Please no more combat expertise!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
Apparently one need enough brain power to be able to cast fireball and the other do not.

Wolf with five wizard levels?

Also it's about remembering a stupid magic formula that may take three pages from a book or less. And you cast it once per day considering the minimum CL and no bonus slots.

In addition to the assumption that the majority of wizards doesn't already have more than 13.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, then let's put it like this: with a little jiggery-pokery, a dude with 12 int can figure out how to activate the scroll of a second-level spell, no caster levels required, but fighting more cautiously is apparently a task he's too stupid to accomplish. Knocking someone down, disarming them, or kicking them in the nuts, these are all feats that require 13 intelligence to do without getting punched in the attempt, apparently.

Now consider the average real-world human being who is more than capable of kicking someone in the nuts without getting attacked in the process has 10 or 11 int and tell me that makes sense.


I believe the int requirement is there specifically to spread the combat feats out between more stats. The 3.0 Devs didn't want nearly every combat feat piled into Str or Dex. One of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" things.

It's an artifact from 3.0 that didn't get modified at all going to Pathfinder, possibly in the name of backwards compatibility.

If Unchained contains new feats, I won't be shocked if we get a new version of Combat Expertise - I think the ACG classes that get to disregard the Int requirement is a pretty big hint of how the Pathfinder Devs feel about the Int requirement.

In my experience, most of the maneuvers behind the Combat Expertise wall are fight-enders when performed against other martials, so I am completely fine with those feats being behind that wall.

Though I'll cheerfully agree that feats that don't allow you to completely screw your opponents aren't good enough to be behind the Combat Expertise wall. =P

Aside on the wolf that keeps being brought up: It's worth noting that the wolf WOULD provoke an AoO if it tried to knock someone over without biting first. A Pathfinder wolf can trip with its bite as a racial ability, which is an extremely different thing than a human expertly tripping others through martial arts training.

(Another way to put it - while Joe Blow the drunken barroom brawler could certainly try to trip someone, I don't think it'd end well if Joe Blow tried to do it to a MMA fighter or a trained soldier.)

@ BlackWaltzOmega - because that's a called shot trying to drop the other guy outright, not a combat maneuver =P


Zhangar wrote:
@ BlackWaltzOmega - because that's a called shot trying to drop the other guy outright, not a combat maneuver =P

You and I use Dirty Trick to Sicken/Shaken very differently. ;D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
@ BlackWaltzOmega - because that's a called shot trying to drop the other guy outright, not a combat maneuver =P
You and I use Dirty Trick to Sicken/Shaken very differently. ;D

Heh.

Now, do keep in mind that if two ordinary (civilian) dudes are fist fighting, than neither has improved unarmed strike, and thus neither person can actually take the AoO that the other is provoking.

If Joe Blow the ordinary civilian dude tries to do that to a black belt, a pro boxer, or other trained/professional combatant (and doesn't catch the pro guy flat-footed), odds are very good that Joe Blow's going to both (a) fail the attempt and (b) get flattened =D


Combat Expertise seems like something that Paizo should hopefully revisit in the Unchained book.


What if combat expertise existed but the 13 Int requirement for some maneuvers still did?

One of my bigger issues with Combat Expertise is that thematically its supposed to represent a more tactical combatant but the function doesn't match up with the flavor. It just winds up being a feat that you don't use because you only have it to qualify for the things that you actually want to do. It doesn't even help you do the you want to do.


I kinda wish that the feats that build off of it didn't carry over the int 13 requirement. Like a few classes and archetypes get combat expertise for free, but unless you have the int 13 you can't get any feats off of it still. I think it would be pretty cool if the lore warden and the likes could get the chain since they got the start for free.


I don't think CE would be such a terrible requirement as a prerequisite for a lot of feats - IF - it weren't the only option. If Improved Trip had pre like:
Int 13, Combat Expertise OR Dex 13 and, Agile Maneuvers OR ....

Maybe even drop the dex requirement on Agile Maneuvers - you don't really get much/anything out of it without a good dex - so let anyone take Improved Trip via Agile Maneuvers- even with low dex - but then they are paying it as a straight up tax.

I'd prefer feat webs to feat chains - I'm pretty sure most gamers can handle the complexity.


Entryhazard wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Apparently one need enough brain power to be able to cast fireball and the other do not.

Wolf with five wizard levels?

Also it's about remembering a stupid magic formula that may take three pages from a book or less. And you cast it once per day considering the minimum CL and no bonus slots.

In addition to the assumption that the majority of wizards doesn't already have more than 13.

It's not just remembering that formula, it's about exacting it with such exacting precision that leather armor can stifle it.

Right now what we're showing here is a poor understanding of martial arts.

The actual learning of techniques is fairly simple in comparison to ingraining them into muscle memory which I more the province of wisdom than intelligence.

Alot of what falls under the purview of combat expertise is incredibly simple. Can you swing at an opponents legs? Can you throw dirt in their eye? Can you grab their weapon and wrench it fom their grasp?

The tricky part isn't in the performance of these actions. It's in the execution of these techniques at the right time in a real environment.

Intelligence can help you in the initial learning of the technique, as any scholarly pursuit, but more is required in the actual use of it.


TarkXT wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Apparently one need enough brain power to be able to cast fireball and the other do not.

Wolf with five wizard levels?

Also it's about remembering a stupid magic formula that may take three pages from a book or less. And you cast it once per day considering the minimum CL and no bonus slots.

In addition to the assumption that the majority of wizards doesn't already have more than 13.

It's not just remembering that formula, it's about exacting it with such exacting precision that leather armor can stifle it.

Right now what we're showing here is a poor understanding of martial arts.

The actual learning of techniques is fairly simple in comparison to ingraining them into muscle memory which I more the province of wisdom than intelligence.

Alot of what falls under the purview of combat expertise is incredibly simple. Can you swing at an opponents legs? Can you throw dirt in their eye? Can you grab their weapon and wrench it from their grasp?

The tricky part isn't in the performance of these actions. It's in the execution of these techniques at the right time in a real environment.

Intelligence can help you in the initial learning of the technique, as any scholarly pursuit, but more is required in the actual use of it.

It is simple to try to do those things, but not to do them without provoking or to train to do them better. To be able to do that you need to be a combat expert. For to practice these maneuvers you must achieve that level of competence.


Chess Pwn wrote:


It is simple to try to do those things, but not to do them without provoking or to train to do them better. To be able to do that you need to be a combat expert. For to practice these maneuvers you must achieve that level of competence.

A combat expert at fighting defensively?


Entryhazard wrote:
In addition to the assumption that the majority of wizards doesn't already have more than 13.

No such assumption. Just that 13 is the Int required to cast level 3 wizard spells. Which is a fact.

_
glass.


Dear Nicos,
Your complaints have been processed and noted, and we agree. Henceforth, all combat-related feats will require Endurance as a prerequisite.
:)


You don't need to have Int 13 to know how to trip or kick someone in the balls. Anyone can perform combat maneuvers. You just need that to do it really well.

If it helps, though, in the intervening months since this thread died out and was necro'd, I have changed my mind about it.

To me, BAB is representative enough of one's literal combat expertise that it should be the measuring stick for such techniques.

If I were to redo the system, I would have a feat called "careful maneuvers", which allows you to perform a number of maneuvers equal to 1/2 your BAB without provoking AoOs, and then jump straight to the greater versions as specified feats requiring careful maneuvers, with the same general +6BAB prerequisite as usual, but no Int requirement, and a +4 instead of a +2 to account for the previous +2 of Improved rolled up into it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
One of us, one of us!

One of us, one of us!

One of us, one of us!
One of us, one of us!

Sovereign Court

Combat Expertise is awesome.

Because dodge AC bonuses are awesome.

Whoever I've witnessed use this feat always does very well at the gaming table. You want to power attack and finish fights quickly; fine. Don't whine when your reduced attack bonus from power attack can no longer hit the CE increased AC of the boss you're trying to defeat though.

Similarly, see the GM wince in frustration when his power attack brute or kaiju monster can no longer hit your feeble dex based and CE AC enhanced character...

Sovereign Court

To the OP:

Perhaps your plea will be heard one day and we will see a retroactive feat for Combat Expertise that acts similarly to the new Artful Dodge feat...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, Artful Dodge allows for high STR high Int low Dex Two-Weapon Fighting fighter/wizard eldritch knights... yay!

Rondelero Duelist fighter archetype (falcata / buckler) allows for bashing with buckler and you technically have the open hand for casting...

yay! ;)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Combat Expertise is awesome.

Because dodge AC bonuses are awesome.

Whoever I've witnessed use this feat always does very well at the gaming table. You want to power attack and finish fights quickly; fine. Don't whine when your reduced attack bonus from power attack can no longer hit the CE increased AC of the boss you're trying to defeat though.

Similarly, see the GM wince in frustration when his power attack brute or kaiju monster can no longer hit your feeble dex based and CE AC enhanced character...

I can't help but think that having the villains use Combat Expertise would do nothing but make combat boring.

You can't hit them, and they can't hit you. For turns and turns and turns and turns.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Combat Expertise is awesome.

Because dodge AC bonuses are awesome.

Whoever I've witnessed use this feat always does very well at the gaming table. You want to power attack and finish fights quickly; fine. Don't whine when your reduced attack bonus from power attack can no longer hit the CE increased AC of the boss you're trying to defeat though.

Similarly, see the GM wince in frustration when his power attack brute or kaiju monster can no longer hit your feeble dex based and CE AC enhanced character...

Typical party response when the villain and the heroes are exchanging powerful blows: "Man, that was tense. Good thing we had some good tactics and came out on top!"

Typical party response when the good guys and bad guys keep dodging each others' attacks and no damage is done for quite some time: "Well, that was boring. Thank god that's over."

Players like to see blood on the floor, and there's only so long you can make "yep, all those attacks miss" sound at all cool or dignified for the guy missing a lot. When the bad guys miss a ton of attacks the encounter is a joke and your players will not remember the boss fight you probably put a lot of work into as anyone worth taking seriously. When the good guys miss a ton of attacks the encounter is just ANNOYING and the party is grateful when it's over because now they don't have to keep throwing things at the wall to see what hits the guy who apparently has too much AC for them but penalized his rolls so much he can't hit them back, either.

Also, too much AC in fights for the combatants to hit each other that often is a huge middle finger to the combat-invested classes while a caster barely notices amidst hurling save-or-dies at the dodge tanks on either side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No guys, if the BBEG is doing this then the wizard comes and uses spells, even daze, and now he can't get his bonus. YAY!
Actually this would be one of the few times a feinting rogue is doing something more useful in making him flat-footed and thus denied his dex bonus.

Sovereign Court

Ventnor wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Combat Expertise is awesome.

Because dodge AC bonuses are awesome.

Whoever I've witnessed use this feat always does very well at the gaming table. You want to power attack and finish fights quickly; fine. Don't whine when your reduced attack bonus from power attack can no longer hit the CE increased AC of the boss you're trying to defeat though.

Similarly, see the GM wince in frustration when his power attack brute or kaiju monster can no longer hit your feeble dex based and CE AC enhanced character...

I can't help but think that having the villains use Combat Expertise would do nothing but make combat boring.

You can't hit them, and they can't hit you. For turns and turns and turns and turns.

spice it up with a villain with flesh to stone gaze! ;)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"C'mon, guys, Combat Expertise is a great feat! Look at that stacking dodge bonus!"

"Well, all right, let's give it a try."

"Good. Now you go up against a monster who immediately tags you with an impossible-to-dodge gaze attack. Make a fort save or immediately get turned to stone. You will need to do this every round of the fight."

"..."

I only now realize your Combat Expertise recommendation came on April 1st. Well played, sir.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Combat Expertise is awesome.

Because dodge AC bonuses are awesome.

Whoever I've witnessed use this feat always does very well at the gaming table. You want to power attack and finish fights quickly; fine. Don't whine when your reduced attack bonus from power attack can no longer hit the CE increased AC of the boss you're trying to defeat though.

Similarly, see the GM wince in frustration when his power attack brute or kaiju monster can no longer hit your feeble dex based and CE AC enhanced character...

For what the feat does CE is fine. Nobody is hating the feat solely for its benefits. People dislike it for two reasons:

1) It requires a 13 Int, which is extra burdensome for martials, most of which are already at least somewhat MAD.
2) It's the prerequisite for many improved maneuver feats and some other feats, most of which don't thematically flow from CE.


Xexyz wrote:

For what the feat does CE is fine. Nobody is hating the feat solely for its benefits. People dislike it for two reasons:

1) It requires a 13 Int, which is extra burdensome for martials, most of which are already at least somewhat MAD.
2) It's the prerequisite for many improved maneuver feats and some other feats, most of which don't thematically flow from CE.

Indeed. It seems like at least half the feats with Combat Expertise as a pre-requisite just have it because somebody looked at the name and said "Hey, that sounds like an important feat!"

Frankly, I think if it had a name which in any way reflected its function (Like "Defensive Stance" or "Improved Defensive Combat") then there wouldn't be anywhere near to many feats with Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. Not to mention the Intelligence pre-requisite doesn't really make much sense; it's not like it takes significantly above-average intellect to focus on defense at the expense of offense.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Xexyz wrote:

For what the feat does CE is fine. Nobody is hating the feat solely for its benefits. People dislike it for two reasons:

1) It requires a 13 Int, which is extra burdensome for martials, most of which are already at least somewhat MAD.
2) It's the prerequisite for many improved maneuver feats and some other feats, most of which don't thematically flow from CE.

Indeed. It seems like at least half the feats with Combat Expertise as a pre-requisite just have it because somebody looked at the name and said "Hey, that sounds like an important feat!"

Frankly, I think if it had a name which in any way reflected its function (Like "Defensive Stance" or "Improved Defensive Combat") then there wouldn't be anywhere near to many feats with Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. Not to mention the Intelligence pre-requisite doesn't really make much sense; it's not like it takes significantly above-average intellect to focus on defense at the expense of offense.

Particularly since I'd argue that it takes wisdom's practical knowledge and sharp senses to effectively protect yourself while fighting a lot more than intelligence and its esoteric book-smarts.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Particularly since I'd argue that it takes wisdom's practical knowledge and sharp senses to effectively protect yourself while fighting a lot more than intelligence and its esoteric book-smarts.

Normally I'd agree with this, but since quick reaction time seems to key off Dex in Pathfinder (hence Initiative being based on Dex) I'd say having a Dex prerequisite makes even more sense.


When this was first created, it was likely something like this:

"Let's see - we have given people an option to sacrifice Accuracy for Damage (Power Attack), and that requires STR 13. What if you are willing to sacrifice Accuracy for Defense (Combat Expertise)?"

"That seems like a smart thing to do."

"Yeah. So, 'smart' - hmmm ... That would mean intelligence. INT 13!"

On a 15-pt buy, that's a brutal investment, and requires min-maxing. 20+, not so much.

Design-wise, when this was first out in the CRB, it must have made sense. They had Feats based off the other Attributes at 13, so why not a Combat one based off INT?

And I'm actually fine with that. It's CE being the gatekeeper to tons of other Feats that I have problems with, some of which I just don't see the connection.

Sovereign Court

Ok, so April Fool's day is over, so I can't post too many good things about CE anymore... LOL

...however from a design perspective maybe it makes sense that those who cheese out on STR and damage and have a level STR of 20 should perhaps give something out in exchange. Then you have the characters that choose a little less STR (say 16 or 17 at level 1) so that they *can* raise Int to 13 or 14, and have a base Con/Dex of at least 12 or 13. Cha or Wis may be dumped or not, but I'm thinking that *something's gotta give* for those that max out STR (or DEX, since you can pretty much add DEX to damage in a lot of ways now...)

Liberty's Edge

Again, there is a "Trade accuracy for damage" feat in Power Attack, and a "trade accuracy for protection" feat with the heavily-despised Combat Expertise.

Why is there no "trade protection for damage" feat, or even a "fighting aggressively" combat option that gives you -4 AC in exchange for +2 to hit?

Sovereign Court

Snorb I'm fairly certain I've seen a feat like that before...

Edit: Reckless Abandon rage power is the only thing I can find right now... trades AC for hit bonus, same rate as CE... but I fail to find anything for fighters and the rest...

Edit 2: Reckless Abandon dumps your AC and increase attack rolls; stackable with Power Attack which dumps that attack roll for damage. So with these two steps you can effectively dump AC for damage...

Edit 3: if you have a Dex build then you can instead go the way of Piranha Strike instead of Power Attack... it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has tried a barbarian dex build before... technically I think that the damage boost from Piranha Strike would stack with the STR boost from Rage (assuming STR 10 barbarian with STR 14 on a rage), which would in turn stack with DEX bonus if wielding an agile weapon, correct? (or is there a rule saying you can't stack STR bonus with DEX bonus from agile weapon?)

Edit 4: oops, agile specifically says "apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier." which means that I must now try a DEX barbarian with STR 6 which goes to STR 10 on a rage! :) Or can I aim even lower for STR if STR penalty do not actually apply anymore? :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or an Urban barbarian that increases Dex when they rage.


Snorb wrote:

Again, there is a "Trade accuracy for damage" feat in Power Attack, and a "trade accuracy for protection" feat with the heavily-despised Combat Expertise.

Why is there no "trade protection for damage" feat, or even a "fighting aggressively" combat option that gives you -4 AC in exchange for +2 to hit?

There actually is, but only in 3.5. It's called Shock Trooper. Instead of trading your accuracy for damage, you trade your AC for damage.

Sovereign Court

Tim Statler wrote:
Or an Urban barbarian that increases Dex when they rage.

That exists? wow... thank you! THANK YOU! I had never noticed that one before!

Beside getting DEX when raging, I also *love* this:
"When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage."

Wow!

Piranha Strikin' agile kukri TWF urban barbarian machine here I come! (there might be even silliness in the works if I mix that with one level of fighter then go for Ulfen Guard PrC, for the kukri weapon specialization and all..)

Liberty's Edge

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Snorb wrote:

Again, there is a "Trade accuracy for damage" feat in Power Attack, and a "trade accuracy for protection" feat with the heavily-despised Combat Expertise.

Why is there no "trade protection for damage" feat, or even a "fighting aggressively" combat option that gives you -4 AC in exchange for +2 to hit?

There actually is, but only in 3.5. It's called Shock Trooper. Instead of trading your accuracy for damage, you trade your AC for damage.

There we go. Trade protection for damage. =p


thegreenteagamer wrote:
To me, BAB is representative enough of one's literal combat expertise that it should be the measuring stick for such techniques.

Thegreenteagamer has put his finger on it. Base Attack Bonus is combat expertise. Thus, the only feat that deserves to be called Combat Expertise is:

Combat Expertise (Combat)
Your smarts make you better at combat.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: Your Base Attack Bonus is increased by +1.

This is much stronger than Weapon Focus, so many players will be willing to make a smart Int 13 fighter to qualify for this feat.


So +1 to hit, qualify for prerequisites a level earlier but at the price of a feat, and 1/4 a Power Attack increase? Yeah it's better than Weapon Training but it stills seems like a bit of a trap.


Mathmuse wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To me, BAB is representative enough of one's literal combat expertise that it should be the measuring stick for such techniques.

Thegreenteagamer has put his finger on it. Base Attack Bonus is combat expertise. Thus, the only feat that deserves to be called Combat Expertise is:

Combat Expertise (Combat)
Your smarts make you better at combat.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: Your Base Attack Bonus is increased by +1.

This is much stronger than Weapon Focus, so many players will be willing to make a smart Int 13 fighter to qualify for this feat.

This feat would be "broken" because anyone who uses a weapon will go for it. Make dipping into a 3/4 class have no penalty, lets the full martials get the BAB 6 abilities at lv5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 to hit and CMD and get your iterative attacks earlier if you have 13 Int? That would be a lot better for Magus and Alchemist than it would for Fighters.

Sovereign Court

Make it a fighter only feat and put language like Artful Dodge saying this can be used in lieu of CE for prereqs...


Chess Pwn wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To me, BAB is representative enough of one's literal combat expertise that it should be the measuring stick for such techniques.

Thegreenteagamer has put his finger on it. Base Attack Bonus is combat expertise. Thus, the only feat that deserves to be called Combat Expertise is:

Combat Expertise (Combat)
Your smarts make you better at combat.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: Your Base Attack Bonus is increased by +1.

This is much stronger than Weapon Focus, so many players will be willing to make a smart Int 13 fighter to qualify for this feat.

This feat would be "broken" because anyone who uses a weapon will go for it. Make dipping into a 3/4 class have no penalty, lets the full martials get the BAB 6 abilities at lv5.

I agree. If I were designing it as a real feat, I would add some penalty to it. However, for a discussion of what "Combat Expertise" should really mean, I like the elegance of a one-line feat.

I would not add another prerequisite to it, such as Fighter only, because "Combat Expertise" is a prerequisite to too many other feats.

Matthew Downie wrote:
+1 to hit and CMD and get your iterative attacks earlier if you have 13 Int? That would be a lot better for Magus and Alchemist than it would for Fighters.

Not better, since it is the same +1 BAB no matter which class takes the feat. The quality of the feat for a character would be determined by how often the character makes attack rolls. I presume you mean that it favors Magus and Alchemist more than Fighter, since justifying Int 13 or higher in those classes is easy.

Shadow Lodge

Mathmuse wrote:
I agree. If I were designing it as a real feat, I would add some penalty to it.

For god's sakes, why? There are a metric f@##ton of spellcaster feats that are a great deal more powerful than +1 to BAB, and none of them have an associated penalty OR force themselves on casters as the first link of ridiculous feat chains.


Kthulhu wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I agree. If I were designing it as a real feat, I would add some penalty to it.
For god's sakes, why? There are a metric f&+#ton of spellcaster feats that are a great deal more powerful than +1 to BAB, and none of them have an associated penalty OR force themselves on casters as the first link of ridiculous feat chains.

Because Martials can't have nice things. They have to trade down for different abilities while casters get them for free.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think every feat for spellcasters should be split into 24 different feats. One for each school, an only covering 3 spell levels.

No more Spell Penetration, it would instead be

Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 0-3
Improved Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 4-6
Greater Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 7-9

This should be applied across the board to all spellcaster feats. And of course, each of the weaker feats should be a prerequisite for the stronger feats.


Kthulhu wrote:

I think every feat for spellcasters should be split into 24 different feats. One for each school, an only covering 3 spell levels.

No more Spell Penetration, it would instead be

Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 0-3
Improved Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 4-6
Greater Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 7-9

This should be applied across the board to all spellcaster feats

haha, oh that would be nice. Then the wizards deal is getting lots of feats for his casting, while the sorcerer gets the one for his bloodline for free.

But you know what would happen if they looked into this? Scaling feats. Like 2 spell pen +2 per 5 caster levels you have. Or something such as that. Oh make them combo too, if you have spell focus get another +5 spell pen.

Shadow Lodge

They should also be required to take a few additional feats:

Arcane Spellcasting: grants the ability to cast arcane spells
Divine Spellcasting: grants the ability to cast divine spells

Of course, those are just the initial feat tax. To progress as a spellcaster, you ALSO need to take the following:

Lesser Spellcasting: grants the ability to cast spells of level 0-3
Improved Spellcasting: grants the ability to cast spells of levels 4-6
Greater Spellcasting: grants the ability to cast spells of levels 7-9

I'm being kind. I thought about splitting that up by school as well. :D


Combat Expertise, and all the feats that key off of it, are about superior positioning. You're required to see the opening and react, or anticipate the motions of your opponent.

"If I kick him in the groin, he's going to block with that longsword, and I'm going to be ten inches shorter on the right side."

"I need to wait for his next forward momentum to be able to put my blade under his, so I can turn my hip into him, and grab his belt without getting my thumb cut off."

"I see you've studied capo ferra." "Naturally. But I find that Tibault cancels out capo ferra, don't you?"

"Parry, parry, ho, ha, dodge, thrust... What went wrong?"

Feinting and combat maneuvers are all about playing that mental chess game in which you're one step ahead of the opponent. If you tried to kick *me* in the groin, I'd break your GD shin. But then, I have a level of monk.

As one of the earlier posters pointed out, in a bar-room brawl you end up with dirty tricks and improvised weapons and combat maneuvers all over the place, because no one can take AoOs. But no one does that on a battlefield without significant risk to life and limb, because grabbing your opponent when he's swinging a mace at your skull with the intent to kill you is -really hard-, and at the very least likely to lose you a finger or two.

Perhaps raising the stat requirements for spellcasters is in order to bring things more in line? Wizards needing an intelligence of 13 to cast first level spells seems much more appropriate.


Purplefixer wrote:
Perhaps raising the stat requirements for spellcasters is in order to bring things more in line? Wizards needing an intelligence of 13 to cast first level spells seems much more appropriate.

Except this would put a lot of pressure on already MAD casters that try to cast and sword, namely magus, warpriset, combat bards, and especially clerics. Wizards, oracles, sorcerers, and witches wouldn't feel much pain because of how SAD they are.


Kthulhu wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I agree. If I were designing it as a real feat, I would add some penalty to it.
For god's sakes, why? There are a metric f&@%ton of spellcaster feats that are a great deal more powerful than +1 to BAB, and none of them have an associated penalty OR force themselves on casters as the first link of ridiculous feat chains.

Mostly so powergamers would not tell all the newbies playing martial classes, "Your first two feats must be Power Attack and Combat Expertise. There is no reason to take anything before that." On the other hand, if Paizo makes more good feats for martials, the penalty wouldn't be necessary.

101 to 150 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Please no more combat expertise! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.