Combat Expertise, nerfed to usless, but wasn't broken in the first place

[Eric Mason 37]

So the 3.5 version allowed the user to deduct up to 5 from attacks (limited also by BaB), and add it to their armour class as a dodge bonus.

It was handy, but didn't bump AC into the stratosphere. So even when the NPCs used it, you weren't screwed.

Now you can't use it for more than your int score... How many people have Int 20 fighters? Managing to spare a 13 for int is often tough enough.

It wasn't broken. Why nerf it?

Eric

BTW I do realize they took it off as a prereq for the improved manuvers it used to be for, but I used the feat on a character in the past, and on some NPCs, and hate to see it useless

[GlassJaw]

Totally agreed. If anything, I'd remove the Int 13 requirement. I see no reason why a "stupid" (or even one of average intelligence) fighter with good training can't learn some tactics to better defend himself or even learn some tricks to better disarm an opponent for that matter.

[Hydro]

GlassJaw wrote:

... I see no reason why a "stupid" (or even one of average intelligence) fighter with good training can't learn some tactics to better defend himself or even learn some tricks to better disarm an opponent for that matter.

I do.

If it helps your reasoning, a standard (provoking) disarm or the fighting defensively option represent basic techniques, while using a martial disarming weapon or use of the tumble skill represent more specialized techniques (the fruits of good training).

Those feats are supposed to represent more sophisticated techniques, at least in my mind, and I like that the system offers some reward for playing a reasonably clever fighter.

This is a bad change, though. The old feat was just about worth the feat slot; not everyone took it, but those who did (even just as a prereq) got some use out of it. If it were me I may have actually bumped it up just a hair (perhaps applying the bonus to reflex saves along with AC); you can fight defensively for free, after all.

A feat that subtracted your INT bonus from attack rolls and added it to ac, or double your INT bonus if you wield a one-handed weapon (take THAT greatsword!), would be okay. But as I implied above I enjoy rewarding smart, wise or charismatic fighters.

Just giving back the old feat would still be better though.
As long as you don't have a "Greater" feat that takes off the +5/-5 cap. Those tend to cause trouble in my experience.

[Shadowdweller]

I agree as well that this is not a good change. I've encountered DMs who were frustrated at high player AC, but a little secret: Attack bonus scaled faster with CR than AC. Example: Take a typical low-level mook, say a goblin (attack bonus +2). Want him to be able to hit a level 10 PC? Give him 10 warrior levels, for a total CR increase of +5. Now he's got an attack bonus of at least +12...and probably more like +14 (with feats and stat increases). And still at CR5 is a good mook/minion.

[Jarreth Ivarin]

I never thought of Combat Expertise as broken. It always worked well with my groups. Now it is indeed nearly useless. It would be better if we could revert to the old form or something equivalent.

[Terry Dyer]

I'm in agreement that this gives quite a penalty to less then genius level fighters. Granted it is an interesting idea putting more feats with different attribute focus to them, it still seems rather harsh putting a restriction on this feat that many see as un-needed.

[Russ Taylor]

Shadowdweller wrote:

I agree as well that this is not a good change. I've encountered DMs who were frustrated at high player AC, but a little secret: Attack bonus scaled faster with CR than AC. Example: Take a typical low-level mook, say a goblin (attack bonus +2). Want him to be able to hit a level 10 PC? Give him 10 warrior levels, for a total CR increase of +5. Now he's got an attack bonus of at least +12...and probably more like +14 (with feats and stat increases). And still at CR5 is a good mook/minion.

A goblin War10, under 3.5E rules, is CR 8 rather than CR 5. Goblins with NPC classes (and I would suggest that be read _only_ NPC) classes have a CR of their character level - 2.

You might be thinking of unassociated class levels, those stop applying when the number of levels added equals the original HD of the creature in question.

[Brit O]

Agreed. The only characters that might use this feat are wizards who didn't do anything on their turn (to attack nothing but reap the rewards of this feat) or Int focused rogues. No other class got anything from high int than skill points.

Fighters already have dex and str as primary attributes. This feat was another way for fighters to boost their AC when they were playing it safe but they have to either sacrafice AC (ironically) or reduce their damage dealing ability turning themselves into walls.

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

Brit O wrote:

Agreed. The only characters that might use this feat are wizards who didn't do anything on their turn (to attack nothing but reap the rewards of this feat) or Int focused rogues. No other class got anything from high int than skill points.

Fighters already have dex and str as primary attributes. This feat was another way for fighters to boost their AC when they were playing it safe but they have to either sacrafice AC (ironically) or reduce their damage dealing ability turning themselves into walls.

Agreed, melee types already have enough trouble with other classes having access to even higher AC, and at a great price though, and now this makes that difference even worse!

[JoelF847]

Hydro wrote:

[A feat that subtracted your INT bonus from attack rolls and added it to ac, or double your INT bonus if you wield a one-handed weapon (take THAT greatsword!), would be okay. But as I implied above I enjoy rewarding smart, wise or charismatic fighters.

I really like the idea of doubling the bonus to AC for one handed weapons. It gives a nice synergy vs. power attack's bonus for 2 handed weapons.

[Eric Mason 37]

Doubling the AC bonus for those who aren't weilding two-handed weapons, or dual weilding is a neat idea...

It does seem that no one so far thinks this feat should have been nerfed ;)

So I guess all we can hope is that someone with authority is reading, and play tests the feat again... (Will holding out breath help you think? ;))

Eric

[Stratos]

I believe the increase to AC should be double as long as you are wielding a shield. This implies you are holding a one-handed weapon and, simultaneously, not two of them.

[Selgard]

Warning: the following is my opinion and isn't based on fact, or official posts of any kind.

I think this feat got swept up in the Power Attack nerf without anyone really taking a look at it.

In trying to make combat "simpler" and "easier" and "faster" they simply made a sweeping change to remove the decision of players to pick the points spent, and to limit the bonus by the associated ability score.

I do not believe that Paizo saw some inherent problem in the feat and decided to change it. (in fact, the feat's only ever been of middling power to begin with. Most folks prefer to hit than to get AC as AC is easier to get than attack rating..).

In summary:
erm.. I agree?
(could have just said that I guess.. but.. meh.. am in a rambley mood)

-S