"Combat Expertise is a useful feat.." from melee toolbox.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Combat Expertise, considered a feat tax which forces martials to up intelligence to 13. Makes you worse at doing many of the feat Chains that it opens (combat maneuvres). Pure feat tax without any reason.

Melee tactics toolbox comes out and I quote:
" Combat Expertise is a useful feat for combatants who qualify for it, either with sufficient Intelligence scores or equivalent class abilities such as brawler’s cunningACG and swashbuckler finesseACG."

I am baffled at this sentence. So they put a book out for martials and they slap CE and 13 int requirements on many feats, then tell you it is a good feat (in fighting smarter section).

Is this feat used by anyone as anything but a feat tax? There have been many posts about this feat so I am baffled Paizo decide to come with it as a banner of good tactics.

Perhaps it is an effort to salvage it? What are the reasons this feat is being forced as prerequisite when it looked like they had unđerstood and abandoned it previously?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

How awful combat expertice is already has 3 recent threads I think.

To sum things up:

Stephen Hawkings can take improved trip and Badr Hari and Ernesto Hoost can't.

Throwing sand in the eyes of your opponent (improved dirty trick) has the same intelligence prereq as learning a spell that allows you to blink between planes.

Discourages the fighter to do other things than full attacking with a greatsword, which is super fun !

There is no reason to nerf martials, casters are better without the feat tax.

Fighting defensively exists without the feat.

You would get a penalty for tripping if you actually used CE. How can you need a feat that makes you worse in tropping be a prereq for improved trip?

And my own rent:
Discourage intelligent melee support.
The already feat starved semi martials like the oracle get hit harderst by the feat tax if they want to help out the fighter with more than power attacking.

Calling it a good feat in a newly published book to me sounds really like ignoring feedback.

That said, in a non homegame (where I kick it out once I get the chance) I would always take it. Because slashing as hard as my dice allows sounds really boring. So indead, they are right. The feat is awesome and I should always advice taking it.

Note to self, A while ago I freacked out to (I think it was) Zayne for b%%#+ing about allignments on so many threads. Now here I am, this is the third thread that I use to b*#+# about Combat Expertice ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will point out that the quoted text says "useful", not "good", and is accurate in saying so since it is chock-filled with use... as a prerequisite for other feats.

Suggested houserule: make Combat Expertise the feat that prevents AoOs from combat maneuvers (to show you're fighting smart).


Chemlak wrote:

I will point out that the quoted text says "useful", not "good", and is accurate in saying so since it is chock-filled with use... as a prerequisite for other feats.

Ok, my bad.

But, the feat itself isn't really useful is it?

And although better, you would still be in a situation where most bully's can't throw sand and many wrestlers can't trip.

Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Combat Expertise is plenty useful if you're playing a character who focuses more on offense than defense.

The problem with Combat Expertise is that it has so many feats that build off of it flavor-wise ("Combat Expertise" is a very broad name) but not mechanically. That isn't a problem with the mechanics, however. It is perfectly balanced for what it does, and it boosts AC quite effectively.

So yeah, don't hate on Combat Expertise mechanically because you don't like how it is connected to other feats in terms of prerequisites.


Tcho Tcho wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

I will point out that the quoted text says "useful", not "good", and is accurate in saying so since it is chock-filled with use... as a prerequisite for other feats.

Ok, my bad.

But, the feat itself isn't really useful is it?

And although better, you would still be in a situation where most bully's can't throw sand and many wrestlers can't trip.

They can, it's just they don't have the cunning to do it without someone trying to hit them for it.

Alternatively, all wrestlers and bullies have 1 level of Brawler. Which....would kinda make sense actually....


Alternatively, all wrestlers and bullies have 1 level of Brawler. Which....would kinda make sense actually....

Nah, I really hope not every bully has martial flexability.

As combat excercise being rooted in the system as it is I'll try not to become a hater. Just one last time:

It is stupid!

Saying you have to be very intelligent to throw sand is like saying Bruce Lee fights a non full bab class and anatomy opsessed alchemists and cult leaders make way better burglars then rogues do ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I will point out that the quoted text says "useful", not "good", and is accurate in saying so since it is chock-filled with use... as a prerequisite for other feats.

THey deliver a lot of feat with CE as a prerequisite to make sure that feat is useful...evil genius.


And yes, CE is a horrible feat, the worst feat tax in the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with Alex that it is actually a good feat in its own right. The problem is that it is used as a prerequisite for so many other things.

Now, I'm not a professional game designer, but I have the sneaking suspicion that if there was, say, a Dex 13 prerequisite feat that grants the AC benefits of CE, and an Int 13 prerequisite feat that allowed you to make combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO, and the Int 13 plus feat prerequisite were removed from all the improved combat maneuvers, there'd be a lot less griping about feat tree synergies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I agree with Alex that it is actually a good feat in its own right. The problem is that it is used as a prerequisite for so many other things.

Now, I'm not a professional game designer, but I have the sneaking suspicion that if there was, say, a Dex 13 prerequisite feat that grants the AC benefits of CE, and an Int 13 prerequisite feat that allowed you to make combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO, and the Int 13 plus feat prerequisite were removed from all the improved combat maneuvers, there'd be a lot less griping about feat tree synergies.

I think that 5+ years of playtesting with CMB/CMD has shown that the "improved" maneuvers feats dont need prereqs at all. And in all honesty, maneuvers shouldn't provoke AOO's at all, but instead have a proficiency penalty based on the weapon you use (IUS needed for bare handed maneuvers.) (which creates a neat synergy with catch off guard and dirty trick)


In our home game, Combat Expertise was changed to allow Total Defense as an Immediate Action which carried through to the end of the character's next turn.

After one guy started using it to save himself from big hits, the others fell in love.


It is useful when combined with other things, such as Stalwart and Improved Stalwart. Alone and in its current form it is not very useful.

Shadow Lodge

Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.


Kthulhu wrote:
Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.

You mean... allow trained fighters to TRY NOT TO GET HIT... without spending a feat on this esoteric technique?

MADNESS!
[/sarcasm]


Kthulhu wrote:
Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.

It would actually be a good feat if it let you go total defense without giving up your turn. But it still would be a stupid prereq for maneuvers.


I allow players with Combat Expertise to get an extra attack of opportunity per round and, once per day, perform a swift action as a free action, as long as its reliant on a Extraordinary ability.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The feat should show that you are an expert in Combat.

it doesn't. It just shows you know how to fight defensively a little better.

It needs to actually do something that says "I am a professional, smart combatant. Watch this!"

It doesn't.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

The feat should show that you are an expert in Combat.

it doesn't. It just shows you know how to fight defensively a little better.

It needs to actually do something that says "I am a professional, smart combatant. Watch this!"

It doesn't.

==Aelryinth

The fact that it trees into all those other feats which require "expert combat" works, fluff-wise. I suppose you could make the argument for a minor bonus to CMB and/or CMD, maybe +1 to both?

I have most definitely used combat expertise and/or fighting defensively in combat. There are times when you just can't hit the bad guy (he has DR you can't cut through, or whatever) but as the party martial, it's your job to keep that enemy distracted while it wails away on you until the archer with special arrows or the alchemist or whatever can rain down enough damage to take the beastie out. Or even just hold position for a turn while everyone else runs away.

But that's actually a lie, because while I can and have fought defensively, ain't no one can afford a 13 int on point buy for a melee martial.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I oppose that line of thought. Combat Expertise should stand on its own as an excellent feat that does what the title says it does.

If it is supposed to be a gateway feat, call it "Advanced Combat Defensive Training" or some other name to indicate how useless relatively it is.

To make it stand alone AND a gateway feat, simply do the following:

If you are a Fighter and choose Expertise as a Combat feat, in addition to the normal benefits, you also:

1) Pick a number of Maneuvers equal to your Expertise Bonus. You no longer provoke an AoO when attempting those maneuvers. You may choose Unarmed Strike or Grapple as maneuvers for this purpose.

2) You gain a bonus to your CMD against all combat maneuvers equal to your Expertise Bonus.

3) You gain a bonus on the maneuvers you've chosen equal to your Expertise bonus.

----See what I did there?

I got rid of an entire line of Improved and Greater Feats, I made Expertise scale, and I made it plain that if you're a smart fighter and take this feat, it will come in VERY handy for you.

So if you swing that 13 INt as a fighter, you get something GOOD for it.

===Aelryinth


The only issue I have with Combat Expertise is having it be tied to INT. Not even from a min-max perspective- it just makes infinitely more sense to me to tie it to Wisdom. You don't have to have factual knowledge to know how to trip or disarm effectively, but you definitely have to have WORKING knowledge of what you're trying to do.
It's a really minor gripe and I can't speak to how it'd effect builds, but it really bothers me that it's you just have to be factually smart, not wise, to fight with "Expertise".

Grand Lodge

If the text clearly established that you can get its benefit from the beginning of your turn (when you declare a melee attack), it would be a useful feat. In my experience it's just too painful to convince a GM that it does something worthwhile.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.

You mean... allow trained fighters to TRY NOT TO GET HIT... without spending a feat on this esoteric technique?

MADNESS!
[/sarcasm]

I agree with Kthulhu. That way it would just another "meh" feat and not the horrible feat tax it is now.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

most characters with enough intelligence to qualify for the feat are smart enough to know to avoid this feat


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Core Rulebook wrote:

Combat Expertise (Combat)

You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.

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.

It's a dodge bonus, which means it stacks with pretty much everything, such as other dodge bonuses (including fighting defensively); as a dodge bonus, it also applies to CMD ("A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD"). So a 4th-level fighter (i.e., a polearm tripper) with Combat Expertise and 3 ranks in Acrobatics can gain a +5 to AC/CMD pretty much whenever they want in melee (granted, for a -6 on attack rolls); or just a +2 AC/CMD for a -2 on attack rolls.

Useful, just not necessarily in conjunction with Power Attack or Two-Weapon Fighting (or anything else that reduces attack rolls).


If I wanted better AC to hit worse I'd take a shield. Or crane style for 4 AC from a -2 to attacks.


I think Combat Expertise would be an OK feat if it and the subsequent feats in many maneuver feat chains didn't have the 13 Int requirement. The fact that new maneuver focused classes and archetypes often include a way to bypass that restriction makes me think that the designers can see the problems which arise from the Int requirement. I'm not sure why they didn't get rid of it entirely, but now that there are published ways to bypass it I think that's even less likely to ever happen (like before Pathfinder 2.0 or whatever)

If you're rolling stats and happen to get a 13+ Int the feat actually isn't terrible in my opinion. Sure, Crane Style is a more efficient way to generate an AC bonus by taking an attack penalty, but it has its own feat tax in Improved Unarmed Strike, and there's a trait which lowers the attack penalty cost of Combat Expertise by 1. The AC bonus from Combat Expertise can eventually get higher, and I think you can use the two modes of defense together for those times when you really don't want to be hit (call it "Spectre Time")

The 13 Int requirement is particular painful for orcs who use the Dirty Fighter archetype since the Improved and Greater Dirty Trick feats can be very helpful to them but buying a 13 Int when you have a -2 in all mental ability scores makes it really tempting to dump Wisdom. If you give into that temptation your PC will probably give into a lot of other temptations due to his terrible Will save. Mine sure has...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen many characters make great use of Combat Expertise to save their bacon in combat, especially low level combat.

The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.


Cheapy wrote:

I've seen many characters make great use of Combat Expertise to save their bacon in combat, especially low level combat.

The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.

Nah, I've hated Combat Expertise since the CRB. Changed it in my game to require Dex 13 instead of Int 13. Also further thinking of buffing it so that all combat maneuvers that use it as a prerequisite no longer provoke AoOs.


Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational...

Not sure how, The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.
The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.

Yep, people that want the feat mostly don't have the int and those that have the int don't want the feat. Seems perfectly contradictory to me. :P


Nicos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.
The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.

No, it's still problematic in and of itself by requiring Int 13. Martials are already generally MAD as it is; the Int requirement is just an extra burden for them.

Liberty's Edge

Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.


Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.
The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.
No, it's still problematic in and of itself by requiring Int 13. Martials are already generally MAD as it is; the Int requirement is just an extra burden for them.

I know. But without it being a prereq you will look at it and say "meh" and ignore it just like with dozens of other feat in this game. But well, I suppose I should have said the feat is not that problematic.


Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.

I don't have that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.


Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?


Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mostly I use it when I'm fishing for 20s, or caring less about hitting versus not being hit.


graystone wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.

And that is it?


Nicos wrote:
And that is it?

You are practiced at avoiding attacks when outnumbered.

Prerequisite(s): Int 13.

Benefit: If you are the only character threatening an opponent, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent.

Special: The Artful Dodge feat acts as the Dodge feat for the purpose of satisfying prerequisites that require Dodge.

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.


Nicos wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.
And that is it?

That's all that it does for/with int. There's a crappy conditional +1 dodge bonus too!!! :P


Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I love Artful Dodge; my Brawler (Fighter archetype) has a 16 Int and can qualify for the TWF feats without tanking my ability to participate out of combat.

And yet I would still never consider Combat Expertise.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

how would people feel about combat expertise if it was the exact opposite as power attack? trading damage for to-hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
how would people feel about combat expertise if it was the exact opposite as power attack? trading damage for to-hit.

Depends on the rate, but could be good for when you need to finish off a weakened enemy, or if your damage is coming from another source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ok i now know how to balance martial characters and casters.
make power attack a requirement to cast arcane spells, and combat expertise for divine ones. that shuold pretty much balance this whole thing up. now every one need to invest in abilities they don't want\need and pay a feat to the feat tex god.

Shadow Lodge

zza ni wrote:

ok i now know how to balance martial characters and casters.

make power attack a requirement to cast arcane spells, and combat expertise for divine ones. that shuold pretty much balance this whole thing up. now every one need to invest in abilities they don't want\need and pay a feat to the feat tex god.

Nah, it's more like having a feat requirement for each new level of spells. To include cantrips/orisons.


I'm surprised this has gotten so many posts. Clearly the word 'not' got dropped due to work count issues and the feeling that the exclusion wouldn't substantially change the meaning of the sentence.


Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.

More like, "give characters with high INT scores things to do in combat." And then there is an implied, "besides cast spells."

This book has tons of stuff for making casters into better martials. Le sigh. I'm just gonna start writing my own RPG.


Hmm, might be worth looking into for my melee witch then. And here this thread had me thinking that the book wasn't worth buying unless I wanted to play a brawler.

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / "Combat Expertise is a useful feat.." from melee toolbox. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.