|
My stance on the new working of the feats is since people laud the 'realism' of how it works now.. How in the hell does it make sense that because the man is stronger his full force swings are less accurate then a weaker mans ?
Well, for power attack, this isn't quite accurate. Either way, the fighter is basing his attack purely off his base attack bonus(along with any magical/feat modifiers). It just seems that he is losing more accuracy because he has a bigger penalty, but normally he has a bigger bonus too.
Effectively, the feat could instead read 'When using power attack you do not add your strength modifier to the attack roll, but instead add double your strength mod to damage(x3 for a two handed weapon.'
To give an example of why I am saying that he isn't less accurate, I'll make two samples. Both 5th level fighters, one with 18str, one with 14. I'm just going to assume that they are using a weapon they have proficiency with, but aren't focused in for simplicity.
18str, normal attack: 5bab + 4str = +9 to hit + 4 damage
14str, normal attack: 5bab + 2str = +7 to hit + 2 damage
18str, power attack: 5bab + 4str - 4pwr = +5 to hit + 8 damage
14str, power attack: 5bab + 2str - 2pwr = +5 to hit + 4 damage
Suddenly, the big bruiser guy isn't swinging worse then the weaker guy, he just is swinging the same, but adding a lot more impact with those blows when they land. That seems pretty in line with the feat to me.
Now, that isn't the same with combat expertise since intelligence doesn't add to your normal to hit. That means the smarter guy actually is getting worse at hitting then the dumber one. That seems rather wrong to me and we might just want to come up with different systems for these two feats.
-Tarlane
I think capping both of them at 5 (limiting to BAB rather than a stat), and giving someone weilding a single handed weapon and shield twice the attack penalty to AC(to mirror the two-handed power attack twice to damage), would be a very nice alternative to the current beta versions.YMMV
Eric
Ooh ya, +2 AC for every -1 to attack penalty for sword & board weilders is a great idea. I'm implementing that in my home game immediately. Also, I already cap both power attack and combat expertise at taking a 5 penalty.
While I agree that PA anc CE have been totally nerfed I do not think it matters any more. The Beta is out, and the designers did not make changes, even after some very vocal complaints following the Alpha release.
Feel free to re-argue these problems, but I do not believe there will be any changes made in the final version of Pathfinder.
What we see is likely to be 99% of the final product. Some editorial changes will be made, fixing typoes and clarifying rules (CMB VERY poorly explained!).
You are very right Krome, a simple example of this is that there isn't specific forums for Beta Playtesting as there was for the 3 Alphas. We have a general Playtest Report forum.
I'm not sure about the 99% though :P.. but the point is right, we won't see any major changes to the final edition.. unless they start releasing Beta 2, Beta 3, etc...This new Combat Expertise sucks by the way...
I think that they were just fine the way they were in 3.5. I think that this new strength or BAB, whichever is lower, making you go all out thing is far more needlessly complex than it was. Power attack was way better back in 3.5. Personally I'm going to use it the way it was, regardless. Power attack was one of, if not the, iconic feat in D&D and it should stay that way.
I think that they were just fine the way they were in 3.5. I think that this new strength or BAB, whichever is lower, making you go all out thing is far more needlessly complex than it was. Power attack was way better back in 3.5. Personally I'm going to use it the way it was, regardless. Power attack was one of, if not the, iconic feat in D&D and it should stay that way.
Couldnt agree with you more...to bad my DM will probably not allow us to use the old version.
|
I'll tell ya what I can't understand is why those changes were made and why they remained through to the Beta. If your most rabid, and vocal supporters are very nearly unanimous that th echange is bad, then why stick to your guns and keep it? All it does is mean that the vast majority of games out there that will use Pathfinder will House Rule heavily.
|
I concur that Power Attack should be Strength based. In my game, we have applied the Power Attack shifting to Strength attack bonuses rather than to BAB. A character can slide their Str. attack bonus to Damage (with all the same modifications based on the kind of weapon). This can allow a player to 'double down' on damage bonuses due to strength, if they want.
Combat Expertise on the other hand, makes sense to me as written in 3.5. Dexterity is already the stat to affect AC, so it makes sense that this abstraction of nimbleness would be the prerequisite for the ability to avoid a damaging blow. BAB represents combat training, so allowing a character to apply training to avoiding damage rather than inflicting it, makes good logical sense.
I do house rule both as having a cap of +1/2 character levels though. This keeps my characters from having to burn multiple feats to get to an epic power attack while also keeping me as DM from being burned by the raging, bull's strength, great axe wielding barbarian from doing 70 points of damage to my easy-to-hit hill giant.
|
|
I'll tell ya what I can't understand is why those changes were made and why they remained through to the Beta. If your most rabid, and vocal supporters are very nearly unanimous that th echange is bad, then why stick to your guns and keep it? All it does is mean that the vast majority of games out there that will use Pathfinder will House Rule heavily.
Krome, my observations are that many are opposed to the changes as they are - but it's not unanimous. Personally, I like that the spontaneous math has been removed. If that can be accomplished without the significant strangulation of the feat's power, then I would be happier than two ticks on a hound-dog.
That being said - I admit there has been a lot of outcry on this issue - probably one of the more debated in fact.
I have posted my hopes that such rules that were vehemently debated that were held in place in spite of it, would be addressed by the Paizo staff as to their Design Thoughts on it and allow us some insight as to why things were done/kept as is. I believe that if we could have those brain droppings, that some of the issues many of us have had may evaporate once we see their logic.
That has yet to be done on all of the issues - though Jason has chimed in on a few - espcially the Favored Class issue recently. (but that has not been nearly the bone of contention).
I will say that at first I thought few if any of the truly debated topics were ever really changed - but that was only on a cursory (and ignorant) glance-over of the Beta. As I have more thoroughly looked at things I can see a great deal of differences in the Beta - and many of the things we asked to be changed. And I am quite grateful for that.
Robert
|
understand is why those changes were made and why they remained through to the Beta.
I would agree with Robert above, that I would like to see notes on items where there is a large and vocal group of objectors to a rule, yet the rule remained, detailing why the designers are choosing to leave things as is. But I would also like to point out that the Alpha rules contained mostly changes, not a comprehensive ruleset - while there are many more rules, some unchanged, some not, that had to be added to the Beta. While changes from beta to release should be rare in a software development cycle, I don't think the same rigidity applies here.
I may be incorrect, but I get the feeling the Beta will have room for changes and tweaks - and that changes and tweaks to discrete feats, spells, skills and class abilities are much more likely than fundamental monkeying around with the structure of the game. Thus the combat feat changes were taken out - but maybe individual feat and spell tweaks were left for later.
I would urge people who have a problem with the changes to be vocal about concerns - in the correct place. Be polite, explain your reasoning - the worst that happens is the change will remain. I would urge those that prefer the changes to also be vocal, with explanations and politeness. The designers will make the final decision, but clearly stated, well thought out and organized discussions on the pros and cons of different rules will help them solidify their thoughts and opinions. :)
First of all I would like to say that there are a lot of valid points that are highlighted here, whether criticism or support.
When that is said, I myself have played melee characters for most of my gaming life. As PA was, it was undeniably very useful and thus chosen by most melee classes, even though they may not have used a weapon you normally associate with the feat. Thus even bards with above average stats could make use of PA against low AC monsters such as ogres or the like. That was not originally the intention of the feat I think and thus it led to much metagaming or confusion among the players because of the calculations, as has already been pointed out.
In our own campaign I have made frequent use of PA to great effect. I can only say that even though we play in a highly magical setting (and thus even higher scaling from bonuses etc) the bonus you received from the feat at especially higher levels almost became too much. When I could dish out more damage all the time in certain kinds of encounters than the casters in our party it became a bit to OP imo. Not to forget as has also been mentioned that casters may on average do more but on higher levels, you expect the enemies to save most of the time, thus diminishing a lot of the damage, while the damage from PA is a static number.
Though, the way it has been nerfed, may be a bit too much (still need to test it properly)
As some have already suggested I think that a sort of capping should be in place. Perhaps make it capped at half your BA, not doubling it when critting, not letting it apply a double str modifier to one hand weapons such as rapiers and the like etc.
CE I never made much use of as I never was the defensive type. The change,though, seems a bit too "much" imo as most fighters consider their int their "dump stat". That would perhaps make a defensive class such as a dwarven defender even less useful with fewer options to raise their AC, as tanking is perhaps their main ability.
Either way, I think the designers should make CE more attractive a feat to take, as it already in 3,5 was way too underpowered and wasn't picked by many players.
|
|
I read in another toic (no idea which one) where Vic said Jason was busy between Alpha 3 and Beta with adding the content for Beta. The major revisions would be looked at now. In essence He just didn't have time to get the content necessary AND work on revisions.
So, I take back everything I said.
Except that the new PA and CE sucks :)
|
I might be crazy here, but I think the intent here was to change Power Attack from a Use-This-Feat-Exclusively-Your-Entire-Career Feat to a Gateway Feat (similar to Point Blank Shot). If you think about, the Alpha/Beta changes bring Power Attack roughly in line with other Gateway Feats, such as Point Blank Shot, Dodge, and Mounted Combat.
Following this line of thought, after you pick up Power Attack, you then pick up a feat tree appropriate to your fighting style. Sword and Board? - start down the Two Weapon Fighting tree or Shield tree. Great Axe aficionado? - Take a look at the Overhand Chop tree. Plan on running things through with a lance? - The Mounted Combat tree is your friend. Want to get fancy? - Power Attack has Improved Sunder, Bull Rush, Overrun, Cleave, and Great Cleave.
And get this one - I no longer see a restriction on Power Attack preventing you from using it with light weapons. This opens up a lot of possibilities for Two Weapon Fighters types and Monks. (Of course, I may have missed the light weapon restriction reference somewhere. If so, please ignore this paragraph.)
I'm sure we'll hear more from Jason once we hit the feat feedback timeperiod.
Thanks for reading.
I might be crazy here, but I think the intent here was to change Power Attack from a Use-This-Feat-Exclusively-Your-Entire-Career Feat to a Gateway Feat (similar to Point Blank Shot). If you think about, the Alpha/Beta changes bring Power Attack roughly in line with other Gateway Feats, such as Point Blank Shot, Dodge, and Mounted Combat.
Following this line of thought, after you pick up Power Attack, you then pick up a feat tree appropriate to your fighting style. Sword and Board? - start down the Two Weapon Fighting tree or Shield tree. Great Axe aficionado? - Take a look at the Overhand Chop tree. Plan on running things through with a lance? - The Mounted Combat tree is your friend. Want to get fancy? - Power Attack has Improved Sunder, Bull Rush, Overrun, Cleave, and Great Cleave.
And get this one - I no longer see a restriction on Power Attack preventing you from using it with light weapons. This opens up a lot of possibilities for Two Weapon Fighters types and Monks. (Of course, I may have missed the light weapon restriction reference somewhere. If so, please ignore this paragraph.)
I'm sure we'll hear more from Jason once we hit the feat feedback timeperiod.
Thanks for reading.
Wait Wait Wait a second here. Your saying take power attack and then go into two weapon fighting??? Two weapon fighting is so dex dependent that it is a wasted feat.
|
|
Wait Wait Wait a second here. Your saying take power attack and then go into two weapon fighting??? Two weapon fighting is so dex dependent that it is a wasted feat.
Admittedly the potential damage increase per strike probably won't be that much since Strength is usually the second stat in a two weapon build, but with a moderate stat and strength enhancing magic item/spell you should be able to get an extra two to four points of damage per strike. Not too shabby, I'm thinking. (I'm assuming the build uses Weapon Finesse to take advantage of a high dexterity and minimize the effects of the Power Attack penalty.)
Regardless, It's pretty nice to have the option!
Thanks for reading.
In my campaign, I had PA add to the strength bonus for all weapons, which gave a nice 1.5x for 2H weapons, and still gave the bonus to light and 1H weapons. The 2x for 2H seemed a bit much, and the light weapons seemed an unnecessary nerf. Rule it as striking soundly with the weapon, and the mass of said weapon determining the extra damage.
I can see a -5 cap as reasonable, with Improved Power Attack taking it to full BAB.
My swashbuckling players have been squawking about CE. Glad to see they're not the only ones unhappy.
I like Matthew Morris's idea (on page 1) of a flat bonus/penalty that depends on level.
-2/+2 at low levels, up to -2/+8 at higher ones. Maybe 1.5x for two-handed weapons or for sword & board combat expertise. We can quibble over the numbers, but should probably wait until Paizo focuses on that part of the rules.
For Combat Expertise, a floating bonus to fighting defensively seems like the most organic option, and I like the idea of throwing sword & board some love. Maybe fighting defensively should always give 1.5 the bonus to AC for shield-users, like two-handed weapons do for damage?
I do like the idea of getting rid of the on-the-fly sliding scale math with a 1.5x in the loop. When I created monsters with Power Attack in 3.5, I generally gave them one or two pre-calculated power attack options. My player who uses both power attack and combat expertise has a spreadsheet on his laptop he uses to calculate his attack bonus. I don't think that rules should make that necessary.
|
|
I don't like the new Power Attack and I won't use it the new way; I really hope they change it, though, so that the 'official' rules are closer to what it appears most people prefer to play.
As for the complaints that some had about slowing down of play and apparent irritation with arithmetic, that seems to me to be the 'Lowest Common Denominator" approach that some people felt was going on with 4e. If there's a delay that's an easy one for the DM to fix ("decide now or you're not using the feat this time around") without hacking the 3.5 rules and nerfing a feat that helped keep the fighters in the game.
I hope that Jason is responsive on this, given that opinion (whilst not unanimous) appears to be pretty strong.
I read in another toic (no idea which one) where Vic said Jason was busy between Alpha 3 and Beta with adding the content for Beta. The major revisions would be looked at now. In essence He just didn't have time to get the content necessary AND work on revisions.
So, I take back everything I said.
Except that the new PA and CE sucks :)
So... should we expect Beta 2?
PA I don't mind too much as I actually thought it needed a little cap, it'd get crazy at high levels... but CE... it already had enough cap at +5/-5.
If PA was allowed to be made in 5 point increments, or capped at 5, then it would be useable in a much larger spread of ACs. As it stands, if you have a big Strength bonus (since BAB isn't the limiting factor after a couple levels), the hit to your attack isn't worth the damage... even two-handed.
The odds are that you'll too often for that extra damage to be worth it. Your average damage literally goes down.
I wouldn't mind seeing PA and CE having a simple change to be based on BAB, and capped at +5. And Twohanded weapons and Shields getting double benefit from their respective feats.
|
The only time I've seen Combat Expertise even *considered* was for an Evoker Wizard concept that specialized on Magic Missiles, Cone spells (Color Spray) and other 'no to hit required' spells like Fireballs.
The player wanted to crank up the Combat Expertise to jack his AC during combat, but ended up dumping it for Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile) after realizing that his BAB wasn't going to make it useful until he was 10th level anyway (at which point, a +5 AC would be a speed-bump against CR appropriate challenges that were meant to be able to hit the Fighter anyway).
I've speculated before that Power Attack (-Atk, +Dam), Combat Expertise / Defensive Attack (-Atk, +AC), Reckless Attack / All-Out Attack (-AC, +Atk) and Accurate Attack / Precise Attack (-Dam, +Atk) should just be Fighter baseline abilities, purchasable as Feats by anyone else (with no stat requirements and no limit as to how much BAB you can sacrifice).
Granted, the BAB works for Power Attack and Combat Expertise as baselines for how much can be transferred across, but, except for optional rules involving Class Defense Bonuses, or the Monk class, most classes don't have an AC bonus that they could trade off to make Reckless Attack / All-Out Attack work, and none of them currently have a blanket damage bonus to make Accurate Attack / Precise Attack work the same way. (Something else I wouldn't have minded seeing going to Fighters, a blanket +1 damage with weapons or unarmed attacks per two levels, which one with Accurate Attack could then 'trade off' to get more accuracy, at the cost of less damage.)
I am NOT in favor of the modifications made to Power Attack in the Pathfinder Beta test. I think it's lame to suggest that you have no flexibility or options, other than to attack at full bonus. Making use of a maximized STR or base attack bonus power attack can equate to a somewhat likely miss on your first attack roll, and it makes 2nd, 3rd, etc, attack rolls per round almost a waste of time to even try. If you (The Paizo designers) are hell bent on keeping the change you've instituted, then PLEASE put in an Optional Rule, allowing a GM/player to reduce the amount he/she wishes to power attack for. If there are reasons for making this switch that have to do with the mechanics, do explain them. If it's just to help players with lousy math skills, or to "speed up the game", than let's just get rid of it ASAP, please.
|
|
I'm about to DM a PRRPG RotRL campaign and although I would like to keep as close to the Beta as possible (to be a useful part of the playtest) I can't really see myself using the new PA and CE (and probably Improved Trip as well) and getting anyone to want to play a meleer (given that RotRL goes to 15+th level if we go all the way).
I can see the rationale for some other changes -- like the simplification that comes from the CMB mechanic -- but this was a simplification too far (as I said in my earlier post, above, from way back when).
That is because they have no other way to scale their damage! The damage on a longsword does not go up to a D10 at 5 and a D12 at 10th. PA, Cleave and great cleave are some of the only ways for fighter types to keep up. Otherwise they just get to stand there and watch the casters drop everything.
Little off topic, but that's why (and after seeing the weapon size increase table in 4E PHB p.220) I decided to use in my Home 3.x campaign a rule where your weapon damage increases by 1 die size (1d8->1d10 and so on) at each +5 BAB. (Monk's regarding their level rather than BAB with Monk Weapons, no change in their unarmed dmg)
Regarding the PA and CE rules I think Robert Brambley's suggestion is the best, although I think improved PA penalty should be -8 there.
I myself use a variant where you can do with Power Attack Feat -2/+3, -4/+6 or -6/+8 or 2Handed: -2/+4, -4/+8 or -6/+12. With CE the bonuses are -2/+2, -4/+4 and -6/+6. But I'm using the combat challenges from Iron Heroes too where you can fight without PA -2/+1, -4/+3 or -6/+6 and without CE -2/+1 or -4/+2 (normal fight defensively).
Why, i haven't very often seen a character with both of those feats together used together in the same round.
I have. Should see what splashing a level of sorc for true strike can do.
Couldn t edit my post so I just say that those PA numbers I just wrote in the message before do need some fixing...
Why is the Combat Expertise feat totally separate from the Fighting Defensively mechanic? Considering that CE is, basically, um, you know, an Improved Defensive Fighting feat?
Why is the Combat Expertise feat totally separate from the Fighting Defensively mechanic? Considering that CE is, basically, um, you know, an Improved Defensive Fighting feat?
This is good point, it kinda bugs me too. But when you stop to think about it, you can't use both of them together (because the rules say so), so basically since it'd be just dumb to use Fight Defensively (FD) instead of CE, you could just say your FD got improved.
I want to know how is this going to affect the Duelist now that the Beta Prestiges are out. With the Elaborate Defense, the Duelist adds his level as dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using the Total Defense... now... what if he uses the CE feat? he loses the bonuses? Stops making sense right there eh...
Why is the Combat Expertise feat totally separate from the Fighting Defensively mechanic? Considering that CE is, basically, um, you know, an Improved Defensive Fighting feat?This is good point, it kinda bugs me too. But when you stop to think about it, you can't use both of them together (because the rules say so), so basically since it'd be just dumb to use Fight Defensively (FD) instead of CE, you could just say your FD got improved.
Where does it say that it can't? Mechanically it's a Dodge bonus and those stack, at least given the Rules Compendium (p55) "This bonus stacks with the AC bonus granted by the Combat Expertise feat." and I haven't seen anything stating they don't work together in the Pathfinder rules.
I want to know how is this going to affect the Duelist now that the Beta Prestiges are out. With the Elaborate Defense, the Duelist adds his level as dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using the Total Defense... now... what if he uses the CE feat? he loses the bonuses? Stops making sense right there eh...
I've always thought that CE should count as Fighting Defensively for purposes of features that require FD. If I recall correctly there is at least one PrC that does stipulate you get a bonus if you FD or take at least a -2 with CE.
Where does it say that it can't?
Good question, I don't know. But I'm sure I read it somewhere... maybe in 3.0 was like that, you couldn't use both, either one or the other. Why did I always thought you couldn't mix them?... has to be 3.0. Either that or I'm crazy or they changed the rules without me seeing it..
Anyway, that addresses the Duelist issue I guess. If you use CE you get the bonuses... thought it'll be cheap as hell, use CE for a -1 penalty and get level+1 as AC bonus...
|
|
p. 137 points out that you can't combine full defence with combat expertise or fighting defensively, which is not what Kirth is talking about; he's just pointing out, I think, that Combat Expertise has no overlap with fighting defensively or isn't seen as a special case of it. Personally, although they have in common the fact that you trade attack bonus for AC, I don't think that they are enormously similar because Combat Expertise depends on Int bonus. If it didn't depend on the Int bonus, I could see it (as was the case in the 3.5 PhB, where fighting defensively was mentioned in the 'Normal' section of the feat description) but the nerf (which is down to the Int bonus and lack of choice, will hopefully disappear and take the Power Attack and Improved Trip nerfs with it) makes it rather more different.
|
|
p. 137 points out that you can't combine full defence with combat expertise or fighting defensively, which is not what Kirth is talking about; he's just pointing out,
I'm pretty sure that you can combined Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, or other similar 'trade-offs' like Barbarian Rage and Power Attack and the bonus from a Charge attack.
In related news, after re-reading this thread, the extra Combat Expertise benefit for Shield users is a glorious idea!
|
|
p. 137 points out that you can't combine full defence with combat expertise or fighting defensively, which is not what Kirth is talking about; he's just pointing out,I'm pretty sure that you can combined Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, or other similar 'trade-offs' like Barbarian Rage and Power Attack and the bonus from a Charge attack.
In related news, after re-reading this thread, the extra Combat Expertise benefit for Shield users is a glorious idea!
Maybe in 3.5, but in this case Bagpuss is correct. Jason states explicitly on p.137 that this combination is not allowed as using Combat Expertise is an attack action.
|
|
Maybe in 3.5, but in this case Bagpuss is correct. Jason states explicitly on p.137 that this combination is not allowed as using Combat Expertise is an attack action.
Which would mean that a 1st through 5th level Fighter would be unable to attack if he used Combat Expertise (since he only has one 'attack action), and that a 6th level or higher level Fighter would need to use one of his attacks to activate Combat Reflexes?
Ugh, that's ugly. Does he have to give up his highest iterative attack, so a 10th level Fighter would take a Full-Round Action of 'Activate Combat Expertise, one attack at +5 BAB?'
Man, the idea of using actions, of any sort, to activate Feats, is exponentially lame. I thought that got left behind in Alpha...
|
|
Maybe in 3.5, but in this case Bagpuss is correct. Jason states explicitly on p.137 that this combination is not allowed as using Combat Expertise is an attack action.Which would mean that a 1st through 5th level Fighter would be unable to attack if he used Combat Expertise (since he only has one 'attack action), and that a 6th level or higher level Fighter would need to use one of his attacks to activate Combat Reflexes?
Ugh, that's ugly. Does he have to give up his highest iterative attack, so a 10th level Fighter would take a Full-Round Action of 'Activate Combat Expertise, one attack at +5 BAB?'
Man, the idea of using actions, of any sort, to activate Feats, is exponentially lame. I thought that got left behind in Alpha...
Admittedly it could be clarified. I think CE is used as part of an attack action, and since Total Defence is not an attack action it cannot be combined.
Now, here is a stumper:
Can you Power Attack with a Coup de Grace? 3.5 or PRPG?
My reading in 3.5 is no, as Power Attack requires an attack roll, and coup de grace does not require a roll. PRPG appears to be less restrictive with Power Attack, not mentioning an attack roll is required.
|
|
Maybe in 3.5, but in this case Bagpuss is correct. Jason states explicitly on p.137 that this combination is not allowed as using Combat Expertise is an attack action.p. 137 points out that you can't combine full defence with combat expertise or fighting defensively, which is not what Kirth is talking about; he's just pointing out,I'm pretty sure that you can combined Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, or other similar 'trade-offs' like Barbarian Rage and Power Attack and the bonus from a Charge attack.
In related news, after re-reading this thread, the extra Combat Expertise benefit for Shield users is a glorious idea!
I just noticed that you might have thought I meant that someone could combine Combat Expertise and *Total Defense.* I meant Fighting Defensively. Sorry for any confusion.
My opinion on the use of Feats requiring actions being freaksomely un-delicious stands. :)
|
|
The thing with fighting defensively (rather than full defense) and Combat Expertise is, as I said, that the former overlap from 3.5 is killed by the part of the Combat Expertise nerf linking it to Int bonus (the other part of the nerf, removing the choice as to how much attack to trade for defense, is of course, pinned by that).
EDIT: So, before, fighting defensively was "you can trade this attack bonus for some AC" and Combat Expertise was "if you have this feat, your trading ratio is 1:1". Now, fighting defensively is the same, but Combat Expertise is "you can trade 1:1 for either all of your Int bonus or all of your BAB, whichever is lower". Thus, the overlap where Fighting Defensively was the 'Normal' part of the feat description for Combat Expertise wouldn't make much sense any more, because the feat isn't just a change in the trade-off ratio which is basically what it was before (subject to maximums). On the other hand, the amount that can be traded off is now fixed, as it is for fighting defensively...
|
|
The thing with fighting defensively (rather than full defense) and Combat Expertise is, as I said, that the former overlap from 3.5 is killed by the part of the Combat Expertise nerf linking it to Int bonus (the other part of the nerf,
This I also don't like. I've been playing Mutants & Masterminds for a couple years now, and it has all of the feats of 3.0, plus a few others (in addition to Power Attack and Combat Expertise (called Defensive Attack) it also has an All-Out Attack (+Atk, -AC/Defense) and an Accurate Attack (+Atk, -Damage), and *none of them* are capped by or limited by Ability scores.
Having high ability scores, IMO, is it's own reward. Being prevented from making effective use of a Feat, like Combat Expertise or Selective Channeling, because you didn't splash out half your point buy on an Ability score that isn't the focus of your class is completely inane, to me.
|
|
I just noticed that you might have thought I meant that someone could combine Combat Expertise and *Total Defense.* I meant Fighting Defensively. Sorry for any confusion.My opinion on the use of Feats requiring actions being freaksomely un-delicious stands. :)
Ah, nuts. I did make that mistake. You are correct that in PRPG you appear to be able to use CE and Fight Defensively. Now, I seem to recall that in the 3.5 FAQ it stated you could not do this...
|
|
Ah, nuts. I did make that mistake. You are correct that in PRPG you appear to be able to use CE and Fight Defensively. Now, I seem to recall that in the 3.5 FAQ it stated you could not do this...
In 3.5, it was implicit in the Combat Expertise feat description, where Fight Defensively was mentioned in the 'Normal' element of the description, implicitly excluding it from being used at the same time.
Man, the idea of using actions, of any sort, to activate Feats, is exponentially lame. I thought that got left behind in Alpha...
God yes, it's ridiculous! Why do they insist in this thing I don't know... If the feat maneuver takes a standard or full or whatever action to complete is one thing, it's part of the action, but wasting an action to "activate" the feat is stupid.
Oh.. yeah.. and that Int cap to CE is also 'lame'... what's up with that. Unless you're playing a nobel-prize winner fighter the feat is useless.
Cap both abilities at penalty level equal to 1/2 BAB.
I agree, and would go a step further and say that combat feats should scale with BAB, just as most spells scale with caster level. What if fireball did a set 5d6 damage, and never increased? Its life span would be even shorter, and no sorcerer would take it. Yet the fighter ends up with things like Dodge (+1 to AC, and insufficient skill points to reach that other +1 for Acrobatics ranks). Dodge should give +1 to AC, +1 per 4 points of BAB.