RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
That seems reasonable to me (or maybe BAB +4 so you can follow up with Improved/Greater [whatever] on time). Either/Or prereqs would be a fun design tool.
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.
You're absolutely right that athletes of limited intelligence can learn reasonably complicated physical tasks through training and repetition. Actually, so can a lot of animals. What is missing is the role of the trainer/coach. Each of those martial artists you are talking of has trained under someone much smarter than themselves, who has run them through countless drills, exercises and sparring matches to get it to the point where they perform combat maneuvers almost automatically in response to certain situations.
In 3.0, however, D&D eliminated the concept of "training" and trainers being required to go up a level (and acquire all these nifty new feats and spells). Now, characters are assumed to be self-taught. Given that, I see some justification in Intel requirements for some more complex combat feats.
Or a nifty houserule might be to waive those requirements if the character takes several weeks to study the maneuver with a master before being able to use it.
Cookie cutter? People are forced to build cookie cutters to accomplish some concept.
See what is needed feat wise and stat wise to build a Sword and Board fighter.
And I don't think is a weird concept - am I wrong?
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.
No it isn't. The answer is that with the +3 they will miss you 15% of the time they roll on results that would otherwise have been hits (also nice for preventing crit confirms). Substitute +2 and 10% for the CR7. By way of example, let's say that without the +2 they hit you on an 11+. That's a 50% chance to hit. With the +2 they need a 13+ and have only a 40% chance to hit. So instead of taking 5 hits out of 10 you take 4. It scales even better to a second iterative attack which drops from a 25% chance to hit to 15% - a 40% loss.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's his point.
Yes, you should be picking and choosing which maneuvers to excel at, and making sacrifices for versatility.
You should be able to do that, by the spending of feats, the feats being the Improved [Combat Maneuver] ones.
The 'sacrifice' is that you can't start off good at them all, you have only a limited number of feats.
Even a human Fighter will only get 22 feats over his entire 20-level career. Given that most games end far short of that point, the reality will be far lower.
There are simply not enough feat slots, even for the class that is the master of feats, to justify any feat that does not do something worthwhile in its own right.
And by worthwhile, that means level-appropriate at the point one takes it, and scaling from that point on.
You know, like spells scale, so they last longer, provide higher bonuses, deal more damage, threaten a wider area, etc.
As opposed to say, Dodge, which gives +1 AC at level 1. And +1 AC at level 20.
The gateway feat is unnecessary.
A gateway feat that, in itself, requires an investment in a stat that is unrelated to the carrying out of the maneuver, that fails to reward the owner for investing in Int, is not only unnecessary, but incredibly weak.
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.
Hardly. You can now only get a +2 or +3 bonus at the same point you could get a +5 bonus to AC. That's 10 to 15% greater chance to dodge an attack. There's no anecdotes there; just hard facts.
You don't get that with the current CE until level 16. Six.Teen.|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.Hardly. You can now only get a +2 or +3 bonus at the same point you could get a +5 bonus to AC. That's 10 to 15% greater chance to dodge an attack. There's no anecdotes there; just hard facts.
You don't get that with the current CE until level 16. Six.Teen.
Oh! So you mean "useless" in comparison to the old CE? Well that's something else entirely. I never meant to imply that Pathfinder's CE was equal to previous incarnations - only that it's not worthless (see also Aldin's math above). Yes, it is weaker. No, it is not worthless.
|
|
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.
That seems reasonable to me (or maybe BAB +4 so you can follow up with Improved/Greater [whatever] on time). Either/Or prereqs would be a fun design tool.
I wrote the last post before reading this.
Sounds like you're coming round to seeing our point.I agree, having an either/or prereq is an improvement, effectively allowing experience to substitute for theory.
IMO the Int 13 requirement has always seemed a little counter intuitive but I do see the reasoning behind it and so I'm able to live with it.
My real issue is having Combat Expertise as a requirement for so many maneuvers. I have never seen the connection between CE and things like trip and disarm, it just feels like an unnecessary feat tax to me. For that matter I could live with power attack as well but that at least fits a little better with the maneuvers it's attached to.
As other posters have mentioned, I'm strongly considering replacing CE with Combat Reflexes as I feel it fits better.
Alternatively, I would be fine with bypassing the feat requirement entirely for those combat maneuver feats and just sticking with Int 13 as the only prerequisite.
Oh! So you mean "useless" in comparison to the old CE? Well that's something else entirely. I never meant to imply that Pathfinder's CE was equal to previous incarnations - only that it's not worthless (see also Aldin's math above). Yes, it is weaker. No, it is not worthless.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.Hardly. You can now only get a +2 or +3 bonus at the same point you could get a +5 bonus to AC. That's 10 to 15% greater chance to dodge an attack. There's no anecdotes there; just hard facts.
You don't get that with the current CE until level 16. Six.Teen.
No, it's still worthless because you are only getting 1+1/4BAB to AC. It might be useful up to about 5th level at which point monsters are quickly going to exceed any armor you can produce as a non-caster. Trying to win a cold war of AC vs creature to-hit will ALWAYS lose for you unless you are a caster. The slow speed at which Combat Expertise increases does nothing to help this.
Or a nifty houserule might be to waive those requirements if the character takes several weeks to study the maneuver with a master before being able to use it.
Or maybe they could sneak something like Training into Ultimate Combat?
Finicky pre-reqs and stepping-stone feats must go.
They're becoming more of a pain with each new book.
Can you imagine if halfway decent spells required you to fill other good slots with lousy spells before you could prepare them?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sounds like you're coming round to seeing our point.
Not exactly. I was never of the position that there was no room for improvement or that the CE feat tree as it now stands is perfect. I've just been trying to say the following:
• Combat Expertise is not a worthless feat.
• Combat Expertise is not an unreasonable prereq for the associated CM feats (note the difference between "perfect" and "not unreasonable"). Relatedly, this means it is not "pure feat tax".
• Int 13 is also not an unreasonable prereq for CE or its related CM feats, especially given what someone else pointed out about the lack of a training mechanic in Pathfinder.
• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly.
...I think that's it. What did you *think* I was saying?
Or a nifty houserule might be to waive those requirements if the character takes several weeks to study the maneuver with a master before being able to use it.Or maybe they could sneak something like Training into Ultimate Combat?
Finicky pre-reqs and stepping-stone feats must go.
They're becoming more of a pain with each new book.
Not a bad idea. I'll back it. Of course UC is probably already with the printers, but maybe some time in the future.
I understand your point about pre-req frustration, even if I don't fully agree. I kind of like the requirement to build up a chain of feats to reach an end goal. But I like the idea of being able, through something like training, to waive some pre-reqs.
• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly.
Please proceed to explain why, in detail, that assertion is silly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, it's still worthless because you are only getting 1+1/4BAB to AC. It might be useful up to about 5th level at which point monsters are quickly going to exceed any armor you can produce as a non-caster. Trying to win a cold war of AC vs creature to-hit will ALWAYS lose for you unless you are a caster. The slow speed at which Combat Expertise increases does nothing to help this.
You seem to be confusing "worthless" with "not good enough". Big difference there. It's not like the CE bonus to AC doesn't stack with your armor. Whatever the odds of getting hit were without CE, CE makes those odds smaller. Just a second ago you were expressing interest in cold hard facts, and now you're ignoring that every point of AC you gain is another 5% of d20 rolls that don't hit you. Your refutation of that math would be what, exactly?
EDIT:
• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly.Please proceed to explain why, in detail, that assertion is silly.
I'd be happy to do so, just as soon as you explain why, in detail, a feat that increases your AC is entirely devoid of worth. ;)
|
|
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]
You missed the point;
Minimum Int to practice a physical action over and over till you get it right: 13
Minimum Int to crack open the bonds of reality with but a thought, infinite times per day: 10
Int has zero to do with expertise, yet the martial PCs are forced to invest in a stat that has no bearing on the action.
You perform disarms equally well at Int 20 as Int 13 as long as all other stats and feats are equal. In practice, under a point-buy system, the Int 20 fighter performs disarms worse, since to get that 20 Int, he had to sacrifice the very stats that modify the disarm bonus.
If Int were truly relevant to the performing of disarms/trips, etc, the bonus would be improved in some fashion, proportional to the Int bonus.
The fact it is not, proves the assertion that Int is not, and never was, a prerequisite, either for the Maneuver feats, or any gateway feats that lead to them.
|
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.
"Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to *select* or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite."
Hmmm... Well, I was wrong about being able to take the feat even if you can't use it. So, my follow up below is moot.
"A character can’t use a feat if he *loses* a prerequisite, but he does not *lose* the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables."
In regards to touch of idiocy (which I meant, not enfeeblement): the above text says you can't use a feat if you LOSE the pre-req. As I agreed before, this would disable Combat Expertise, because you lose the INT. BUT, since you don't LOSE Combat Expertise, the character could still use the rest of the descending feat tree (and thus the various combat maneuver feats), even with Combat Expertise disabled.
Now, either the designers wrote that on purpose, or I'm abusing a loophole. I can't be sure which. OR there's RAW somewhere else that errata's or contradicts the above text. BUT, I stand by my statement that nerfing an entire feat tree through the use of a 2nd level spell is a bit overpowered and thus choose to interpret it in this manner.
EDIT:
I'd be happy to do so, just as soon as you explain why, in detail, a feat that increases your AC is entirely devoid of worth. ;)• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly.Please proceed to explain why, in detail, that assertion is silly.
Should I repeat myself or just provide links to the at least 2 other posts on this page where I already did so?
|
|
Not exactly. I was never of the position that there was no room for improvement or that the CE feat tree as it now stands is perfect. I've just been trying to say the following:
• Combat Expertise is not a worthless feat.
• Combat Expertise is not an unreasonable prereq for the associated CM feats (note the difference between "perfect" and "not unreasonable"). Relatedly, this means it is not "pure feat tax".
• Int 13 is also not an unreasonable prereq for CE or its related CM feats, especially given what someone else pointed out about the lack of a training mechanic in Pathfinder.
• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly....I think that's it. What did you *think* I was saying?
That you conceded that the Int requirement should not be the only path to those feats.
That experience and repetition (represented via BAB) can and will hardwire the reflexes as well as classroom theory at duelling school.You even said you thought the proposed BAB threshold be lower than the poster who suggested it in the first place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In regards to touch of idiocy (which I meant, not enfeeblement): the above text says you can't use a feat if you LOSE the pre-req. As I agreed before, this would disable Combat Expertise, because you lose the INT. BUT, since you don't LOSE Combat Expertise, the character could still use the rest of the descending feat tree (and thus the various combat maneuver feats), even with Combat Expertise disabled.
Now, either the designers wrote that on purpose, or I'm abusing a loophole. I can't be sure which. OR there's RAW somewhere else that errata's or contradicts the above text. BUT, I stand by my statement that nerfing an entire feat tree through the use of a 2nd level spell is a bit overpowered and thus choose to interpret it in this manner.
Well, I suppose it's worth an FAQ.
I'll be more than happy to be wrong, since, I agree, losing half your class features from a low-level spell or poison does mightily suck, and no doubt puts off many players from gambling on Combat Expertise unless they can weather an unexpected drop in Int.|
|
You even said you thought the proposed BAB threshold be lower than the poster who suggested it in the first place.
Now that I have been looking a bit more into my own suggestion about having the 'either or' prereq, I actually stand by the BAB +6 req.
Reason: It is actually a fantastic way to balance out some of the min maxing people do with fighters. More often than not, Int will be the lowest stat a warrior has sometimes in extremes when using the point buy system like people have already said. Having the fighter wait til 6 to get expertise will prevent the min maxer from quickly creating an overpowered character at lower levels. May not delay it by much but it certainly forces the player to rethink their build plan to accommodate for desired skills.
Do i want that 18 STR now and just wait to get CE?
Or should i drop the min into int so i can get those feats earlier?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Should I repeat myself or just provide links to the at least 2 other posts on this page where I already did so?
You have indeed critiqued it, and even shown empirically that it is worse than previous versions of CE. However, this all showed that it has less value than before and that it does not have enough value to be worthwhile (in your opinion). These are both different things than "worthless", which means that it has exactly zero value. Zero is different than "less" - to someone playing Pathfinder and not 3.0 or 3.5, the relative power levels may not matter. Zero is different than "not enough" - that is typically a matter of opinion, and opinions vary; zero does not vary.
Now, lest someone try to say that I'm being too literal, let me point out that a few posts back I came to the conclusion that "worthless" was mere hyperbole, referring to the aforementioned descriptions of CE having been nerfed beyond your liking. But you refuted that, claiming that it was, in fact, "worthless".
Meanwhile, it has already been pointed out that the AC bonus provided by CE translates to a 5%-per-point reduction in the number of d20 rolls capable of hitting the user of CE. In order for this to be worthless, you need to do one of the following:
• Show that CE does not, in fact, reduce the frequency of hits.
• Show that the reduction in hit frequency does not, in fact, affect the outcome of combat in any quantifiable way.
If you can do neither - if all you can do is reiterate CE's worth relative to either its previous incarnations or your power level preference - then it cannot be called "worthless". Underpowered? Perhaps. A feat better spent elsewhere? Sure. And you've made cases for both of those. But your word (a word which you defended as being literal) was "worthless". A case for that has NOT been made.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not exactly. I was never of the position that there was no room for improvement or that the CE feat tree as it now stands is perfect. I've just been trying to say the following:
• Combat Expertise is not a worthless feat.
• Combat Expertise is not an unreasonable prereq for the associated CM feats (note the difference between "perfect" and "not unreasonable"). Relatedly, this means it is not "pure feat tax".
• Int 13 is also not an unreasonable prereq for CE or its related CM feats, especially given what someone else pointed out about the lack of a training mechanic in Pathfinder.
• Certain types of complaints in this thread, such as "I shouldn't need a prerequisite for the CM feats", are silly....I think that's it. What did you *think* I was saying?
That you conceded that the Int requirement should not be the only path to those feats.
That experience and repetition (represented via BAB) can and will hardwire the reflexes as well as classroom theory at duelling school.You even said you thought the proposed BAB threshold be lower than the poster who suggested it in the first place.
How does any of that conflict with what I said in the above quote?
Do i want that 18 STR now and just wait to get CE?
My aforementioned CE fighter has 18 STR and 13 INT at level 2, under the 20-point-buy system in PFS. Even so, I like your idea overall.
EDIT: Dangit, how do I always get ninja'd into oblivion on one post and not on the second so I keep double-posting? :(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
i dont understand why its needed for whirlwind attack, but thats just me
Oh yeah, WWA... Gonna have to agree on that one. Seems more like a variation on Cleave, to me. But as so many fighters (at least in my experience) tend to min-max into DPR-focused cleavers anyway, tossing a WWA to them would probably be broken. So yeah, not great, but I'm not sure of a better option.
|
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]You missed the point;
Minimum Int to practice a physical action over and over till you get it right: 13
Minimum Int to crack open the bonds of reality with but a thought, infinite times per day: 10
Int has zero to do with expertise, yet the martial PCs are forced to invest in a stat that has no bearing on the action.
You perform disarms equally well at Int 20 as Int 13 as long as all other stats and feats are equal. In practice, under a point-buy system, the Int 20 fighter performs disarms worse, since to get that 20 Int, he had to sacrifice the very stats that modify the disarm bonus.If Int were truly relevant to the performing of disarms/trips, etc, the bonus would be improved in some fashion, proportional to the Int bonus.
The fact it is not, proves the assertion that Int is not, and never was, a prerequisite, either for the Maneuver feats, or any gateway feats that lead to them.
I see no one notice this part of the post:
"The whole feat tree starting with combat expertise is the intelligent and/or dexterous fighter archetype.(not in game sense but from fiction or reality). Not the "brute" 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."
(italicized part added)
The feat don't give better return if you are more intelligent, like dodge don't get better return if you are more dexterous, deadly aim effect don't increase if you have more dexterity, and so on.
It the above characteristic are really relevant to get the feat, why they don't increase it?
Wow , I have just proved that you don't need dexterity to be a deadly archer or dodge something. [/sarcasm]
No one "force" to buy CE, so no one "force" you to have 13 intelligence.
If you want to have CE you need 13 intelligence; it is very different to being forced.
The feat prerequisite can be better, but if you want to play Errol Flynn or Cyrano you need good intelligence.
Minimum Int to crack open the bonds of reality with but a thought, infinite times per day: 10
Really? Better life through cantrips?
i dont mind the combat exp. pre-req for maneuvers. it keeps people from min-maxing them to the hits at character creation, or at least makes it harder.
I would lay money that this is the reason it's still there. And I like it for that reason. I'd be fine with removing the feat itself as a pre-req, but I'd prefer the INT pre-req be transferred over to the feats.
I'd say Improved Trip is worth two feats - I've certainly read enough guides built on it to make me think some others agree. And I have a trip fighter in PFS. As Jiggy has said, you can get 13 INT, 18 STR, and 15-16 DEX at level 1 with a 20-point buy, though you do need one mild dump stat.
At first level you can trip like a monster (combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip), and hit dang near as hard as those with a 20 STR. After those feats, you're free to pick whatever you want (keeping an eye out for Greater Trip). That's...not that restrictive in my book.
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.
A 15 point human fighter can, without dumping, make the requirements for Power attack, two weapon fighting and combat expertise and have enough points left over to get a con bonus. Hell, you even get a relatively realistic stat line.
It isn't by any means going to be winning medals at the DPS awards or be the toast of the Optimisers ball, but it is playable.
|
|
I see no one notice this part of the post:
"The whole feat tree starting with combat expertise is the intelligent and/or dexterous fighter archetype.(not in game sense but from fiction or reality). Not the "brute" 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.".
What the anti-CE crowd are saying, is that Int 12 is not a mindless brute.
Int 11 is not a mindless brute.Int 10 is not a mindless brute.
Int 9 is not a mindless brute.
Int 8 is not a mindless brute.
Int 7? Is that a mindless brute?
Int 6?
Int 5?
At what point does the 'mindless brute' pejorative start to apply?
Int 1 or 2 is animal intelligence. Wolves perform Trip maneuvers all day without incurring AoO. Why can't my Int 12 Fighter, who is brighter than about 3/4 of the population?
And how low a stat has to be, before it is defined as min-maxing dump-statting, is subjective, but I would hazard a guess that for most people, the 10-12 range is not it.
|
|
And how low a stat has to be, before it is defined as min-maxing dump-statting, is subjective, but I would hazard a guess that for most people, the 10-12 range is not it.
As explained by Sirgog on the ddo forums, this might make more sense to what an ability score means for the character.
Alternately (and I prefer this method), if you've done any statistics, you can extrapolate from the approximation that is 3d6 that the mean ability score is 10.5, and the standard deviation is about 3. Assuming a normal distribution, this ends up meaning that 50% of people have 10 or less, 84% of people have 13 or less, and 97.5% of people have 16 or less in a given score. Continuing this pattern, 75 people in 100, 000 have a score of 20 or more in a given attribute, and 1 in 100, 000 has 23 or more.So that would make the scores mean the following (I'll take Constitution and Intelligence as examples)
4 Con: Frail. Can walk 200 metres with the help of a frame, then is exhausted.
4 Int: Generally considered mentally retarded. Vocabulary/memory of a three-year-old.7 Con: Can run 400 metres, then is puffed and unable to continue.
7 Int: Completed Year 10 education, failed year 11 and dropped out10 Con: Can run a kilometre, very uncompetitive time
10 Int: Completed Year 12, average results13 Con: Can run 5 kilometres in a time that would be good enough for third place in a typical school race (assuming about 20 in the race)
13 Int: A-grade student at school, C-grade at university16 Con: One of the best in their year level at their school in long-distance, didn't set any records.
16 Int: Top of the class at school, A- grade student at university18 Con: Marathon runner, never wins but always finishes well
18 Int: A+ student at university, considered a genius21 Con: Marathon runner, world class, Olympic medal prospect but probably not taking home the gold
21 Int: Respected authority in their field, not a household name (e.g. Emmy Noether, mathematician)24 Con: Capable of feats of endurance that make people think OMG***BBQ - able to run at a solid pace (say 15kph) for 24 hours, swim non-stop in frozen water for 24 hours, etc.
24 Int: World-renowned authority in their field, made major quantum leaps in ideas, household name (e.g. Albert Einstein, physicist)
|
|
I see no one notice this part of the post:
"The whole feat tree starting with combat expertise is the intelligent and/or dexterous fighter archetype.(not in game sense but from fiction or reality). Not the "brute" 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.".What the anti-CE crowd are saying, is that Int 12 is not a mindless brute.
Int 11 is not a mindless brute.
Int 10 is not a mindless brute.
Int 9 is not a mindless brute.
Int 8 is not a mindless brute.
Int 7? Is that a mindless brute?
Int 6?
Int 5?
At what point does the 'mindless brute' pejorative start to apply?Int 1 or 2 is animal intelligence. Wolves perform Trip maneuvers all day without incurring AoO. Why can't my Int 12 Fighter, who is brighter than about 3/4 of the population?
And how low a stat has to be, before it is defined as min-maxing dump-statting, is subjective, but I would hazard a guess that for most people, the 10-12 range is not it.
You argument is so weak that you have to add "mindless" 6 times to get somewhere?
Or you simply failed to notice that I used the definition "brute" without any pejorative?
It is simply a different archetype, one that live by using strength instead of finesse. You would feel better if I call it the the "strong" archetype? It will change something?
|
|
The feat don't give better return if you are more intelligent, like dodge don't get better return if you are more dexterous, deadly aim effect don't increase if you have more dexterity, and so on.
It the above characteristic are really relevant to get the feat, why they don't increase it?
Wow , I have just proved that you don't need dexterity to be a deadly archer or dodge something. [/sarcasm]
If you're trying to be sarcastic, you'll have to try harder than that.
The position is, that the Int stat has no relevance to the success of combat maneuvers.
If Int were relevant, it would increase CMB.
The 20 Int swashbuckling Renaissance Man would be better at disarming than the 13 Int knuckledragging fighter who is barely above a mindless brute.*
Yet he is not. His Int score is utterly irrelevant.
In a point-buy game, he would even be worse, as he would have had to sacrifice stats that do contribute to CMB.
You bringing Dex into a discussion of Deadly Aim, or dodge bonus to AC, is a strawman, since Dex does, in fact, contribute to both.
Therefore investing in Dex makes sense for a PC who wishes to excel at either.
Dex: contributes to Dex-based activities for which it is a prerequisite.
Int: does not contribute to activities for which it is a prerequisite.
Which one of those situations is a better model?
*That was sarcasm, since failure to qualify for CE apparently puts one in the mindless brute category. Apparently Int 12 PCs need carers to help them go wee-wee. They could certainly never grasp the basics of a pre-teen judo class.
The feat prerequisite can be better, but if you want to play Errol Flynn or Cyrano you need good intelligence.
I'll have to pass making judgment on Errol Flynn's intelligence, since for all I know, he could have been a genius. However, what little I have heard of him paints the picture of the quintessential dumb jock, whose brain was ruled by his groin.
Cyrano, on the other hand, I'll grant was well-read, and was remarked for it among his peers.
But, getting me to admit his intelligence alone will not win you the argument.
You have to show that his skill with a blade was directly attributable to that intelligence. Not simply something he learned with practice, while simultaneously pursuing the totally unrelated literary arts.
Maybe, had he not had his head so often in a book, his duelling skills may have been even better?
Maybe, had he not been such a dreamer, he would have spotted the assassin that dealt him the fatal blow?
Ok....so because people who like to do math all day has declared CE useless it is useless...I am with another posters CE is a pretty good feat....but I won't get in to it here.
This is not about all the CM feats requiring CE...as they don't
Power Attack is needed for Overrun, Sunder, drag, and Bull rush.
Improved Unarmed is needed for grapple.
Combat Expertise is needed for Trip, Disarm, Steal, Dirty Fighting, Repopsition.
Looking at what the Combat Expertise represents itr makes perfect sense to me.....heck I would probably just add that as a houserule if they did not have it this way.
To me though people are saying all CMs are barred from fighters with a int less than 13...which is not true...only half of them are( and who knows what UC will contain).
Also a minor point you can build a fighter who can trip a enemy....you just suffer the AoO...but unlike previous editions this does not stop the attempt cold. You just take the damage as a penalty to your roll...
|
|
You argument is so weak that you have to add "mindless" 6 times to get somewhere?
Or you simply failed to notice that I used the definition "brute" without any pejorative?
It is simply a different archetype, one that live by using strength instead of finesse. You would feel better if I call it the the "strong" archetype? It will change something?
Other people have used the term 'mindless'. Maybe not you, but others who are arguing for the same status quo.
The point is, we are told that the Int requirement must stay, to punish the cynical min-maxers, who dump their stats to the level of morons.
I say, Int 12 is not moronic, and is not even a dump-stat.
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.
A 15 point human fighter can, without dumping, make the requirements for Power attack, two weapon fighting and combat expertise and have enough points left over to get a con bonus. Hell, you even get a relatively realistic stat line.
It isn't by any means going to be winning medals at the DPS awards or be the toast of the Optimisers ball, but it is playable.
Depends from your concept of "playable" I guess. Moreover, I wonder why this character should be penalized compared to a THF one, just to trying to play a "classic".
Removed a post and its reply. Please don't use the word "rape" in that fashion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone ever hear the phrase "fight smarter"?
i know the flavor intent behind the requirement, but there's already a martial class that gives options for int fighters (duelist)
i've grown quite fond of the fighter class since PRPG Core came out, and this int 13 is a constant pain in the bee-hind for everyone that likes to play a fighter... it's the killer of progression planning
power attack is the entry feat for the sunder/bull rush gang... all CMB maneuvres rely on STR unless you take Agile Maneuvre, so it's kind of silly to have an int requirement for the entry feat that gives you disarm, trip....
the feat tax for improved grapple is the worst IMO (improved unarmed strike, which I take for flavor and bar fights)
but yeah, for a fighter who wants improved grapple, improved disarm and improved sunder, he will waste 2 feats (the third ain't really a waste as power attack is always good)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: Combat Maneuvers are definitely something the intelligent fighter will use, but they are in no way, shape, or form even remotely so exclusive to that archetype that the feats should be locked behind the Combat Expertise feat. What do you do with Combat Maneuvers? You push people around (Bull Rush). You knock them down (Trip). You take their stuff, or break it. (Disarm, Sunder) You throw dirt in their eyes (Dirty Trick). These are the province of brutes and bullies as much as elite warriors. Feinting is honestly the only one I can think of where Combat Expertise would be a remotely sensible prerequisite.