all of us. Thanks guys !
So this thread actually helped someone? good to know.
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish this would stop. But I think it's actually getting worse. Mathmuse's list doesn't include all the new feats from ACG, for example, Pack Flanking:
a) It not only charges you Int 13 and Combat Expertise, it double-charges you, since your partner also has to have them.
And that's why there's this:
Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
and this
Hunter Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, the hunter automatically grants her teamwork feats to her animal companion. The companion doesn't need to meet the prerequisites of these teamwork feats.
and this
Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies' positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
It's never explicitly called out in the rules, but teamwork feats are actually a stealthy way of giving more options specifically to the cavalier, hunter, and inquisitor classes, which are three classes that can automatically grant teamwork feats to allies or can operate as if their allies had the teamwork feat. If it's hard for other classes to get those feats, well, not everything can be equally easy for every class, and the main point is to make those feats easily accessible to the cavalier, hunter, and inquisitor by marking them as teamwork feats.
I agree that Combat Expertise's Int 13 prerequisite is pretty harsh, and that having Combat Expertise as a prerequisite is also pretty harsh. But you really shouldn't complain about being "double charged" for a teamwork feat, as teamwork feats are primarily intended for the three classes that can bypass or override the "doubled" cost of the feat (i.e., requiring someone else in your group to have the feat for you to be able to use it).
Kudaku |
I think people would be more open towards the idea of teamwork feats if it was made more clear that they're primarily intended to be options for the classes that can sidestep the downsides of teamwork feats rather than being viable feats in their own right. I've seen a lot of people try to make TW feats work the old-fashioned way and be confused and/or disappointed with the results.
Pack Flanking seems like a great feat for any melee class with an animal companion, for example. If it's intended to only be an option for cavaliers and hunters, that restriction could have been enforced by requiring levels in those classes rather than having an Intelligence requirement in place. As it is there are a lot of rangers and druids out there who think Pack Flanking is a legitimate feat for their animal companion.
Edit: Unrelated, but it's really good to see you post more on the Pathfinder forums. I'm not quite sure why, but you seem happier. :)
Nicos |
In general, I think it would be nice if the books do not present not balanced options as reasonably equals. If an options is supposed to be bad or good just under a very restricted set of circumstances then the books should say it, IMHO.
A good portion of system mastery is to avoid the bad options, wich for a new player (or someone that just do not want to read that much) can be a pain.
Coriat |
Hm. b) was the point I felt more emphatic about, thus the emphasis (:P), but as for a) perhaps I misjudged the aimed audience of the feat. If so, I suppose that goes to the "stealthy" part of the intent you mention. I've certainly seen teamwork feats that I would have thought were aimed at other classes, but perhaps I've been fooled? But then - thinking a little harder - the rogue with Animal Ally or whatever is going to be dead in the water due to b) if he tries to teach pack tactics to his wolf anyway, before he can even get to a), so there's that.
Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
I've certainly seen teamwork feats that I would have thought were aimed at other classes, but perhaps I've been fooled?
Or perhaps this info was so stealthy that it was never communicated to freelancers, who may have just been told, "write some more teamwork feats," without the understanding that "blah blah blah intended as supplementary class features for cav/hunt/inq" was implied. *shrug*
Shifty |
Adorable, maybe. But admirable too.
Fighters shouldn't lose half their feat chains just 'cause they got hit by Intelligence damage.
And now you don't need 13 Int if you are a Brawler.
Brawler's Cunning (Ex)
If the brawler's Intelligence score is less than 13, it counts as 13 for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of combat feats.
Pure gouda.
Majuba |
Fighters shouldn't lose half their feat chains just 'cause they got hit by Intelligence damage.
Ability score damage has no affect on meeting prerequisites, for anything. Ability drain does, but is significantly rarer.
FYI - just saw Combat Expertise used to rather nasty effect, by an *NPC*.
Lemmy |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy wrote:Necro'ing threads is generally a bad thing... But Pathfinder designers really need to read the OP. So.... I support this necro!Your optimism is adorable!
Notice that I never said I believe they will do it, only that they should.
---
Really... Combat Expertise is so obnoxious it should have its own slogan...
"Combat Expertise! Because learning and casting 2nd level Wizard spells is easier than learning how to properly trip an opponent!"
or
"Combat Expertise! Because Dr. Stephen Hawking obviously qualifies for Improved Trip, but Anderson Silva probably doesn't!"
or maybe just something simple and honest...
"Combat Expertise! Because F$*! you, martials! How dare you try to do anything other than stand still and full attack?! Know your place!"
---
Stupid feat tax... My first house rule as a PF GM was to remove it from the game.
137ben |
Stupid feat tax... My first house rule as a PF GM was to remove it from the game.
LOLZ, n00b! I house ruled out CE before PF was even a game! PWNED!
I think people would be more open towards the idea of teamwork feats if it was made more clear that they're primarily intended to be options for the classes that can sidestep the downsides of teamwork feats rather than being viable feats in their own right. I've seen a lot of people try to make TW feats work the old-fashioned way and be confused and/or disappointed with the results.
Pack Flanking seems like a great feat for any melee class with an animal companion, for example
I agree with this part, but
If it's intended to only be an option for cavaliers and hunters, that restriction could have been enforced by requiring levels in those classes rather than having an Intelligence requirement in place.
not with this part. I'm reminded of a piece of advice from either the 3.5 DMG or 3.5 DMG2 (I forget which one) about designing prerequisites for prestige classes: don't make the prerequisite a class, make it a class feature. If a prerequisite is "rogue level 3", then it is closed of to future, not yet released classes. If it is just "sneak attack 2d6", then it leaves room for the system to grow.
Case in point: when teamwork feats were introduced (by Paizo, anyways, similar mechanics were a part of the d20 system earlier), the hunter class had not been published. If they were restricted as you say, then they would have been only for inquisitors and caveliers.
In this case, though, they can't even be easily restricted based on class feature, since the class features allowing you to bypass the limitations are not all the same. Furthermore, I don't see a reason to eliminate the (niche) possibility of teamwork feats for people without those class features.
However, I agree with your overall point: if feats are primarily intended to benefit two or three classes, then it should be clear from reading them. At the very least, the introduction to teamwork feats in the advanced player's guide should make clear who they are intended to be best for.
Kudaku |
That is a good point, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks! :)
Come to think of it, the "stealthy class boost" could well be the reason I never really liked the current version for teamwork feats. I love the idea of feats that grant party members greater bonuses by cooperating, but if they're balanced around the idea that you don't actually need two party members to invest in them then the somewhat lackluster bonuses make a lot more sense.
Ckorik |
Coriat wrote:I've certainly seen teamwork feats that I would have thought were aimed at other classes, but perhaps I've been fooled?Or perhaps this info was so stealthy that it was never communicated to freelancers, who may have just been told, "write some more teamwork feats," without the understanding that "blah blah blah intended as supplementary class features for cav/hunt/inq" was implied. *shrug*
I'm unsure how stealthy it could be. When I read the teamwork feats I think 'awesome for a fighter - but how can you get the other guy who gets 1/3 of the feats and needs all of them to take one' then I read the cavalier and go 'oh - so they are like a class feature' and realize that much like the other feats that anyone can take but only really work for some classes (metamagic) they are pretty much meant for classes that have the class feature.
Or possibly npcs when used as parts of trained military (or gangs) where it makes sense for some added variety.
I honestly don't see any of them worth more than 'skill focus: appraise' without the class feature - it just requires to much investment and serendipity in a flowing combat situation to make sure your 'teammate' is always in position to use the feat and take advantage. At least with the class feature you just pick whoever is closest and don't need to stress out if your friend moves 5 feet to far to the right.
Lemmy |
Lemmy wrote:Stupid feat tax... My first house rule as a PF GM was to remove it from the game.LOLZ, n00b! I house ruled out CE before PF was even a game! PWNED!
Pay attention to detail, bro. That was my first house-rule as a PF GM... Not as a GM. By definition, you couldn't be a PF GM before PF was a game.
Your boasting should be replaced by embarrassment and shame!
XD
Ms. Pleiades |
Athaleon wrote:Combat Maneuver feats should have no prerequisite, certainly not Combat Expertise and Int 13.Why?
Perhaps it has nothing to do with the mechanical benefit of Combat Expertise, but tactical fighting should require an expertise of combat and a modicum of intelligence.
Athaleon wrote:Furthermore the Improved + Greater Maneuver feats should be combined back into one feat like they were in 3.5.And they weren't one feat back in 3.5. There just wasn't the "Greater" option. The improved option did exactly what it does now, you just didn't have the option to take greater for even further benefit.
Arguing that one needs to be smart in order to know how tripping works, when a 2 INT wolf can do it, and arguing it for so long without adding anything to the conversation, is growing a little tired and trite.
Squirrel_Dude |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thegreenteagamer wrote:PF Improved Trip
Not a bloody thing there that was written in the 3.5 feat of Improved Feint. Pathfinder didn't "break apart" the feat, they just added an extra feat that's even better than, but requires, the original. Greater Feint as itself is too powerful of a feat to give away without the prerequisites of Improved Feint.
PF Greater Trip
Obviously these are being quoted to show that yes Improved Trip really was broken up into two feats, but I also want to point an extra tidbit out. It broke up the feat chain, and weakened the extra attack that you got. In 3.5 you got just got an extra attack, "as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt." It's a truly "free" attack. You still get a free attack in Pathfinder, but you have to use an AOO, so you need more dex so you can get combat reflexes.
Xexyz |
I hate the stupidity of CE as much as everyone else here, but I also try to implement as few houserules as possible so my players don't need a cheat sheet just to play in my games. So my solution was to change the 13 Int requirement to a 13 Dex requirement, and also apply that change to all feats further up the chain. Seems to be working fine so far.
alexd1976 |
I see nothing wrong with feat as written, what we are all missing is that the metamagic feats should have STR 13 as a prerequisite...
Makes just as much sense, doesn't it?
I'm a bit of a rules purist, I don't make houserules often... only have one in fact:
Enchantment levels of weapons do not impart material abilities to weapons, i.e. if you wanna bypass cold iron damage reduction, you gotta own a cold iron weapon!
I realize it's a nerf to a martial character, but not really... in my current game, the only one to use weapons hits for 250+ per hit due to Mythic Vital Strike, so DR is essentially meaningless.
alexd1976 |
Oh and item creation feats should have a minimum CON, to reflect the crafters staying up late etc...
Yeah, Combat Expertise is a weird feat, very very weird...
Fighters already need STR/DEX/CON, having a minimum INT of 13 really just results in parties with less fighters...
I personally like playing Sorcerer with CHA maxed, CON as secondary... everything else is a dumpstat.
Take THAT, fighters.
revaar |
Fighters already need STR/DEX/CON, having a minimum INT of 13 really just results in parties with less fighters...
Or fighters who want to do lots of maneuvers taking a level of brawler. Probably not a bad idea anyway, getting to skip the Int prereq, getting a d6 unarmed strike, and 4 uses of Martial Flexibility. You don't even have to lose out on BAB!
I do agree that it should be made equal with casters though. Casters can expand their options by taking metamagic feats with no taxes, other than caster level prereqs. I say give all metamagic feats a basic tax of:
Metamagic Use
You have unlocked hidden secrets of Magic.
Prerequisites: Caster Level 1, Con 13
When casting a spell, you may make a concentration check (DC 10+double the spell level) to heighten the spell's level by 1, to a maximum of 9. If you fail, your caster level is not increased and the spell is lost. Every 4 caster levels, the spell level increase by an additional level (2 levels at CL 4, 3 levels at CL 8, etc).
Additionally, you may take feats with the [Metamagic] tag.
Otherwhere |
I don't think the feat itself is bad, it's having it a prereq for so many other feats that's the problem.
Anyone can trip, but it provokes an AoO. Don't want to suffer the AoO? Spend a feat and take Improved Trip. But needing to take CE and then wait until you get your next Feat so you can take Improved? No. My group doesn't do that any more. CE is a given to anyone with a BaB of +1.
Raltus |
Why give it too all classes with a BAB of +1? Give it to classes that focus more on wpns for dmg instead of magic. Fighters and rogues first and for most should get it for free.
The classes in the ACG i find are more so designed for those whom cannot take and build a character from a single class (yes I know they are a marriage of two classes). Just ones of those WoW things I feel, you cannot commit to one thing so we will allow you to do it all within one class.
Arbane the Terrible |
Do you really think understanding how to cast fireball and "instead of just hitting him, I'm gonna kick this guy in the balls to sicken him/try to knock him over/try to wrestle that weapon out of his hands" require the exact same amount of intelligence to pull off? Because if so, magic users really need to get off their high horses about how much work magic is.It is important to keep in mind that the average human being in the real world has 11 or less intelligence. A +1 doesn't sound like much, but in practice it means that requiring 13 int means you need to be significantly smarter than the average man in the real world to try and fight dirty without getting punched in the face. Which, since tripping people and throwing sand in their eyes is typically the style of dumb schoolyard bullies, doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes.
If a drunk would try it in a bar-fight, it PROBABLY shouldn't require sober people to have above-average minimum Int to try it.
Arbane the Terrible |
In general, I think it would be nice if the books do not present not balanced options as reasonably equals. If an options is supposed to be bad or good just under a very restricted set of circumstances then the books should say it, IMHO.
A good portion of system mastery is to avoid the bad options, wich for a new player (or someone that just do not want to read that much) can be a pain.
The problem with that is that D&D 3 (and PF, by extension) seems to have the (obviously false) idea that every Feat is equal in value, and that a Fighter 20 is just as strong as a Wizard 20. (Or a Commoner 20, for extra hilarity.)
Kalindlara Contributor |
Nicos wrote:In general, I think it would be nice if the books do not present not balanced options as reasonably equals. If an options is supposed to be bad or good just under a very restricted set of circumstances then the books should say it, IMHO.
A good portion of system mastery is to avoid the bad options, wich for a new player (or someone that just do not want to read that much) can be a pain.
The problem with that is that D&D 3 (and PF, by extension) seems to have the (obviously false) idea that every Feat is equal in value, and that a Fighter 20 is just as strong as a Wizard 20. (Or a Commoner 20, for extra hilarity.)
Actually, the Commoner 20 would be one CR lower.
He would have the same CR as a Warrior 20 or Adept 20, though. :)
Chess Pwn |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Entryhazard wrote:ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.Define "advanced".
You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.
While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.
Xexyz |
You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.
While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.
Also simpler than knocking someone over: Coordinating tactics with another ally to give you bonuses to AC, CMD, Combat Maneuvers (I guess two people put together can figure out how to give one of them a CMB bonus, but still aren't smart enough to figure out how to not expose themselves while doing it), giving your flanking buddy a bigger bonus and exposing your enemy to AoOs with your crits, using your equipment in unorthodox ways to gain a benefit, figuring how how to parlay your expertise with a single weapon into expertise with all other weapons in the same group, learning strategies such as giving an opponent a bonus to hit you in order to get them to provoke AoOs from your allies for doing so.
All things a martial with average intelligence can figure out how to do, but tripping someone without exposing herself to an AoO is just too cognitively advanced for our poor dumb martial to grasp.
Nicos |
TarkXT wrote:Entryhazard wrote:ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.Define "advanced".
You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.
While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.
Someone tell the wolves they are too dump to trip people.
Entryhazard |
Chess Pwn wrote:Someone tell the wolves they are too dump to trip people.TarkXT wrote:Entryhazard wrote:ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.Define "advanced".
You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.
While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.
At least recognize the difference in pulling it off between biting at ankle height and doing it with the tip of a sword.
Nicos |
Nicos wrote:At least recognize the difference in pulling it off between biting at ankle height and doing it with the tip of a sword.Chess Pwn wrote:Someone tell the wolves they are too dump to trip people.TarkXT wrote:Entryhazard wrote:ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.Define "advanced".
You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.
While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.
Apparently one need enough brain power to be able to cast fireball and the other do not.