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.
Here's some anecdotal evidence to add to the mix: My current TT character is level 11. His AC is 25 currently. Not exactly awesome, but I'm not sure how I'd go about getting it much better. Better enhancement and a ring of protection would add up, but I'd doubt he'd get into 30+ territory even then. I don't remember when an attack roll against him was less than 30. Basically, I could run around in my pyjamas, or I could throw every resource into AC, and the net outcome would, for all intents and purposes, amount to the same thing.
In short: I agree with Cartigan. You can't win the cold war. CE just makes you lose it faster by decreasing your odds for winning the damage race.
Edit: Actually, after re-reading my post "can't argue their own points" can be read as belittling. My apologies.
Apology sincerely accepted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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)
A wolf can inherently trip someone. Any idiot who can wrap a chain around your weapon can disarm you.
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]
You get a better to-hit as an archer with higher Dex. High Dex also gives you are higher AC bonus. Moreover, another feat with a pre-req like that DOES give you better returns for a higher ability score: Combat Reflexes. Combat Expertise does nothing related to Int other than to provide an ability score minimum requirement. Int gives you no bonus to AC. It gives you no bonus to hit to perform combat maneuvers. It literally does not remotely apply other than to give the feat an unnecessary pre-req.
If you want to have CE you need 13 intelligence; it is very different to being forced.
90% of people with CE don't want CE. They want the actually USEFUL feats that it is an unnecessary pre-req for. I am pretty sure both that percentage and the relative uselessness of CE are higher in Pathfinder than 3.5.
Really? Better life through cantrips?
Like creating water from nothing! Or detecting magic itself! Or firing cold laser beams at people or throwing acid you didn't previously possess at someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is always SAD when folks want to eliminate unusual requirements in the pursuit of exceptional abilities. I must be MAD to love the opportunities provided by the differentiations possible within a theme.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, the actual topic of conversation is combat expertise.
And the justification being given for the existence of Combat Expertise, both as a feat in its own right, and as a gateway to so many other feats, is that there is a 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.
Therefore, my post was not off-topic.Second requiring a single mid range mental stat to gain access to a variety of moves is not "encouraging a well-balanced stat-line." Heck, I don't even know what a well-balanced stat line is.
Well, it depends on how you define the PCs and their relation to their world. Do you run a game where the PCs are special by default? Each one is The Chosen One, The Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, Born Under a Bad Sign, The Kwisach Haderach? If you're giving them all 25+ point-buy, as a baseline, simply for having 'PC Name' entered on the top of their metaphorical sheet, then a balanced statline is going to vary wildly from a game where the PCs are Joe Everyman, Reluctant Hero, who finds the Baron has evicted his family, his cottage is burned down and runs into Sherwood Forest with only the pants he stands up in, and his woodcutter's axe.
The former approach is the 3.0 onwards approach ('The PCs will inevitably win, we're just going through the motions to see how they do it'), the latter is very much the 'old-school' one beloved of those who fondly recall rolling stats on 3d6, in order ('Let's see how far these chumps get before they die in a ditch').
In a 15 point-buy game, a balanced statline would be 13s in all 6 attributes. That would be a person who was a cut above the common herd in all areas. Any deviation from that requires some background explanation. The closer the PC is to that baseline, the more rounded, less cheesy he is seen. Wild swings, of a 7 here, to fund an 18 there, are defined as A Bad Thing.
Sorry; that's not really true, is it?
What I should have said was; wild swings are seen as a bad thing on martial PCs.
Because, for some reason, casters are allowed to do exactly that, with no derision, or condecension.
Martial PC, Str 16, Int 12: a filthy min-maxer, who deserves to be denied access to basic tools of his job.
Caster PC, Int 20, Str 5: a model of balanced character design. Well done.
Why the double-standard?
Why should a PC, who funds his moderately-high Str and Dex by only taking a 'mere' 12 Int, be locked out of many class abilities, when another player can be rewarded for creating a feeble melonhead, like The Mekon?
What I should have said was; wild swings are seen as a bad thing on martial PCs.
Because, for some reason, casters are allowed to do exactly that, with no derision, or condecension.
FWIW, YMMV, and all that. But in my experience, the difference is the attitude of the player.
Casters who dump STR/DEX/CON are mechanically guaranteed to be worthless in a lot of situations - melee, antimagic fields, creatures with high SR. The character then tries to avoid these situations, but generally dies if he fails. No one need to feel bad if this happens; the player just lost their gamble. When casters dump STR/DEX/CON, they are "maxmax"ing - maximizing strengths, but also maximizing the weaknesses of the class.
Melee characters who dump INT/CHR suffer from a minor mechanical penalty which is easily offset in a way that a low physical score cannot be. Many players feel the "balance" is that you have to play a dumb/uncharismatic character, based on the concept of ability scores and a plain reading of their definitions. Some players refuse, insisting that it isn't explicitly in the rules (see here if you're strong of stomach). They proceed to "play the role" of a character above average in those attributes, suffering only the small mechanical penalty.
This is "minmax"ing - minimizing weaknesses (through selective reading of text and exploiting points of poor system balance), while maximizing strengths. You'll find little love for this on the boards, or at the table. You'll similarly find little love if a caster complains that his STR/DEX/CON dumped character got ganked in melee.
By contrast, if the player of a melee character actually roleplays ("plays the role of") a low-INT/CHR/WIS character, I've seen very little hatred for dumping stats at the table. He's taken what many consider to be the full penalty, and while it might be boring, it can also be awesome. YMMV.
Edit: Added link to insanity.
A question: if trip is for smart-asses only, why a Barbarian with Int 3 can trip people with Knockdown?
A question: if trip is for smart-asses only, why a Barbarian with Int 3 can trip people with Knockdown?
Barbarians are secretly geniuses.
A question: if trip is for smart-asses only, why a Barbarian with Int 3 can trip people with Knockdown?
Hulk smash?
|
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.
And who need them when you have a 3.5 spiked chain with reach?
If you have converted her to Pathfinder she has 3 free feats:
the one for getting spiked chain for free and 2 extra for her level, plus a +2 in intelligence. Switch intelligence and dexterity and you are set.
And for her character her charisma is the important part, not the intelligence. The core of her character isn't that she isn't very bright but that she is weird, even for her cult standards.
|
|
Martial PC, Str 16, Int 12: a filthy min-maxer, who deserves to be denied access to basic tools of his job.
Caster PC, Int 20, Str 5: a model of balanced character design. Well done.
Please, show me where anyone has ever said this. I eagerly await the link. Until then this is a straw man. Logical fallacies have no place in an intelligent debate.
So, we're agreed, then?
You'll start using those new Str prereqs I suggested to access your next wizard's metamagic feats?
Secondly, "basic tools of his job" is an interesting definition of a very small selection of feats which do nothing to increase DPS.
Maybe not everyone who plays a martial character is fixated on DPS?
<audible gasp from the crowd 'Heresy!'>
Maybe we want to have fun, playing a finesse-based duellist?
Maybe we want to be Errol Flynn's Robin Hood, Gene Kelly's d'Artagnan, or Douglas Fairbanks Zorro, and don't see the need for our PCs to have a doctorate to do it?
A question: if trip is for smart-asses only, why a Barbarian with Int 3 can trip people with Knockdown?Hulk smash?
So is B. Banner the one tripping :P
A wolf can inherently trip someone. Any idiot who can wrap a chain around your weapon can disarm you.Animals are vastly different than humans, both physically and mentally and sometimes this benefits them in ways that are difficult for us to mimic. Take salmon for example, returning to the river or stream where they are spawned after having been who knows how far away for who knows how long.
Are you saying a wolf is smarter than a person? Or just they are smarter than a person when it comes to complex combat maneuvers that are not and make no sense to be genetically imprinted skills despite your silly assertion.
|
|
Dirty fighting is done by the least educated, least honorable and least trained fighters to gain an advantage it just boggles the mind that dirty tricks requires combat expertise to be good at.
And generally work against fighters in the same category.
Most well trained fighters know how to protect against dirty tricks.Try kicking some well trained in the nads and you will be in a world of hurt
This game will never improve substantially. I understood it now, reading this thread.
Designers did even too much.
Have you ever considered how a wolf and a person differ physically and that their methods of tripping people are vastly different?Are you saying a wolf is smarter than a person? Or just they are smarter than a person when it comes to complex combat maneuvers that are not and make no sense to be genetically imprinted skills despite your silly assertion.A wolf can inherently trip someone. Any idiot who can wrap a chain around your weapon can disarm you.Animals are vastly different than humans, both physically and mentally and sometimes this benefits them in ways that are difficult for us to mimic. Take salmon for example, returning to the river or stream where they are spawned after having been who knows how far away for who knows how long.
Have you considered how a wolf would, or could, trip anyone? A canine, or any other quadruped, might cause a creature to incidentally trip by grabbing a leg and pulling it. But only wolves get to trip things for free in D&D.
Humans can inherently trip people as well. No feat needed.
Wolves can do it for free with no AoO.
A dex-based fighter doesn't risk getting hit in the face every time they try to use their fighting style. A combat maneuver build without the combat maneuver feats does. That's a non-trivial difference in effectiveness.
Which is why combat maneuver builds have an Int of 13. How is this rocket science? You want an eldritch heritage you have a cha of 13+. You want concealing stances you have a dex of 13+. You want to play a combat manuever build you have an int of 13+. Just the basics of the builds.
Which is why combat maneuver builds have an Int of 13. How is this rocket science? You want an eldritch heritage you have a cha of 13+. You want concealing stances you have a dex of 13+. You want to play a combat manuever build you have an int of 13+. Just the basics of the builds.
You know what else ain't rocket science?
"Me No Like That."
A dex-based fighter doesn't risk getting hit in the face every time they try to use their fighting style. A combat maneuver build without the combat maneuver feats does. That's a non-trivial difference in effectiveness.Which is why combat maneuver builds have an Int of 13. How is this rocket science? You want an eldritch heritage you have a cha of 13+. You want concealing stances you have a dex of 13+. You want to play a combat manuever build you have an int of 13+. Just the basics of the builds.
Except those follow. How does Combat Expertise need 13 Int? How do the following combat maneuvers have anything to do with either Combat Expertise or having 13 Int? Because someone at Wizards 10 years ago decided to make a feat tree and now everyone has decided to make the argument "That is how it is, so it is good." None of it makes the remotest amount of sense and is obviously a tax on the feat and the subsequent feat trees.
In fact, it's stupid things like this that make Eldritch Heritage or concealing stances need 13 ability scores - a stupid stat that only serves to burn extra points in point buy because it doesn't give an extra +1. It makes even less damn sense to keep it going in Pathfinder because that's how it was in 3.X since the point buy system was changed.
How do the following combat maneuvers have anything to do with either Combat Expertise or having 13 Int? Because someone at Wizards 10 years ago decided to make a feat tree and now everyone has decided to make the argument "That is how it is, so it is good." None of it makes the remotest amount of sense and is obviously a tax on the feat and the subsequent feat trees.
Cartigan, could you briefly define "feat tax" for me? I'm interested if your definition is:
1) "something that makes it so no one build can do everything,"2) "crappy feats being used to make a 'powerful' feat cost two feats," (whether or not you agree that the feat in question is powerful)
3) "something that shouldn't require a feat at all, and should be available to all characters"
Edit: Or, of course, 4) something else.
How do the following combat maneuvers have anything to do with either Combat Expertise or having 13 Int? Because someone at Wizards 10 years ago decided to make a feat tree and now everyone has decided to make the argument "That is how it is, so it is good." None of it makes the remotest amount of sense and is obviously a tax on the feat and the subsequent feat trees.Cartigan, could you briefly define "feat tax" for me? I'm interested if your definition is:
1) "something that makes it so no one build can do everything,"
2) "crappy feats being used to make a 'powerful' feat cost two feats," (whether or not you agree that the feat in question is powerful)
3) "something that shouldn't require a feat at all, and should be available to all characters"Edit: Or, of course, 4) something else.
2.
Disarming opponents and tricky fighting are a mainstay of what we IMAGINE warriors doing, an extremely common feature of the books and films that inspire tabletop roleplaying games, and yet it feels more difficult to represent in the game than it should.
Why? You take an INT of 13. Is that difficult?
Fantasy archetype fighters are often some of the smartest guys on the field. I think as players we sometimes have a tendency to *cheat* just a bit here, taking advantage of our brainpower and our Fighter/Sorcerer/Cleric/etc's dump stat. Not even necessarily on purpose, but simply because we can't help but to think the way we think. I like the concept of the intelligent fighter and I'm glad there is a useful feat tree that causes that intelligent fantasy archetype to emerge.
Disarming opponents and tricky fighting are a mainstay of what we IMAGINE warriors doing, an extremely common feature of the books and films that inspire tabletop roleplaying games, and yet it feels more difficult to represent in the game than it should.Why? You take an INT of 13. Is that difficult?
Fantasy archetype fighters are often some of the smartest guys on the field. I think as players we sometimes have a tendency to *cheat* just a bit here, taking advantage of our brainpower and our Fighter/Sorcerer/Cleric/etc's dump stat. Not even necessarily on purpose, but simply because we can't help but to think the way we think. I like the concept of the intelligent fighter and I'm glad there is a useful feat tree that causes that intelligent fantasy archetype to emerge.
I think in rules arguments, certain types of people are prone to confuse and intertwine "rules as they were written" with "fantasy characters as they exist" in making arguments for nonsensical rules limitations.
You can make an intelligent Fighter without having to handicap a "non-intelligent" Fighter who wants to be able to trip people competently.
Disarming opponents and tricky fighting are a mainstay of what we IMAGINE warriors doing, an extremely common feature of the books and films that inspire tabletop roleplaying games, and yet it feels more difficult to represent in the game than it should.Why? You take an INT of 13. Is that difficult?
Fantasy archetype fighters are often some of the smartest guys on the field. I think as players we sometimes have a tendency to *cheat* just a bit here, taking advantage of our brainpower and our Fighter/Sorcerer/Cleric/etc's dump stat. Not even necessarily on purpose, but simply because we can't help but to think the way we think. I like the concept of the intelligent fighter and I'm glad there is a useful feat tree that causes that intelligent fantasy archetype to emerge.
See, I like high int fighters. The problem is that is not always possible. A lot of other useful feats need high stats and a lot of options are feat intensive. Saves are crappy barring fortitude.
And please let no start the usual "but fighter have a lot of feats". They need all of them, and it's very difficult being effective without becoming a one-trick pony.
I dont see any reason to continue beating a dead horse about CE.
Seeing the way new feats are designed, is definitively not a dead horse.
I've seen feat chains continue to rampage in APG too.
I think in rules arguments, certain types of people are prone to confuse and intertwine "rules as they were written" with "fantasy characters as they exist" in making arguments for nonsensical rules limitations.
You can make an intelligent Fighter without having to handicap a "non-intelligent" Fighter who wants to be able to trip people competently.
My response introducing fantasy archetypes was in direct response to Tim's plea to fantasy archetypes as a reason not to have the INT requirement.
To a certain extent, I think the feat tree is using Intelligence as the closest thing the system has to a "Discipline" stat. So what is being said is that only disciplined fighters will hone their skills and we can use INT as a measuring stick for discipline. It certainly wouldn't be the only case in the game of using a stat to represent something other than what might seem to be implied by the stat (Wisdom for Perception, Strength for BAB, etc.)
Have you ever considered how a wolf and a person differ physically and that their methods of tripping people are vastly different?Are you saying a wolf is smarter than a person? Or just they are smarter than a person when it comes to complex combat maneuvers that are not and make no sense to be genetically imprinted skills despite your silly assertion.A wolf can inherently trip someone. Any idiot who can wrap a chain around your weapon can disarm you.Animals are vastly different than humans, both physically and mentally and sometimes this benefits them in ways that are difficult for us to mimic. Take salmon for example, returning to the river or stream where they are spawned after having been who knows how far away for who knows how long.Have you considered how a wolf would, or could, trip anyone? A canine, or any other quadruped, might cause a creature to incidentally trip by grabbing a leg and pulling it. But only wolves get to trip things for free in D&D.
Humans can inherently trip people as well. No feat needed.Wolves can do it for free with no AoO.
Not to bring irrelevant reality into a deadly serious high-stakes fantasy game argument, but in RL wolves don't inherently know how to trip their prey. It is a learned behavior, "taught" to them by older wolves and practiced many times before it is perfected. The Wolf Bestiary entry assumes an adult wolf who has already learned how to hunt. Humans, to my knowledge, are not uniformly taught by their elders how to trip others. In fact, many parents and other adults discourage that type of of antisocial behavior in their young-uns. As a parent who was once told by school officials that my daughter should undergo anger management because she punched out a kid who pulled her pony tail, I can vouch for that personally. Of course there is that minority of kids who study martial arts (including wrestling) from an early age, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
My biggest gripe is that fighters are supposed to be the masters of martial combat, and while there are certainly intelligent fighters out there, that is far from the defining feature of the class. But looking at a fighter who has 20 levels of Combat Experience, we find that this supposed master of martial combat still can't effectively perform standard combat maneuvers without having an above average intelligence. That's just lame in my book.
That said, I am really, really hoping that UC comes out with some decent options to make a higher Int fighter more viable.