|
This is a tweak to Combat Expertise I proposed a few months ago and I figure now is a good time to bring it up again. Discuss!
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisites: Int 13
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon. Add an amount equal to your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 1) as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round. If your attacks are made while carrying a shield, add an amount equal to double your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower) to your armor class for 1 round (the penalty remains the same).
I like this. I really hate how little of an advantage shields end up giving when, in fact, most soldiers from societies 3.5 is based on used shields pretty heavily as a primary defense.
This is a tweak to Combat Expertise I proposed a few months ago and I figure now is a good time to bring it up again. Discuss!
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisites: Int 13
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon. Add an amount equal to your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 1) as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round. If your attacks are made while carrying a shield, add an amount equal to double your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower) to your armor class for 1 round (the penalty remains the same).
Looks nice. :)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
While I agree that the Int cap is harsh for fighters, in many ways, it is the ability score that makes the most sense for the feat (IMO at least). What if it were changed to double Int bonus as the cap? This would allow a fighter with a modest Int or 12 or 14 to get some good benefit from this feat still. Sure, it would let a wizard get a huge cap, but if the cap was the lowest of Intx2 and BAB, the wizard would never be able to hit their Intx2 cap due to their low BAB.
|
|
While I agree that the Int cap is harsh for fighters, in many ways, it is the ability score that makes the most sense for the feat (IMO at least). What if it were changed to double Int bonus as the cap? This would allow a fighter with a modest Int or 12 or 14 to get some good benefit from this feat still. Sure, it would let a wizard get a huge cap, but if the cap was the lowest of Intx2 and BAB, the wizard would never be able to hit their Intx2 cap due to their low BAB.
I don't see that expert turtling should depend on intelligence (rather than training and instinct) but I think that you may also overestimate the value of the feat, period, if you think that getting a 14 Int as a fighter makes sense to get a +4 AC bonus when using Combat expertise.
I can see your argument for it depending on Int (although I don't particularly favour it myself, I don't think that it's illogical) but gamewise it's going to mean hardly anyone takes the feat, I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
While I agree that the Int cap is harsh for fighters, in many ways, it is the ability score that makes the most sense for the feat (IMO at least). What if it were changed to double Int bonus as the cap? This would allow a fighter with a modest Int or 12 or 14 to get some good benefit from this feat still. Sure, it would let a wizard get a huge cap, but if the cap was the lowest of Intx2 and BAB, the wizard would never be able to hit their Intx2 cap due to their low BAB.I don't see that expert turtling should depend on intelligence (rather than training and instinct) but I think that you may also overestimate the value of the feat, period, if you think that getting a 14 Int as a fighter makes sense to get a +4 AC bonus when using Combat expertise.
I can see your argument for it depending on Int (although I don't particularly favour it myself, I don't think that it's illogical) but gamewise it's going to mean hardly anyone takes the feat, I think.
Well, the 3.5 version capped out at +5 to AC, so a 14 Int fighter capping out at +4 is pretty close. I think the feat got good use in 3.5, so don't think it would be ignored with a Intx2 bonus as the cap. I also think that Int isn't as crippling as some do, with the Duelist PrC having several powers based on Int, and the fighters that want to take Combat Expertise are likely to want the Duelist PrC also, so there's more of a reason for them to have a higher Int.
While I agree that the Int cap is harsh for fighters, in many ways, it is the ability score that makes the most sense for the feat (IMO at least). What if it were changed to double Int bonus as the cap? This would allow a fighter with a modest Int or 12 or 14 to get some good benefit from this feat still. Sure, it would let a wizard get a huge cap, but if the cap was the lowest of Intx2 and BAB, the wizard would never be able to hit their Intx2 cap due to their low BAB.
Yes int for bucklers and double for the other shields.
|
|
Well, the 3.5 version capped out at +5 to AC, so a 14 Int fighter capping out at +4 is pretty close. I think the feat got good use in 3.5, so don't think it would be ignored with a Intx2 bonus as the cap. I also think that Int isn't as crippling as some do, with the Duelist PrC having several powers based on Int, and the fighters that want to take Combat Expertise are likely to want the Duelist PrC also, so there's more of a reason for them to have a higher Int.
People mostly took Combat Expertise in the past to get the contingent feats later though, didn't they? It wasn't that good a feat in 3.5 and it's worse in PFRPG (even if you have Int bonus x 2 as the cap).
The duellist is a pretty specialised class, though. Most fighters, it seems to me, don't go that route (I've always preferred duellist for fighter/rogues).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
People mostly took Combat Expertise in the past to get the contingent feats later though, didn't they? It wasn't that good a feat in 3.5 and it's worse in PFRPG (even if you have Int bonus x 2 as the cap).
The duellist is a pretty specialised class, though. Most fighters, it seems to me, don't go that route (I've always preferred duellist for fighter/rogues).
Maybe not in your group, but I used CE all the time with my Psychic Warrior Tripper. A +5 boost to AC is never bad, especially when you don't need a high to hit (Trip is Touch AC). Throw in Imp. Buckler defense, shield specialization and shield ward and my AC was nearly the mid 30's without my powers (though I do have +3 buckler and +3 breastplate and 20 dex at 12th level)
As a DM I use CE for plenty of monsters who have an attack bonus high enough to use CE and PA.
That's 3.5 of course. In PF I think that doubling the Int bonus for all shields except the buckler isn't a bad idea. It might hurt my build if I converted but it'd reward sword and board (as I was a 2h fighter really).
--Vrocknrolla
What's topping people with Animated Shields from benefiting from this feat? Should they?
I don't believe someone using an Animated Shield should benefit from the *2 bonus. Part of the color of the feat is someone being more skilled in blocking with the shield. An animated shield would not benefit from the blockers skill.
I really hope Jason accepts and adopts the *2 benefit for medium and larger shield users.
Doug
|
add a caveat that it can only be small shields or larger, I don't want a power attacking greatsword wielder getting a double benefit from the feat because he wore a buckler.
What's topping people with Animated Shields from benefiting from this feat? Should they?
I agree, I like the idea, but a raging barbarian wielding a greatsword and an animated tower shield (I've seen this) would make out with this feat.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For that matter, should the x2 apply to tower shields at all, animated or not? I agree that bucklers shouldn't get it, but I'm not sure about Tower shields. They're so large that I have a hard time imagining someone using clever and deft combat moves to get extra out of it.
|
|
Maybe not in your group, but I used CE all the time with my Psychic Warrior Tripper. A +5 boost to AC is never bad, especially when you don't need a high to hit (Trip is Touch AC). Throw in Imp. Buckler defense, shield specialization and shield ward and my AC was nearly the mid 30's without my powers (though I do have +3 buckler and +3 breastplate and 20 dex at 12th level)As a DM I use CE for plenty of monsters who have an attack bonus high enough to use CE and PA.
That's 3.5 of course. In PF I think that doubling the Int bonus for all shields except the buckler isn't a bad idea. It might hurt my build if I converted but it'd reward sword and board (as I was a 2h fighter really).
--Vrocknrolla
So wasn't the real reason you took Combat Expertise to get the Improved Trip you needed to be a tripper? Making the most of what you have is fair enough, but it's not often seemed worth it to me, in and of itself.
For that matter, should the x2 apply to tower shields at all, animated or not? I agree that bucklers shouldn't get it, but I'm not sure about Tower shields. They're so large that I have a hard time imagining someone using clever and deft combat moves to get extra out of it.
Tower shields get so little use I can't see limiting them.
Doug
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
So wasn't the real reason you took Combat Expertise to get the Improved Trip you needed to be a tripper? Making the most of what you have is fair enough, but it's not often seemed worth it to me, in and of itself.
Maybe not in your group, but I used CE all the time with my Psychic Warrior Tripper. A +5 boost to AC is never bad, especially when you don't need a high to hit (Trip is Touch AC). Throw in Imp. Buckler defense, shield specialization and shield ward and my AC was nearly the mid 30's without my powers (though I do have +3 buckler and +3 breastplate and 20 dex at 12th level)As a DM I use CE for plenty of monsters who have an attack bonus high enough to use CE and PA.
That's 3.5 of course. In PF I think that doubling the Int bonus for all shields except the buckler isn't a bad idea. It might hurt my build if I converted but it'd reward sword and board (as I was a 2h fighter really).
--Vrocknrolla
It was half the reason... the other half was building my AC up.
An excellent proposal!! I use a similar revision in my campaign. I agree (imho ofcourse) of using Int as the attribute of choice. By choosing a mental attribute instead of a physical one improves role playing, not all fighters are cannon fodder tanks.
|
|
OK, here is a tweaked version of this feat. I've highlighted the changes in italics. I'm glad to see there's some enthusiasm for my idea!
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisites: Int 13
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon. Add an amount equal to twice your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 1) as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round. If your attacks are made while carrying a small, medium, or tower shield and using a single light or one-handed weapon, add an amount equal to double your Intelligence modifier (or double your base attack bonus, whichever is lower) to your armor class for 1 round (the penalty remains the same).
While I agree that the Intelligence-based cap is a bit awkward for fighters, I can't think of another ability to use that isn't inappropriate or unbalancing. Dexterity would make sense, but that means that it would provide a HUGE bonus to AC on top of all the other nifty stuff it does. So, here's another feat that might help out fighters so they don't need a huge Intelligence bonus:
Improved Combat Expertise
You are a master on the defensive, dodging, blocking, and parrying blows that would otherwise be unavoidable.
Prerequisites: Int 13, BAB +5, Combat Expertise
Benefit: For the purposes of Combat Expertise, treat your Intelligence bonus as 2 points higher.
As for using tower shields, I always thought the tower shield was a weak choice for most characters to take, and anything to make it usable is good in my book. Also, realistically, Roman legionnaires used tower shields very deftly and effectively. Thus, I think tower shield users should gain the benefits of this feat.
Another question: should characters using two weapons gain the benefits of this feat if they do not attack with their off-hand, e.g. using a main-gauche?
|
|
I agree, I like the idea, but a raging barbarian wielding a greatsword and an animated tower shield (I've seen this) would make out with this feat.
Uh, except that it says right in rage that you can't use int based Feats and skills such as Combat Expertise (CE is the actual example given) while raging.
However animated shields are a problem. If you add this bonus is doubled if you are using a shield on your arm or something like that then no problem.
I like the OP, but I think it should work off of dex to properly mirror power attack.
|
|
I agree, I like the idea, but a raging barbarian wielding a greatsword and an animated tower shield (I've seen this) would make out with this feat.
Uh, except that it says right in rage that you can't use int based Feats and skills such as Combat Expertise (CE is the actual example given) while raging.
However animated shields are a problem. If you add this bonus is doubled if you are using a shield on your arm or something like that then no problem.
Actually rage only specifies Cha, Dex, or Int based skills. There isn't anything that states that you can't fight tactically while in a rage.
|
|
Whatever the alternative is, I just can't believe that an Int cap is it. It's bad enough needing Int 13 to use it at all; the idea that it's capped at Int bonus seems really too limiting to me. Cap it at BAB and chuck in some absolute limit (as in 3.5) if you really think that it's necessary (although I'm not sure that it is).
I think basing it of int, then setting the level at bab plus adding an arbitrary cap is to cumbersome. It needs to key off one stat or ability to be clear and useable. Int wasnt the best choice for a melee combat skill, but I get the realism aspect of it that was in mind when the choice was made. I would say a good look needs to be taken at Dex like many have said, after all its supposed to be a reflection of ones ability to sacrifice a strong swing to be nimble. It even works with the proposed shield upgrade as it would be a function of reaction time with ones off hand/arm.
|
|
I think basing it of int, then setting the level at bab plus adding an arbitrary cap is to cumbersome. It needs to key off one stat or ability to be clear and useable. Int wasnt the best choice for a melee combat skill, but I get the realism aspect of it that was in mind when the choice was made. I would say a good look needs to be taken at Dex like many have said, after all its supposed to be a reflection of ones ability to sacrifice a strong swing to be nimble. It even works with the proposed shield upgrade as it would be a function of reaction time with ones off hand/arm.
For most meleers, an Int cap just means that the ability won't scale, which means that it becomes suckier as they level (because they'd be nuts to spend money or ability boosts on Int). Yes, they'll still have to take it because it's a gateway feat, but an Int cap is just going to make it pretty useless as they level. I'd favour a straight BAB cap, or a fraction of BAB (half?) if people really wanted to (but I am not sure that's necessary).
|
|
Did you see the new feat I posted? I think it fixes a low-Int problem nicely. And I think a BAB-based cap would also work, but I also want it to mirror Power Attack. Perhaps 1/2 BAB (as Bagpuss suggested), or BAB with a maximum of 10 (20 if using a shield)?
I like them but we've been warned (in other threads), not to put in one sentence stating we like something posted. So in my second sentence, I say again, I like it. (waves at Jason)
I posted this elsewhere:
Defensive Fighting, Improved (Combat) – Supercedes Combat Expertise.
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: When fighting defensively, you take a –1 penalty to attacks and receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC. This penalty to attacks (and corresponding AC bonus) can be increased by +1 for every 2 points of your base attack bonus (to a maximum of +11 at BAB +20).
Special: If you are actively using a shield for defense (not merely using an animated shield or a shield spell) the dodge bonus to AC from this feat is doubled (maximum +22 at BAB +20).
Normal: Fighting defensively gives you a static –4 to attacks and +2 dodge bonus to AC. Total defense provides a static +4 dodge bonus to AC.
Notice that it does all of the following:
While I agree that the Int cap is harsh for fighters, in many ways, it is the ability score that makes the most sense for the feat (IMO at least). What if it were changed to double Int bonus as the cap? This would allow a fighter with a modest Int or 12 or 14 to get some good benefit from this feat still. Sure, it would let a wizard get a huge cap, but if the cap was the lowest of Intx2 and BAB, the wizard would never be able to hit their Intx2 cap due to their low BAB.
...and what if the Intx2 is a Special only for characters with some levels of Fighter class ?
Or (choice 2) creating an "Improved Combat Expertise"?
Improved Combat Expertise (Combat)
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Fighter level 6th
Effect:Your Intelligence modifier is doubled for the purpose of the Dodge bonus to AC that Combat Expertise can grant you.
BTW, I completely agree with the (bonusx2) for Shield wielders !
But, again, how does any cap related to Int scale? Almost no meleer is going to put money/resources into developing Int (and Combat Expertise + skill points is hardly compelling enough to do it).
Hardly Compelling to you. But that doesn't mean that no one will take advantage of it.
Skill points are a wonderfully useful things and personally i struggle to get enough. Here are just a few character concepts which would make use of it and find the additional Int useful.
-two fisted archeologists in the style of indiana jones (fighter/pathfinder chronicler)
-swash buckling gentle man theif or a shingle running tracor (fighter/rogue finesse/avoidence specialists)
- spell wrapped theif and assassins.
(rogue/wizard multiclasses, pure rogues, various assassins builds )
- eldritch knights
- duelists.
If you consider it a build you wouldn't want to play, but leaving it as Int capped creates greater variaty. Its cool to see a fighter with high or better still enhanced Intelligence, because it isn't common. And its good to have things availible that lets a player take advantage of a choice they made.
|
|
Well, people will still take the feat, however useless it is, because it's a gateway feat. However, I'm talking about the game design and my opinion on feats is that they should remain useful more-or-less across the board, not require a significant ongoing investment in attribute boosts (particularly in an attribute that's not much of a class benefit otherwise) to scale. People that don't feel that way about game design won't share my opinion; I imagine that you may be one of those people.
You pick some fighter variants where Int is important, but many fighters have to take CE as it's a gateway; if they aren't duellist types, etc, the feat itself becomes crap pretty quickly as they level. Thus, it's a feat you have to take that will suck or else to make it work you have to develop Int at the expense of what you want your character to be (so in practice, you'll probably just take it and have it suck).
Well, people will still take the feat, however useless it is, because it's a gateway feat. However, I'm talking about the game design and my opinion on feats is that they should remain useful more-or-less across the board, not require a significant ongoing investment in attribute boosts (particularly in an attribute that's not much of a class benefit otherwise) to scale. People that don't feel that way about game design won't share my opinion; I imagine that you may be one of those people.
You pick some fighter variants where Int is important, but many fighters have to take CE as it's a gateway; if they aren't duellist types, etc, the feat itself becomes crap pretty quickly as they level. Thus, it's a feat you have to take that will suck or else to make it work you have to develop Int at the expense of what you want your character to be (so in practice, you'll probably just take it and have it suck).
Define crap.
The feat never gets any worse, it just doesn't get better. For example(using the variatiant being discussed here):-
John is playing a sword and board fighter with CE. His ac is 30 and he is being attacted by a creature with +20 to hit, so he has a 50% chance of avoiding being hit. If he where to loose his CE, he would have a 40% chance of avoiding the damage. Even with only a +1 int, this version of CE provides a substantil benifit.
Better still, some builds are able to benifit from it even more.
|
|
A feat that provides a numerical bonus but doesn't scale as you level is, to my mind, crap. In this case, it's a feat that a lot of people will have to take, to get access to the feats behind it, but it can only scale if you have a particular sort of character in mind; however, many of the characters that would legitimately want the feats behind it but wouldn't want to be heavily invested in Int effectively get exactly what I call a crap feat, a feat that grants a numerical bonus but doesn't scale with level.
|
|
If Combat Expertise wasn't essential to getting other feats, i.e., it was something that would only appeal to those Int-heavy melee types, it'd be a somewhat different thing (I'd still think it was a pretty lame feat as it stands and I still wouldn't much like the Int cap, but it'd be less obnoxious by far). However, it's a significant gateway feat and, as a result, I don't like it the way it is (not scaling naturally, requiring heavy Int investment to scale, etc).
If Combat Expertise wasn't essential to getting other feats, i.e., it was something that would only appeal to those Int-heavy melee types, it'd be a somewhat different thing (I'd still think it was a pretty lame feat as it stands and I still wouldn't much like the Int cap, but it'd be less obnoxious by far). However, it's a significant gateway feat and, as a result, I don't like it the way it is (not scaling naturally, requiring heavy Int investment to scale, etc).
Right at 20th level, a sword and board fighter using this version of CE and the new sheild feats, dodge(+2), equiped in a full defensive item and armour array + a dex belt, Puts a great wrym red dragon, at a 45% miss chance. It the fighter did not have the those unscaling feats, the dragon would only miss on a natural 1.
Add in improved CE from this thread, that increase to a 55% miss chance and hey and with less than a 1/4 of your 20th level expected Gp spent a head band of intelligence +6 is easily within reach and giving you a shot of preventing the tarrasque hitting you based on armour.
even at level 20, you don't need to increase your Intelligence for this version of CE to be a benifit. Its just more of a benifit it you take advantage of it.
I would really like to see the sword and board favouring CE and improved CE make it into the final game. They do not need to scale, because they really are pretty taste.
|
|
Well, we disagree, as I said, about what's crap (not scaling would be an example of where we disagree). If you're gpoing to post examples and people pay attention, however, you need more details than that (name items so we can compare to WBL, for example). Of course, there's no reason to believe we're going to get the version of CE from this thread; my concerns about Int-based cap are there for any version that has it, but until we know what version we actually get, we'll have to wait and see.
Incidentally, something like an Int cap can, for those meleers that do have reason to take high Int, produce a feat that's miles better for some people than for others, all at the same level. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but it might be exploitable and in general, a feat of greatly varying power is going to be hard to balance.
The other problem with sword and board, that D&D combat is to a large extent about damage, will still be around given that 2H is inevitably going to do significantly more damage in a sane world. That's a function of the way that combat works, though, particularly when you add in spells (which tend to limit how long combat will last).
Well, we disagree, as I said, about what's crap (not scaling would be an example of where we disagree). If you're gpoing to post examples and people pay attention, however, you need more details than that (name items so we can compare to WBL, for example). Of course, there's no reason to believe we're going to get the version of CE from this thread; my concerns about Int-based cap are there for any version that has it, but until we know what version we actually get, we'll have to wait and see.
Incidentally, something like an Int cap can, for those meleers that do have reason to take high Int, produce a feat that's miles better for some people than for others, all at the same level. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but it might be exploitable and in general, a feat of greatly varying power is going to be hard to balance.
The other problem with sword and board, that D&D combat is to a large extent about damage, will still be around given that 2H is inevitably going to do significantly more damage in a sane world. That's a function of the way that combat works, though, particularly when you add in spells (which tend to limit how long combat will last).
All builds using Pathfinder beta. i did make a slight mistake with the calculations, on my note pad, counting the dexterity bonus wrong.
Current CE example:
human fighter lvl 20
Assumed starting stats(Standard Fantasy); str 16(human +2), dex 13, con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
Stats at level 20 ; str 20, dex 14(20 with belt), con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
relivant feats: Dodge, sheild focus, Combat expertise, greater sheild focus.
Number of feats remaining:18
Skills(relivant) = acrobatics 10
Required equipment: Platemail +5, tower sheild +5, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armour +5, belt of dexterity +6
AC: 10(basic)+ 5(dex; fighter allows)+ 1(shield focus) + 1(greater shield focus) + 2(dodge) + 1 (Combat expertise)+ 5(deflection; ring)+ 5(Natural armour) + 13(AC) + 9(sheild) + 4 (armour training) = 56
Chance of avoiding a great wyrm red's bite: 35%
With headband of intelligence + 6 : AC=59 BAI(bite avoidence index) = 50%
CE alteration proposed in this thread example:
human fighter lvl 20
Assumed starting stats(Standard Fantasy); str 16(human +2), dex 13, con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
Stats at level 20 ; str 20, dex 14(20 with belt), con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
relivant feats: Dodge, sheild focus, Combat expertise(altered), greater sheild focus.
Number of feats remaining:18
Skills(relivant) = acrobatics 10
Required equipment: Platemail +5, tower sheild +5, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armour +5, belt of dexterity +6
AC: 10(basic)+ 5(dex; fighter allows)+ 1(shield focus) + 1(greater shield focus) + 2(dodge) + 2 (Combat expertise)+ 5(deflection; ring)+ 5(Natural armour) + 13(AC) + 9(sheild) + 4 (armour training) = 57
Chance of avoiding a great wyrm red's bite: 40%
With headband of intelligence + 6 : AC= 62 BAI(bite avoidence index) = 65%
CE alteration proposed in this thread example + Improved CE feat:
human fighter lvl 20
Assumed starting stats(Standard Fantasy); str 16(human +2), dex 13, con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
Stats at level 20 ; str 20, dex 14(20 with belt), con 14, int 13, wis 10 cha 10.
relivant feats: Dodge, sheild focus, Combat expertise(altered), greater sheild focus.
Number of feats remaining:18
Skills(relivant) = acrobatics 10
Required equipment: Platemail +5, tower sheild +5, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armour +5, belt of dexterity +6
AC: 10(basic)+ 5(dex; fighter allows)+ 1(shield focus) + 1(greater shield focus) + 2(dodge) + 4 (improved combat expertise)+ 5(deflection; ring)+ 5(Natural armour) + 13(AC) + 9(sheild) + 4 (armour training) = 59
Chance of avoiding a great wyrm red's bite: 50%
With headband of intelligence + 6 : AC= 71 BAI(bite avoidence index) = 95%
Can avoid tarrasque attacks.
If you use Step up and shall not pass in the mix, you don't have to damage, you hold the target in place so that others can deal with it at range.
Just looking through that (and thanks for posting it), but in addition to Step Up and Shall Not Pass, you'd need lunge (-4 AC) if you didn't want to be rather easily avoidable. Also (and fair enough, for the conversation) the aim is not really to do any damage, just to be able to hit?
Well with a high threat weapon and the new criticial feats, i think its about hitting and inflicting status effects, traping an enemy and debilitating them. Lunge would help, but isn't explisitally needed.
Incidentally, something like an Int cap can, for those meleers that do have reason to take high Int, produce a feat that's miles better for some people than for others, all at the same level. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but it might be exploitable and in general, a feat of greatly varying power is going to be hard to balance.
The other problem with sword and board, that D&D combat is to a large extent about damage, will still be around given that 2H is inevitably going to do significantly more damage in a sane world. That's a function of the way that combat works, though, particularly when you add in spells (which tend to limit how long combat will last).
I like that the feat gives characters an alternative (int based) method of gaining ac. I also love the idea that the bonus would be double for sword and board users. I don't believe that it has to scale perfectly for higher levels especially because it is a prereq for many feats out there.
|
|
Interesting that Shall Not Pass just requires a hit and no damage (although Red Dragon DR is 20/magic so not that big a deal anyhow). However, we should probably just say "something with +49 to hit" because a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, as a 19th level sorceror, isn't going to be unbuffed if for some reason it prefers manual combat. Their actual to-hit is going to be higher, but let's imagine some melee brute with +49 to hit on its full-value attack. +49 isn't all that high for a level-appropriate melee brute for a 20th level fighter, though -- a dragon is clearly more than a melee brute -- but the Tarrasque would be for a 17th level party. It's a moron, sure, but it does have +57 to hit with its bite.
So, on reflection, I think that the best thing to look at is to consider the absolute value you can achieve with various version of the feat; as you've picked 20th level (with 760 000gp WBL, the stuff you've selected is well within range. It would be out of range, however, for the 14th level fighter that might be facing a CR 16 Greater Stone Golem with two +42 attacks, which might be a more interesting example (given that golems are pretty much designed to be attacked by meleers thanks to their SR)...). While I don't think that +49 to-hit is really a nasty value for a level-appropriate melee brute for a 20th level party, we can look at the numbers, as I say, on their own without worrying about the monster until later (and when we do, as you choose to in the last example, we can consider the Tarrasque, even though it's only CR20 so wouldn't be very challenging for the party as a whole).
Anyhow. The current CE necessitates spending 36 000gp on a +5 Intelligence item, plus a +1 Int ability boost from levelling, to get the +5 to AC that you can currently get from the 3.5 Combat Expertise. This appears to be a good illustration of why the current CE in the Beta blows, given that the old CE was hardly a game-breaker.
So, the CE version suggested in this thread (I'm not really going to look at Improved CE, which is a degree further away from likelihood of happening) -- which isn't official and we have no reason to believe that it will be, but the point of this is to crunch the numbers -- seems to me to offer some of what you want. You do get a higher AC from holding a shield and don't hit any less as a result (as the to-hit penalty doesn't change). Of course, if that makes hitting too unlikely then it's game over as nothing works if you can't hit, but we haven't considered that (Shall Not Pass, at least, only requires a hit, not damage of a certain level). Anyhow, with no extra focus on Int, CE with board gives +2 to AC for the fighter you mentioned. With the 25 000/36 000 (depending on whether you allow +5 Int items or insist on +6) expenditure on Int you're getting +8, for an extra 6 to AC from carrying a board and having this feat. However, my main point was that absent the investment in Int, which is affordable at level 20 but not lower down where you'd also need it -- level 12 WBL is only 88 000gp, say -- the feat becomes less useful as time goes on. That's something I don't like in feats. If it was capped at, say, BAB or (more likely) half of BAB and the shield bonus was an extra 50% of AC, then I think that it would make more sense*.
Another issue one might have with the proposed feat -- although it's not one I mentioned before and to some extent works against it -- is that for 25 000gp (for a +5 Int item, if you allow the odd-numbered bonuses, else 36 000gp for a +6 Int item) you are allowing +8 AC for owning a normal shield and taking the feat (+6 over the current case with Beta CE). This rather breaks the AC pricing economy not to mention the limit of +5 on AC enhancement bonuses. Now, my preferred solution to that is along the lines of the one CoL offered -- allow higher enhancement bonuses and make them significantly cheaper, which case the economy wouldn't get broken -- but for people that like the existing limits and prices, this would appear to be breaking stuff. If you allowed the Improved Combat Expertise from this thread, for the cost of an extra feat you go to +12 for owning a normal shield (albeit all this comes with a bigger chance to miss; however, we've not crunched to-hit numbers, just AC; as all of this depends on hitting, given that turtles get ignored and even Shall Not Pass won't work without hits, we should probably look at that too, particularly at lower levels where WBL is less and yet the player needs to invest in weaponry. Anyhow, to-hit calculations make the needle harder to thread, of course, particularly when as written you don't get to pick how much AC to gain and to-hit to dump)...
I'm still thinking about it; these are just musings so far...
*Also, the lack of being able to pick how much to add to AC still blows, IMO. But that's another matter (and it's the same as the one with Power Attack). I'm sort of assuming that the hardwired nature of the bonus/penalty is gone and it's back to player choice as in 3.5, because for sure I'm going to have it that way in my games.
|
|
I like that the feat gives characters an alternative (int based) method of gaining ac. I also love the idea that the bonus would be double for sword and board users. I don't believe that it has to scale perfectly for higher levels especially because it is a prereq for many feats out there.
If it wasn't a prereq -- and I don't think that it has to be in Combat Expertise, incidentally, but could rather go in some other feat related to shields which would them avoid the problem of it being a prereq that scales badly for most/many of the players that take it -- then I wouldn't have such a problem with it. However, a feat that you take to get at other feats should stay useful, I think, from the design perspective, and many characters that take the feat to get through the gateway won't be of the sort that maintain use from the feat.
In essence, I'd probably prefer that the shield stuff goes somewhere else, into another feat (and maybe doesn't depend on Int, even, just on feat investment in some shield feat chain) and that CE loses the Int bonus cap, loses the fixed bonus/penalty and gives it back to the characters and somehow scales (say, capped at BAB rather than at 5 as in 3.5).
|
|
So, my alternative suggestion would be split into two parts:
Stick the shield stuff at the end of a shield feat chain. You can keep it Int-limited if you think that sword and board fighters have to be Intelligent (and you won't break much going backwards, because there were pretty much no effective sword-and-boarders in 3.5...) although I'm not convinced it needs to be; I'd stick a BAB-related cap on it and rely on the fact that it was down a feat chain. Maybe also a minimum BAB for entry.
Fix Combat Expertise on its own. Which is to say, reintroduce player choice and make it scale (some BAB-related thing that maybe allows for more AC bonus without increasing to-hit penalty as the character gets more BAB).
Another objection to Int-capping (and just one that appeals to me; other people may not be bothered) is that you can buy Int bonus but you can't buy BAB but have to earn it...