Combat Expertise is a prerequisite for a LOT of feats, namely a lot of feats that deal with combat maneuvers, such as Improved Trip, Improved Dirty Trick and others such as Whirlwind Attack. This is really a slap in the face when trying to build a fighter around one of these feats, since you'll need to have at least 13 intelligence to do so, as well as spending a feat on something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the following feats. Intelligence is often a dump stat for fighters, and combat expertise gives you a penalty to attack rolls which is something you really don't want when trying to make a successful trip attempt or whirlwind attack.
I'm asking this because a player of mine really wanted to get improved dirty trick, but since he's a fighter with "just" 10 intelligence, he can't get it. I understand that the option of making a smart fighter is appealing, since not every fighter should be dumb, but is this really the way to go about it? You don't see a 13 Wis prerequisite to choosing Spell Focus or various metamagic feats. This feels like a really cumbersome leftover from 3.5, and an unnecessary tax on martial characters.
|
At the risk of providing a pat answer, if it doesn't work for you and your players, then house-rule it away.
Personally I have no problem with the idea that some combat options that require thoughtful consideration about when and how to use (by the player) also require that the character have an above average Int to use; it avoids muddying the water across the difference between player ability and character ability. However, recent threads have indicated that this isn't a universal play consideration for all players or groups of players. Make it work for you.
However, I'd suggest it isn't a left-over from SRD/D&D. It isn't an artifact or vestigial passage from the writing process. It reflects an ongoing and surviving element of game design that not all characters are capable of all tasks.
I've made an easy fix by semi-merging it with defensive fighting. I've never noticed anyone doing any defensive fighting because the trade-off just isn't worth it and the AC bonus too small. I've changed that around so defensive fighting gives +4 AC -4 attacks (kinda like the current expertise). Combat expertise makes you better at defensive fighting so now it gives you a -2 attacks instead of -4. Combat expertise also allows you to gain higher AC as you gain levels. Total defence just stacks a +2 AC on top.
That should make both defensive fighting and combat expertise a lot more interesting. I did move trip/whirlwind attack to combat reflexes though.
I use the "Virtual Feat" type houserule for this sometimes. Basically anyone eligible gets it automatically.
For ComEx though, I usually change the pre-req too! 13+ int is actually very prohibitive, especially for line-backer type characters.
|
Combat Expertise is a prerequisite for a LOT of feats, namely a lot of feats that deal with combat maneuvers, such as Improved Trip, Improved Dirty Trick and others such as Whirlwind Attack. This is really a slap in the face when trying to build a fighter around one of these feats, since you'll need to have at least 13 intelligence to do so, as well as spending a feat on something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the following feats. Intelligence is often a dump stat for fighters, and combat expertise gives you a penalty to attack rolls which is something you really don't want when trying to make a successful trip attempt or whirlwind attack.
I'm asking this because a player of mine really wanted to get improved dirty trick, but since he's a fighter with "just" 10 intelligence, he can't get it. I understand that the option of making a smart fighter is appealing, since not every fighter should be dumb, but is this really the way to go about it? You don't see a 13 Wis prerequisite to choosing Spell Focus or various metamagic feats. This feels like a really cumbersome leftover from 3.5, and an unnecessary tax on martial characters.
I dislike this as well for 2 reasons. One is that I feel like the pre-rqe is unnecessary . Two is that Combat Expertise is a terrible feat in PF.
I would house rule it if I ran a campaign. But of course note that if you allow it, then other players will try and convince you other pre-reqs are not necessary as well, potentially creating an annoying precedence.
I don't dislike so much the feat, even if it "kicks in" only later and only with synergies.
What baffles me is the in 13 prerequisite. I can see you cannot be dumb (int 9 or less) but an 11 could have been enough. Even better, a "Int 13 OR Dex 13" prerequisite.
Forcing a 13 int kills a lot of character concepts. And the greater trip monk, barring Qinjong.
EDIT: wait.. unless I miss something, Qinjong neither :(
The problem is that sometimes this forbids you to create a character. Such as a Sword and Board fighter if you don't have enough good stats.
Pimp decent strenght and constitution, high dexterity and in top of that int 13 is not easy.
combat expertise is an excellent representation of a concept. first it represents the idea of the technical schooled intelligent fighter. like that old guy whi kicks your ass at squash despite not moving overly fast because he is always standing I'n the right place and never has to move far when the ball comes his way.
fighters come conceptually I'n the forms of big dumb brutes and intelligent schooled military men. all of the maneuvers that require it are thematically more technical than the shoving around of bull rush.
if you want to trip or disarm then you need to be smart it really isn't that crippling.
The problem is that sometimes this forbids you to create a character. Such as a Sword and Board fighter if you don't have enough good stats.
Pimp decent strenght and constitution, high dexterity and in top of that int 13 is not easy.
What forbid? A 13 Int costs 3 lousy points. So you have a 16 Str instead of a 17, big deal!
I think the only reason they do this is for the Monk. If you want to combat maneuvers like the monk you pay feat tax. I notice the monk doesn't even have combat expertise on their list and can get these feats with out it. So if you allow everyone to not take CE then you take a little away from the monk who has to wait to 6th level to get them with out prereq that no longer applies. If you do house rule maybe remove the 6th requirement from the Monk Feats.
Combat Expertise is not intended for fighters that you want as dumb as the Hulk. It's more for the Batmans, the Captain Americas, the intelligent crafty fighters.
And it's certainly a good workable one for Magus and fighter/wizard type characters.
The Hulk should have access to some of the maneuvers. Maneuvers in general are things that are supposed to benefit from size and strength.
Of course, some of the new ones don't, but I don't actually agree with that either, as it muddles the whole mechanic.
What forbid? A 13 Int costs 3 lousy points. So you have a 16 Str instead of a 17, big deal!The problem is that sometimes this forbids you to create a character. Such as a Sword and Board fighter if you don't have enough good stats.
Pimp decent strenght and constitution, high dexterity and in top of that int 13 is not easy.
Why should martial classes have to pay those "3 lousy points" and not casters? Like I mentioned in the original post, you don't see wizards having to put 13 into strength, wisdom or charisma to get their feats. And since a lot of fighters often drop intelligence down to 8 or even 7, it's not always 3 points, but sometimes a matter of 5 or 7.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise in 3.5 was an uber-feat and it's probably a good thing that it's been nerfed for Pathfinder. Now it's kind of handy and becomes handier at higher levels. It's also the gateway to a bunch of other stuff, which have mostly all also been nerfed. The 'improved X' feats presumably require the pre-requisite because they're perceived as 'good' (in the same way that augment summoning requires spell focus conjuration - it's not really that it necessarily follows, it's just that AS is so good that you have to weaken it somehow and they've chosen to do it by meaning you have to 'waste' a feat). 13 Int required? I agree with Howie, if you don't like it, house rule it away (I'd NEVER allow the change to defensive fighting suggested by JrK, but I'll fight to the death to allow it in his/her own campaign), or maybe there should be a feat which allows you to treat your intelligence as 13 for the purposes of feat pre-requisites...
Now if only there were important combat feats that required a minimum of 13 Charisma...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cough* Charisma 13 for Eldritch heritage. *cough*
That actually makes sense, since it is giving you a sorcerer class ability, which is a Charisma based class.
|
|
I think this feat is burdensome. How many people have taken martial art classes?
When I took it, everybody learned how to throw someone down eventually (aka trip manuever). It doesn't even take any thought, after a while it becomes reflexive.
Also dirty tricks line requiring is even more unreasonable. Anyone read or see gangs of New York. If it takes brains to use dirty tricks a super majority of the gang members wouldn't be fighting.
It is a challenge to decide how to design game elements that represent real life, such as martial arts, or artistic representations, such as a move. The challenge isn't in making so that it is possible to do, it is in determining what sort of rules resource is appropriate for doing it. Can everyone do it (a combat manouver)? Can some do it better than others (a feat that eliminates an AoO, such as Improved Trip)? Can only some do it? If so, does it require a feat, an ability score, a size, a class ability, an archetype, a trait, a... et cetera. Can it be gained in multiple ways?
In your martial arts class example, does this demonstrate that, in game terms, Intelligence shouldn't be a prerequisite for the feat, or does it demonstrate that martial arts classes are akin to gaining bonus feats for which the prerequisite is waived, as happens for the Monk class? Same idea for Dirty Fighting. Does this demonstrate that Intelligence isn't a prereq, or that a Street Figther archetype that allows feats w/o prerequisites is a reasonable way to model this?
What I've seen so far isn't so much discussion about game design, but about the fact that different play styles don't necessarily view the rules the same. I think. :)
Edit: Posted prior to Mok's above, which addresses design issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't say it didn't make sense, just that it's a feat that's good for a wizard and requires a 13 in a dump stat.*cough* Charisma 13 for Eldritch heritage. *cough*That actually makes sense, since it is giving you a sorcerer class ability, which is a Charisma based class.
I think we would have to alter the context significantly for that to be a valid comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so? Not all wizards will select it, that is true, but not all fighters select combat expertise either.
I probably should have quoted the post I was replying to, but the person above me (well 2 posts above me due to someone posting a few seconds before I did) stated no wizard style feats required a 13 str, wis, or chr. I pointed out that they were incorrect.
Because it doesn't lead into a feat that should be reachable for any martially inclined class, Eldritch Heritage is a purely optional feat line. Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc are needed to make a basic option anybody can attempt viable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise in 3.5 was an uber-feat and it's probably a good thing that it's been nerfed for Pathfinder. Now it's kind of handy and becomes handier at higher levels. It's also the gateway to a bunch of other stuff, which have mostly all also been nerfed. The 'improved X' feats presumably require the pre-requisite because they're perceived as 'good' (in the same way that augment summoning requires spell focus conjuration - it's not really that it necessarily follows, it's just that AS is so good that you have to weaken it somehow and they've chosen to do it by meaning you have to 'waste' a feat). 13 Int required? I agree with Howie, if you don't like it, house rule it away (I'd NEVER allow the change to defensive fighting suggested by JrK, but I'll fight to the death to allow it in his/her own campaign), or maybe there should be a feat which allows you to treat your intelligence as 13 for the purposes of feat pre-requisites...Now if only there were important combat feats that required a minimum of 13 Charisma...
+1 I like your style.
Why should the combat maneuver feats be cheap and available to everyone? Just because a dumb guy can perform a dirty trick or trip doesn't mean he should excel at it. A 13 in INT is hardly crippling to a fighter who also has tons of feats. I just don't see the issue. Maybe if the requirement was int 15 then I would probably be with yall.
I think I am all alone on the MAD issue. I understand as the system stands that MAD characters can often times be at odds with optimization
which I admit sucks. However, the solution to most seems to be, fix characters so they only rely on 1-3 stats and I have seen where that leads; No thanks. If you allow me to put my pretend hat on for a moment, if I were on the Pathfinder second edition design team, I would make all classes MAD and design the edition so it wasn't so important to play "pump-a-dump" with character creation.
I apologize to the OP for going on a tangent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not aiming to pick a fight, I just feel the game would be better if Maneuvers weren't locked off behind ComEx.
They're one of the only ways to keep the game from becoming stand and hack for melee driven characters. I like a dynamic battlefield, and I am frustrated that these options are so inaccessible that I never seem them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise in 3.5 was an uber-feat and it's probably a good thing that it's been nerfed for Pathfinder. Now it's kind of handy and becomes handier at higher levels.
I lol'd.
|
|
Ok, this will cause an outcry due to feat tax, so I will preface this by saying "I as a player would never waste my feats so carelessly"
Pre-requisites are for using the feat, not having it on your sheet. For example, if you were hit with an enfeeblement, and thus not eligible for Combat Expertise, you lose access to the feat, but still have it as far as using it for a pre-req. IE - you can still use your Improved Trip. Otherwise, the ability of such spells to nullify your entire feat tree in one swift move would make the FAR more powerful than their spell level would justify.
Therefore, it stands to reason that you *could* waste a feat on Combat Expertise, without meeting the INT req, so that you can take Improved [Combat Maneuver].
I don't have the RAW in front of me, so people can feel free to school me on my mistaken interpretation of the rules.
So...exactly what is wrong with combat expertise? I have had characters use it to great success....so is it the 13 int thing? what it does?
Though I agree thinking about it not all combat maneuver feats should be based on Combat Expertise....things like Bull Rush should be something else(maybe power attack...)
|
|
Combat Expertise in 3.5 was an uber-feat and it's probably a good thing that it's been nerfed for Pathfinder. Now it's kind of handy and becomes handier at higher levels. It's also the gateway to a bunch of other stuff, which have mostly all also been nerfed. The 'improved X' feats presumably require the pre-requisite because they're perceived as 'good' (in the same way that augment summoning requires spell focus conjuration - it's not really that it necessarily follows, it's just that AS is so good that you have to weaken it somehow and they've chosen to do it by meaning you have to 'waste' a feat). 13 Int required? I agree with Howie, if you don't like it, house rule it away (I'd NEVER allow the change to defensive fighting suggested by JrK, but I'll fight to the death to allow it in his/her own campaign), or maybe there should be a feat which allows you to treat your intelligence as 13 for the purposes of feat pre-requisites...Now if only there were important combat feats that required a minimum of 13 Charisma...
Note that a Headband of Vast Intelligence after 24 hour raise your intelligence by 2 points for feat prerequisites (it is true for all the stat increasing items) after you have worn it for 24 hours, so a 11 intelligence and 4.000 gp give you the feat (plus the skill in the headband).
I think I am all alone on the MAD issue. I understand as the system stands that MAD characters can often times be at odds with optimization
which I admit sucks. However, the solution to most seems to be, fix characters so they only rely on 1-3 stats and I have seen where that leads; No thanks. If you allow me to put my pretend hat on for a moment, if I were on the Pathfinder second edition design team, I would make all classes MAD and design the edition so it wasn't so important to play "pump-a-dump" with character creation.
I like this!
The whole feat tree starting with combat expertise is the intelligent and/or dexterous fighter archetype.
Maybe giving a combo of alternate minimal requirements, like int 13 and dex 10 or int 10 and dex 13 will make it acceptable to those that feel that int 13 is requiring too much, but mix/maxing stats should have consequences, included barring some feat.
Combat Expertise in 3.5 was an uber-feat and it's probably a good thing that it's been nerfed for Pathfinder. Now it's kind of handy and becomes handier at higher levels. It's also the gateway to a bunch of other stuff, which have mostly all also been nerfed. The 'improved X' feats presumably require the pre-requisite because they're perceived as 'good' (in the same way that augment summoning requires spell focus conjuration - it's not really that it necessarily follows, it's just that AS is so good that you have to weaken it somehow and they've chosen to do it by meaning you have to 'waste' a feat). 13 Int required? I agree with Howie, if you don't like it, house rule it away (I'd NEVER allow the change to defensive fighting suggested by JrK, but I'll fight to the death to allow it in his/her own campaign), or maybe there should be a feat which allows you to treat your intelligence as 13 for the purposes of feat pre-requisites...Now if only there were important combat feats that required a minimum of 13 Charisma...
Note that a Headband of Vast Intelligence after 24 hour raise your intelligence by 2 points for feat prerequisites (it is true for all the stat increasing items) after you have worn it for 24 hours, so a 11 intelligence and 4.000 gp give you the feat (plus the skill in the headband).
So Fighters are limited to not using any of the combat maneuvers due to a useless feat until roughly 6th level. Yeah, great idea, let's do that. Things you can do with 12 Int: Cast Mage Armor; cast shield; summon eagles to fight for you; identify magic items. Things you can't do with 12 Int: trip better; disarm better; feint better; throw dirt in some one's eye better.
Since Combat Expertise is the pre-req for an offensive line of combat manuevers, it could have been interesting to have it add your intelligence modifier to the respective CMB checks.
It just feels like a feat tax to me.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently running a human fighter in PFS with the following stats:
STR 18
CON 12
DEX 14
INT 13
WIS 12
CHA 8
He's at level 2, with CE, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, and Dodge as his feats. And he's been very successful, to the point of getting LOTS of (playful) dirty looks from the GM. If I notice an enemy has a low AC (especially Large ones), I go into "Combat Expertise mode", taking an irrelevant -1 to attacks to get a +1 to AC, and it's saved his bacon multiple times; when you're fighting a big, slow brute with only 14-15 AC but a +6 to damage, dropping my to-hit from +7 to +6 and bumping my AC from 21 to 22 is a really good move. Similarly, when you have a +11 to Disarm at level 2, dropping it to +10 for an AC bonus seems almost like a freebie.
And the related Combat Maneuver feats? CE is only a pre-req for a few of them - others require Power Attack or other things. And interestingly enough, it's the big smashies that require PA, the more tactical ones that require CE, and Improved Grapple requires Improved Unarmed Strike (IIRC). Those seem appropriately related.
People who are saying "I shouldn't have to put points in what's usually my dump stat" are basically saying "I shouldn't have to build differently in order to get different results". Basically like Cass from Dorkness Rising, believing that there's only one right way to spec a fighter's stats - and then complaining that some options are off-limits to that one build.
EDIT:
So Fighters are limited to not using any of the combat maneuvers due to a useless feat until roughly 6th level. Yeah, great idea, let's do that.
Three or four maneuvers, IIRC. Don't worry, your cookie-cutter fighter still has access to sundering and whatnot.
Since Combat Expertise is the pre-req for an offensive line of combat manuevers, it could have been interesting to have it add your intelligence modifier to the respective CMB checks.
It just feels like a feat tax to me.
It WAS a feat tax but due to the update to how it works in Pathfinder, now it's just a HORRIBLE feat that's also a feat tax.
|
|
So Fighters are limited to not using any of the combat maneuvers due to a useless feat until roughly 6th level. Yeah, great idea, let's do that. Things you can do with 12 Int: Cast Mage Armor; cast shield; summon eagles to fight for you; identify magic items. Things you can't do with 12 Int: trip better; disarm better; feint better; throw dirt in some one's eye better.
Prerequisite to cast those spells with 12 intelligence: 1 level as wizard (or a ring of spell storing).
If you are willing to burn levels that way. [shrug]And, BTW, you are wrong. There are plenty of combat maneuvres that you can do without int 13. The effect of not having int 13 is that you cant get the feat that allow you to use the improved version of some combat maneuver.
So Fighters are limited to not using any of the combat maneuvers due to a useless feat until roughly 6th level. Yeah, great idea, let's do that. Things you can do with 12 Int: Cast Mage Armor; cast shield; summon eagles to fight for you; identify magic items. Things you can't do with 12 Int: trip better; disarm better; feint better; throw dirt in some one's eye better.Prerequisite to cast those spells with 12 intelligence: 1 level as wizard (or a ring of spell storing).
If you are willing to burn levels that way. [shrug]And, BTW, you are wrong. There are plenty of combat maneuvres that you can do without int 13. The effect of not having int 13 is that you cant get the feat that allow you to use the improved version of some combat maneuver.
A 3rd level Wizard with 12 Intelligence can cast all spells available to him but cannot use Combat Expertise due to having a too low ability score.
And this is BEFORE taking into account Paizo ruined the feat by making it scale the same way they made Power Attack scale.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Int requirement and the lack of utility of the feat has prevented from ever taking the feat with any character (and therefore the subsequent feats in the chain).
It is a badly designed feat.
So "not appealing to Axl" = "badly designed". Good to know for future reference. ;)
Of course, my very successful fighter (described in my post above) does use CE, and it has provided utility even beyond its status as a prereq.
So your experience says it's bad, while mine says it's good. Whose experience wins?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And this is BEFORE taking into account Paizo ruined the feat by making it scale the same way they made Power Attack scale.
Hm, yes, I can see how having a feat called "combat expertise" scale in proportion to a character's general experience and ability clearly "ruins" it. Yeah, what were they thinking? ;)
Oh man, I'm having SO much fun reading this thread. Frankly, any feat/ability that in any way represents a character's aptitude/proficiency in combat *should* scale with level and/or BAB.
EDIT: Sorry for the double-post. :( I thought for sure someone would ninja me.
And this is BEFORE taking into account Paizo ruined the feat by making it scale the same way they made Power Attack scale.Hm, yes, I can see how having a feat called "combat expertise" scale in proportion to a character's general experience and ability clearly "ruins" it. Yeah, what were they thinking? ;)
Apparently they were thinking like full of themselves role-players instead of game designers with good sense.
The ability INHERENTLY scaled with "general experience and ability to use it" by giving a -1/+1 ratio against BAB sacrificed where you can only sacrifice as much BAB as you have and then caps it at +5 to prevent it from being overpowered. This made it useful to classes that didn't have a full BAB, especially 3/4 BAB characters that are still expected to actually fight. However, the change to scale in such a way that you cannot vary it and it only increases once you get so many BAB makes it USELESS for anyone without a full BAB who basically don't need it, and definitely don't need to blow the ability score points to afford it. Moreover, even if they do need and want it, the slow scaling on the increase to AC makes it DOUBLY useless because enemies' to-hit was NOT scaled down. How good is +3 AC going to do you vs CR 8 enemies? Or better yet, +2 vs CR 7 enemies? They answer is little to none. As opposed to previously where you could get a +5 even as a 3/4 BAB class at that level.
|
Why should martial classes have to pay those "3 lousy points" and not casters? Like I mentioned in the original post, you don't see wizards having to put 13 into strength, wisdom or charisma to get their feats. And since a lot of fighters often drop intelligence down to 8 or even 7, it's not always 3 points, but sometimes a matter of 5 or 7.
I remember 2nd Edition had stat prereqs to qualify for wizard specialities; e.g. the Enchanter needed high Cha, the transmuter needed high Con.
Those prereqs, and the fact that opposition schools were fixed, were the only reason you ever saw a universalist.
One PC I played, the DM allowed human multiclassing, within set bounds. The speciality priesthood were able to mix wizardry that emulated their deity's sphere, again if you met certain additional prereqs.
So my priest of Zeus was also an evoker, but to do it I had to place my highest stats in Str and Con. Int and Wis were third and fourth place.
That was a rolled PC, not point-buy, but it remains one of the more memorable PCs I ever played.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My main beef with CE is that I don't see why it is necessary to be smart to become a master of tripping or dirty tricks.
I mean have you seen some of the mixed martial artists try and speak after a match. These guys are masters at tripping and yet if I had to stat them out most of them will probably have int as their dump stats.
An understandable observation/conclusion. I think, to be fair, in real life you can learn to do almost any (physical) task if you train long enough. And since game-balance-wise it would probably be a bad idea for identically-spec'd fighters to have access to every Improved [Maneuver] feat, having the more tactical ones (that is, more tactical than Sunder or Bull Rush) require some extra intelligence and proficiency, just like Improved Grapple requires that you be pretty good at using your bare hands in combat (Improved Unarmed Strike). It doesn't cover *every* real-life scenario, but I think it's pretty reasonable when taken as a whole.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Apparently they were thinking like full of themselves role-players instead of game designers with good sense.
And where did that come from? How does any of this relate to role-play versus game design? If anything, the best arguments that CE and its feat lines should NOT require 13 INT are the RP-based ones, referencing real-life dummies who know how to trip. From a game design standpoint, it looks to me like a good idea to have different groups of Maneuvers accessible by different means, so you have to pick and choose which ones to be good at (or make some sacrifices for versatility) instead of having the same build be capable of everything.
The ability INHERENTLY scaled with "general experience and ability to use it" by giving a -1/+1 ratio against BAB sacrificed where you can only sacrifice as much BAB as you have and then caps it at +5 to prevent it from being overpowered. This made it useful to classes that didn't have a full BAB, especially 3/4 BAB characters that are still expected to actually fight. However, the change to scale in such a way that you cannot vary it and it only increases once you get so many BAB makes it USELESS for anyone without a full BAB who basically don't need it, and definitely don't need to blow the ability score points to afford it. Moreover, even if they do need and want it, the slow scaling on the increase to AC makes it DOUBLY useless because enemies' to-hit was NOT scaled down. How good is +3 AC going to do you vs CR 8 enemies? Or better yet, +2 vs CR 7 enemies? They answer is little to none. As opposed to previously where you could get a +5 even as a 3/4 BAB class at that level.
Ah, okay, I thought you were saying it went from not scaling to scaling, rather than from scaling one way to scaling a different way (your earlier statement could be read either way, depending on whether the reader was familiar with earlier versions of CE). That makes more sense then.
As for its usefulness, though, I've already stated how my CE fighter has dodged multiple hits just from the single extra point of AC at levels 1-2, and how analyzing the current threat can tell you when to use it (like against a low-AC, high-damage enemy). Your claim of its uselessness is just as anecdotal as my claim of its usefulness.
|
|
Ok, this will cause an outcry due to feat tax, so I will preface this by saying "I as a player would never waste my feats so carelessly"
Pre-requisites are for using the feat, not having it on your sheet. For example, if you were hit with an enfeeblement, and thus not eligible for Combat Expertise, you lose access to the feat, but still have it as far as using it for a pre-req. IE - you can still use your Improved Trip. Otherwise, the ability of such spells to nullify your entire feat tree in one swift move would make the FAR more powerful than their spell level would justify.
Therefore, it stands to reason that you *could* waste a feat on Combat Expertise, without meeting the INT req, so that you can take Improved [Combat Maneuver].
I don't have the RAW in front of me, so people can feel free to school me on my mistaken interpretation of the rules.
RAW; if you don't qualify for a feat, you don't get the benefit, nor the benefits of any other feat that depend on it.
I think you meant to use enfeeblement as an example of the target losing access to Power Attack, and all the related feats.
Combat Expertise would be denied via touch of idiocy or feeblemind.
|
|
So Fighters are limited to not using any of the combat maneuvers due to a useless feat until roughly 6th level. Yeah, great idea, let's do that. Things you can do with 12 Int: Cast Mage Armor; cast shield; summon eagles to fight for you; identify magic items. Things you can't do with 12 Int: trip better; disarm better; feint better; throw dirt in some one's eye better.
Cartigan is my intelligent troll hero. Not only does he make good points, he mixes them with brilliant satire.
I agree that Combat Expertise needs a slight tweaking. However I do prefer to keep the 13 int req. just simply add an either or requirement such as
INT 13 or BAB of +6 or higher. just an example, but it makes the feat attainable, yet reinforces that specific word: Expertise. No one is an expert at combat when you start out. But you get better as you gain experience.