| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's also an even stat, and buying nothing but even statistics does not need to be rewarded further by opening up a feat tree.
This is not new, different, or exciting. The Dodge tree requires 13 Dex. The Power Attack tree requires 13 Strength. Stunning Fist requires 13 Wis. Two-Weapon fighting requires 15, 17, and 19 for the various levels. Noticing any trends? Can you name one possible reason that the Int tree should be different then just about every other core feat with a stat requirements needed an odd number?
Oh. Because it's depriving you of a precious dump stat.
|
What if Combat Expertise allowed you to add Int to CMB and CMD (maybe only for the Combat Maneuvers it's a prereq for, maybe for all of them?) and was the prereq for a feat that added Int to melee weapon damage? Would that help?
Not really. Now fighters can't trade their attack bonus (which they have a lot of) for AC. They have to pump Int to get any use out of the feat. Meanwhile wizards are like "free CMB/D boost based on my primary stat? YES PLEASE".
This is not new, different, or exciting. The Dodge tree requires 13 Dex. The Power Attack tree requires 13 Strength. Stunning Fist requires 13 Wis. Two-Weapon fighting requires 15, 17, and 19 for the various levels. Noticing any trends?
Yes - casters are allowed to have dump stats, non-casters aren't, for no given reason other then "I love wizards SO MUCH!"
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.
Just want to point out...I guess you missed my post...
but as of Pathfinder...YOU DON"T NEED COMBAT expertise to bull rush, sunder...or a couple of other maneuvers.
Actualy you don't need feats to use any maneuver either.
Okay! New rule!
Charm Person/Monster requires 15 Cha.
Well actualy with the opposed rolls for charm type spells being Cha. based it is already there.
Okay! New rule!
Charm Person/Monster requires 15 Cha.
Comprehend Languages requires 13 Int.
Crushing Hand requires 13 Str.
Cure Light Wounds requires 14 Wis.
Haste requires 15 Dex.
Detect Secret Doors requires 13 Wis.
Elemental Body requires 14 Con.
More to come, friends!
Ah...so let me guess you are a big fan of 3.0 Psionics?
This is not new, different, or exciting. The Dodge tree requires 13 Dex. The Power Attack tree requires 13 Strength. Stunning Fist requires 13 Wis. Two-Weapon fighting requires 15, 17, and 19 for the various levels. Noticing any trends?Yes - casters are allowed to have dump stats, non-casters aren't, for no given reason other then "I love wizards SO MUCH!"
Nothing says you can't dump Int. You just can't go expertise fighter.
If a caster dumps strength and/or dex, they're going to suck for a REALLY long time at touch attack spells, if they dump con they're asking to die, if they dump wis, well... it's fine for them for the most part, but the party probably won't appreciate the charm person fireball.
I guess they can dump charisma without hurting some aspect of their character, but most non-casters can do the same damn thing.
Okay! New rule!
Charm Person/Monster requires 15 Cha.
Comprehend Languages requires 13 Int.
Crushing Hand requires 13 Str.
Cure Light Wounds requires 14 Wis.
Haste requires 15 Dex.
Detect Secret Doors requires 13 Wis.
Elemental Body requires 14 Con.
More to come, friends!
Sure. Make it so all the casting classes use the same primary casting stat like all melee classes use strength, and I'm on board.
And don't even dare mention finesse. That's an option that's provided to give non-casting classes even MORE of an opportunity to have dump stats.
Nothing says you can't dump Int. You just can't go expertise fighter.
If a caster dumps strength and/or dex, they're going to suck for a REALLY long time at touch attack spells, if they dump con they're asking to die, if they dump wis, well... it's fine for them for the most part, but the party probably won't appreciate the charm person fireball.
I guess they can dump charisma without hurting some aspect of their character, but most non-casters can do the same damn thing.
Con isn't a dump stat for anyone.
Wizards can do just fine with low dexterity. Touch spells are just that - touch spells. They don't hit AC. And even then, what touch spells are you using?
Wizards have high will, so they don't need wisdom either.
No need for strength, naturally.
And no big need for charisma as it's easily made up for.
Casters need two stats: Prime casting stat and constitution. Everything else is a dump stat.
Wizards can do just fine with low dexterity. Touch spells are just that - touch spells. They don't hit AC. And even then, what touch spells are you using?
Strength, for the most part, I will give you. Dex - No. I vehemently refuse to believe that any legitimately played and leveled wizard has a Dex of less then 10. not choosing to increase a stat is NOT a "dump stat". Dexterity is not a dump stat for casters. Casters need the AC, they need the initiative bonus, and they need the bonus on ranged touch attacks.
Yes, touch ACs are lower. However, you are forgetting about the penalties. Most casters do not have precise shot, so add 4. If you're an 11th level caster that tanked your dex and you're trying to disintegrate something, after factoring melee penalties most of the things I checked came to about a 60/40 to 50/50% chance. NOT what I want to be risking my spells on. To me, this means ranged touch spells (of which there are a lot of really good ones) are out of the question.
Wizards have high will, so they don't need wisdom either.
Not needing to increase is, again, not the same as a dump stat.
No need for strength, naturally.
Agreed. Strength can be a dump stat, but it comes with a heavy risk of being grappled. Especially if you also dump dex, then we're talking about "getting grappled by kobolds." territory.
And no big need for charisma as it's easily made up for.
Agreed again.
Casters need two stats: Prime casting stat and constitution. Everything else is a dump stat.
Sorry, but wrong. There are PLENTY of incentives NOT to dump stats with casters. Is it possible - Yes. But I can also come up with pretty much any non-caster class that can viably dump 3 stats too.
(STUPID BROKEN QUOTE TAGS)
Next rule. All classes use Int for Spells known, Wis for spells per day, and Cha for save DCs.
Sure. Make it so all the casting classes use the same primary casting stat like all melee classes use strength, and I'm on board.
Meh, 1/10. You're not effectively mirroring any non-caster detriment here. Everyone needs Con, and arguably Dex (Because they didn't do anything in Pathfinder to make it so that Dex wasn't the One Stat to Rule Them All, in fact they made it worse with Dervish Dance)
You can do better than that.
True, but there's still degrees. The difference between Dex 14 and Dex 18, or Con 14 and Con 18, is dramatically worse for a Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger than it is for a Wizard or Sorcerer (on average, specific builds, obviously, may vary.) A Wizard with Con 10 has a better chance of surviving if played carefully than a Fighter with Con 10. Does that mean no one has ever played a Con 18 Wizard or a Con 10 Fighter? Of course not. But they're rarer for a reason.
Again, not raising something is not a "dump stat." People complaining about the Int 13 requirement are just upset that they cannot use Int as a dump stat on their fighter. They'd be complaining if there was a requirement of 12, 11, or probably even 10.
|
True, but there's still degrees. The difference between Dex 14 and Dex 18, or Con 14 and Con 18, is dramatically worse for a Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger than it is for a Wizard or Sorcerer (on average, specific builds, obviously, may vary.) A Wizard with Con 10 has a better chance of surviving if played carefully than a Fighter with Con 10. Does that mean no one has ever played a Con 18 Wizard or a Con 10 Fighter? Of course not. But they're rarer for a reason.Again, not raising something is not a "dump stat." People complaining about the Int 13 requirement are just upset that they cannot use Int as a dump stat on their fighter. They'd be complaining if there was a requirement of 12, 11, or probably even 10.
Already done in this thread.
I suggested the alternate options:
requirement Dex 13 and Int 10 or Dex 10 and Int 13
as the archetype is the dexterous or intelligent fighter
the reply was a tirade about the mindless brute and how a 7 int guy is not stupid.
That's putting words in the mouths of people who disagree with you. I think an Int 11 requirement would sit better with a lot of people. I also think there are complaints about this feat other than the Int requirement.
You're right, I am, though in one case as the poster above points out, it was already said. And if this argument hadn't been had countless times before pathfinder even existed, I'd probably feel bad about it.
The complaints about the feat I'm more sympathetic to, but there are plenty of "stepstone" feats that aren't that great in lots of other categories as well, such as Dodge and Mobility. It's jut like every other game, they are there to gate people from having the best abilities right away. They're arbitrary limitations put in place for game balance - the same reason only fighters get weapon specialization (discounting the odd prestige class or archetype), and the same reason there are bab limitations on things like improved critical.
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".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.
Playable = Can in a balanced non-optimised party of four, defeat most encounters of up to +4 CR.
Their are other ways to play the sword and board classic. A sword and boarder doesn't 'need' to be a SM specialist, sheild basher and power attacker all at the same time, and such characters probably shouldn't be built under a 15 point build. All that said, he isn't even really penalised, he might do less damage, that a guy with a two handed weapon, but he is far better able to operate alone, has a better armour class and reflex save, more skills. The only way he 'suffers' is if DPR optimisation is how you measure his success as a character.
He might not do vast damage, but this dude can hold a choke point for a long old time.
|
[sarcasm]Yeah, because fighters should only be two-handed weapon wielding meat grinders.[/sarcasm]
We are playing Kingmaker. A fighter in the group has 31 AC. At level 5. He constantly misses with his longsword, but i need a 20 with most monsters just to hit him. And he did it completely legally. He can hold a choke point for hours, as long as there are no spellcasters and no touch attacks. God forbid if he started usgin defensive fighting and CE.
To all people who dump int with fighters and then can't take CE: Serves you right for minmaxing.
I believe that the int 13 requirement is there solely to piss off minmaxers. And i love it for that.
[sarcasm]Yeah, because fighters should only be two-handed weapon wielding meat grinders.[/sarcasm]
We are playing Kingmaker. A fighter in the group has 31 AC. At level 5. He constantly misses with his longsword, but i need a 20 with most monsters just to hit him. And he did it completely legally. He can hold a choke point for hours, as long as there are no spellcasters and no touch attacks. God forbid if he started usgin defensive fighting and CE.
To all people who dump int with fighters and then can't take CE: Serves you right for minmaxing.
I believe that the int 13 requirement is there solely to piss off minmaxers. And i love it for that.
Minmaxers aren't making fighters, hth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[sarcasm]Yeah, because fighters should only be two-handed weapon wielding meat grinders.[/sarcasm]
We are playing Kingmaker. A fighter in the group has 31 AC. At level 5. He constantly misses with his longsword, but i need a 20 with most monsters just to hit him. And he did it completely legally. He can hold a choke point for hours, as long as there are no spellcasters and no touch attacks. God forbid if he started usgin defensive fighting and CE.
To all people who dump int with fighters and then can't take CE: Serves you right for minmaxing.
I believe that the int 13 requirement is there solely to piss off minmaxers. And i love it for that.
And what hurdles are there in place for minmaxing wizards? The most powerful class in the game?
Would you be okay with Combat Casting having a strength requirement of 13, and be the prerequisite for half the metamagic feats?
[sarcasm]Yeah, because fighters should only be two-handed weapon wielding meat grinders.[/sarcasm]
We are playing Kingmaker. A fighter in the group has 31 AC. At level 5. He constantly misses with his longsword, but i need a 20 with most monsters just to hit him. And he did it completely legally. He can hold a choke point for hours, as long as there are no spellcasters and no touch attacks. God forbid if he started usgin defensive fighting and CE.
To all people who dump int with fighters and then can't take CE: Serves you right for minmaxing.
I believe that the int 13 requirement is there solely to piss off minmaxers. And i love it for that.
And what hurdles are there in place for minmaxing wizards? The most powerful class in the game?
Would you be okay with Combat Casting having a strength requirement of 13, and be the prerequisite for half the metamagic feats?
I'd be entirely fine with combat casting having a physical pre-req. I'd also be fine with a feat pre-req on metamagic feats. Not sure that combat casting would be appropreate, as the is no logical or thematic link between it and metamagic. Those links do exist betweem ce and cm feats.
|
|
And what hurdles are there in place for minmaxing wizards? The most powerful class in the game?Would you be okay with Combat Casting having a strength requirement of 13, and be the prerequisite for half the metamagic feats?
Well, you don't need trip disarm etc... to be good at fighting and dish out enormous amounts of damage. If combat expertise was a prerequisite for vital strike, i would complain. As written, it is good.
A minmaxing wizard will most probably dump str or cha...a shadow will use that to kill him very fast.
If i get a minmaxer in my group, i usually start using monsters that attack the stat he dumped. That teaches them not to minmax.
As for combat casting, i would rather give it a prereq of dex 13 and it to be a required feat for focus on evocation spells and empower and maximize spell feats. How's that?
And the point of pf is that the classes work together, not against each other. So what if the wizard is powerful? He blows through his spells and he is dead. Figther can swing a sword all day long and take the punishment.
|
Combat Expertise is not intended for fighters that you want as dumb as the Hulk.
Int 12 is not dumb.
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.
But that's no what people are complaining about. They're complaining that they can't take the feat for their Int 7 or Int 5 dumb as a rock fighters.
Hmm. I'm pretty sure Axl was complaining about it not being available to an Int 12 PC. It's there, in his post you quoted.
As was I. As have lots of people.I also believe it should be available for Int 11, Int 10, Int 9, certainly anyone who is not below the 3d6 mid-range.
Int 8 or less?
Well, there's where a case could be made, but an equally compelling case can certainly made that anything a dog can do, a human should be smart enough to do.
But then, that's opening up that whole can of worms from the Animal Companion rules, re animals having 'a different kind of intelligence', to explain why an Int 2 dog is bright and alert, while an Int 7 PC is deemed to be a drooling cretin. Yet at the same time, a dog who gets its Int raised into the teens isn't allowed to perform tasks that an Int 3 human gets handwaved away.
It is indeed a most perplexing conundrum.
|
|
This is not new, different, or exciting. The Dodge tree requires 13 Dex. The Power Attack tree requires 13 Strength. Stunning Fist requires 13 Wis. Two-Weapon fighting requires 15, 17, and 19 for the various levels. Noticing any trends? Can you name one possible reason that the Int tree should be different then just about every other core feat with a stat requirements needed an odd number?
Oh. Because it's depriving you of a precious dump stat.
It's different, since those other stats are related to their respective feat chains. Int is completely irrelevant to the learning, or success of the feat chain it is made a prereq for.
That is unacceptable for many.If we have to have a stat requirement, why not Dex?
And Int 12 is not a dump stat.
Even if you run your games with 50 point-buy, so the players have plenty to go round, an ability that is higher than the human average can hardly be said to be dumped.
In a game with 15 point-buy, Int 12 is highly intelligent.
If you choose to run your games so that you punish anyone for having a 12 or less in any stat, then you're playing a very different game from the majority.
There may be value in having heroes with a flattened array, to simulate more rounded backgrounds. Let us know how it goes.
|
Combat Expertise is not intended for fighters that you want as dumb as the Hulk.Depends which Hulk your discussing, really.
Are we talking Green, Grey or Red?
Or She-Hulk?
Cos she's a lawyer. And she hung out with Reed Richards.
More hilariously, Marvel says the reason that Hulk doesn't hurt that many people during his rampages is that he is doing geometric calculations to prevent people from dying while he's rampaging.
The accepted reason for Marvel's ridiculous claim is that Hulk isn't a killer.
But back to PF, the lack of scaling on many things really hurt the system once it's been broken down and understood.
@People who talk about how great CE is for Wizards
But then they'd be in melee.
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.Just want to point out...I guess you missed my post...
but as of Pathfinder...YOU DON"T NEED COMBAT expertise to bull rush, sunder...or a couple of other maneuvers.
Actually you don't need feats to use any maneuver either.
You don't need the Improved [Maneuver] feat to use a maneuver, but you do damn well need it to make any effective use of them, same as in 3.5. Every maneuver I can think of has more to do with brute force or speed than intelligence, nor do they have much to do with setting up a canny defense.
Put another way...I tried to customize Laori Vaus a bit for my home game. It's an essential part of her character that she's not terribly bright, but as a sadist with a spiked chain, Improved Trip would have been thematically perfect...but even if I were to boost her intelligence to above average, in contradiction to her character, she didn't have the feats to spare on Combat Expertise and Improved Trip.
|
|
Okay! New rule!
Charm Person/Monster requires 15 Cha.
Comprehend Languages requires 13 Int.
Crushing Hand requires 13 Str.
Cure Light Wounds requires 14 Wis.
Haste requires 15 Dex.
Detect Secret Doors requires 13 Wis.
Elemental Body requires 14 Con.
More to come, friends!
Empower Spell: 13 Str (the human body was not made to handle such forces). Only covers spell levels 1-3.
Improved Empower Spell: 15 Str and Empower Spell. Allows Empowering of spell levels 4-6.
Greater Empower Spell: 17 Str, Improved Empower Spell and Empower Spell. Covers spell levels 7-9.
Maximise Spell: 15 Str and Empower Spell (how can you possibly maximise, if you never learned to Empower? Crazy!). Covers spell levels 1-3.
Improved Maximise Spell: 17 Str, Empower Spell amd Maximise Spell. Allows Maximising of spell levels 4-6.
What do you think? Too lenient?
They're still way lower than the stat requirements for two-weapon fighting, which start at 15 and go up from there.
Edit:
I love how people can't argue their own point and so have to try and deflect the conversation to casters. I've already mentioned a caster feat chain that requires a stat normally dumped by wizards, eldritch heritage.
I'm a GM. I don't care about this because my own characters are at stake, I care about it because I try to balance the scene for the PCs.
Players who like playing martial characters can still get bored with stand and hack. Maneuvers are a great way to mix things up a bit, but they are locked away behind a feat nobody wants. That's a valid problem.
It's easily fixed via house rule, but it's not as though the current version of ComEx makes sense as a pre-requisite. Of course, my issues with feat pre-reqs run much deeper than this one feat.
It's all opinion in this thread, there's no need to belittle the opposition.
|
|
Edit:
I love how people can't argue their own point and so have to try and deflect the conversation to casters. I've already mentioned a caster feat chain that requires a stat normally dumped by wizards, eldritch heritage.
How is it deflecting the conversation?
The topic is about the need to encourage/enforce a well-balanced stat-line, to satisfy both the role-playing need for believable characters, and the gamist need for balance.
If there is a pressing need to make martial characters build up their mental stats, then there should be an equally pressing need to make intellectual characters build up their physical stats.
It's only fair.
Do you not agree?
Edit:
I love how people can't argue their own point and so have to try and deflect the conversation to casters. I've already mentioned a caster feat chain that requires a stat normally dumped by wizards, eldritch heritage.
Eldritch Heritage can also be taken by fighters. It's not a "caster feat chain". And guess what? Fighters are also known for normally dumping charisma!