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...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.
It doesn't take a skilled tactician to throw a chain around someone's leg.
@Axl/Kaiyanwang
Thank you for clarifying.
Are both of you opposed to any feat tax in general (including, say, Endurance being before Diehard), or arguing that specifically in this case that the feats CE lead to are not powerful enough to justify the tax?
@Axl/Kaiyanwang
Thank you for clarifying.Are both of you opposed to any feat tax in general (including, say, Endurance being before Diehard), or arguing that specifically in this case that the feats CE lead to are not powerful enough to justify the tax?
I shall define a feat tax as a feat or other prerequisite unrelated or unimportant to the feat that requires it. Like Combat Expertise to, well, everything after it. Or Power Attack to Cleave. Or whatever is before Whirldwind Attack. I don't particularly like nonsensical feat trees either. Sure, Dodge and Mobility might be related to Spring Attack but now we are burning a not insignificant number of feats to just run by someone and stab them. Nor feats that come later in a tree that require feats earlier in the tree but not the immediate predecessor. I think the TWF feats do this.
It doesn't take a skilled tactician to throw a chain around someone's leg.
From personal experience in period fencing, I'd lay better than even odds that mucking about with a stupid chain is a valid way to provoke an AoO. I'll be the first to admit that fencing isn't the full-on combat model that PF is trying to emulate, though my group does allow off-hand weapons/shields/capes, etc. If someone drops their defense to take a leg shot, I counter with a face shot (as theirs is still coming toward me). And with something as unwieldy as a chain, they're going to give me even more time and opening.
In fencing, trying to do something fancy often forces you to take your weapon "off-line" (meaning take it away from the position where it threatens your opponent). During that time, your opponent has a chance to press you with an attack. I'd never realized just how much that mirrors D&D/PF combat, before now.
It doesn't take a skilled tactician to throw a chain around someone's leg.
I would agree that it doesn't take a skilled tactician to try. It would certainly take some practice to be able to do it well. A chain is not an easy improvised weapon to use. And it would take at least a little bit of smarts or experience to even think of it. To me this represents fairly well the difference between Trip, which anybody can attempt, with limited chance of success, and Improved Trip, which only a trained expert can attempt, but which has a pretty decent chance of success for that expert.
|
I don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :D
|
|
Then why not have power attack require a 13 charisma. It would achieve the even better results.Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :DI don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
Power attack is not that much of an issue as various combat maneuvers. If you get improved trip, and a magical weapon which can be used for tripping, you ad te bonus of the weapon to the CMB rolls. Then you go around tripping people and everybody gets free aoos. And rogues get free sneak attacks. Power attack is used to deal more damage. Trip is imho much more powerful. And i guess that if even one min/maxer is annoyed by the fact that he has to waste a feat to get to "win" the game, it's a several lines of text well spent. I hate min/maxers.
It doesn't take a skilled tactician to throw a chain around someone's leg.I would agree that it doesn't take a skilled tactician to try. It would certainly take some practice to be able to do it well. A chain is not an easy improvised weapon to use. And it would take at least a little bit of smarts or experience to even think of it. To me this represents fairly well the difference between Trip, which anybody can attempt, with limited chance of success, and Improved Trip, which only a trained expert can attempt, but which has a pretty decent chance of success for that expert.
1) A "Spiked Chain" is a weapon you have to take a feat to be proficient in the use of.
2) How would it take "smarts" to think of? I hit something with a flexible weapon, said flexible weapon inherently starts to wrap at the point of impact. "Hey, I bet I could wrap that around someone's leg." And if you have ever watched ANY show about people doing stupid stuff, you would realize "Hey, I bet I could..." has NOTHING to do with smarts. At all. I wonder how many Darwin Awards started out with "Hey, I bet I could X with this here Y." Geniuses all, no doubt.3) How is an argument against an Int 13 and Combat Expertise being a pre-req for Improved Trip an argument against needing Improved Trip to be good at tripping?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :D
I must be collateral damage, then. A min-maxer I am not.
|
1) A "Spiked Chain" is a weapon you have to take a feat to be proficient in the use of.
2) How would it take "smarts" to think of? I hit something with a flexible weapon, said flexible weapon inherently starts to wrap at the point of impact. "Hey, I bet I could wrap that around someone's leg." And if you have ever watched ANY show about people doing stupid stuff, you would realize "Hey, I bet I could..." has NOTHING to do with smarts. At all. I wonder how many Darwin Awards started out with "Hey, I bet I could X with this here Y." Geniuses all, no doubt.
3) How is an argument against an Int 13 and Combat Expertise being a pre-req for Improved Trip an argument against needing Improved Trip to be good at tripping?
That just explains why it's not always successful for someone who figures things out in that manner(meaning the penalty for attempting).
|
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!
But spells are limited by stat - if you want to cast a spell of 'x' level and you are a wizard, then you must have an Int of at least 'y'.
Should martial characters have a similar constraint - if you want a feat of 'x', then you must have a strength/dex/con of at least 'y'?
They do (see Power Attack feat tree, Dodge feat tree, Two Weapon Fighting feat tree).
Martial characters have to split their stats several ways to gain access to basic options.
Casters can focus on one stat to power all (or the vast majority) of their class abilities.
It's time that was changed.
Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :DI don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
A real grown-up reaction. You know who's pissed off? Who want to accomplish certain character concepts WITHOUT min-maxing.
|
|
A real grown-up reaction. You know who's pissed off? Who want to accomplish certain character concepts WITHOUT min-maxing.Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :DI don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
Well, then just take the feat and don't use it. You need to learn to be more careful in combat in order not to get hit when you attempt to trip or disarm somebody. Makes perfect sense to me. Plus, not every concept is viable.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :DI don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
Do you realize that makes no sense?
A min-maxer will find what's better, and use that instead of this.
A non-min-maxer will try to make a jack of all trades, and then discover he cannot do what he wants to do because he has 13 DEX, 13 INT, and other stats that take away from CON and STR. That player will find out that trying to trip, bull rush, grapple, dirty tricks, and other combat maneuvers are ineffective, and then start MIN-MAXing because he wants to be able to do what he wants.
It is reasonable for a player to expect his fighter to be able to do fighting related actions correctly and well. It is unreasonable for a player to discover his 15 fighter is unable to perform a trip maneuver against a level 8 fighter without provoking AoOs because the action is too extraordinary to do so without even further specialized training (another words, feats). It's even worse if my example was a wizard with his dagger.
|
|
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.
For me, it's 4) a feat that has zero relevance to the activity in question, often with prerequisites of its own that have zero relevance to the activity in question.
An example of 2) would be Spell Focus (conjuration) being a gateway to Augment Summoning. Sure, it's a chore for a caster to blow a feat on a focus in a school that exerts few saves, but the player can at least see the consistent theme (that of becoming more proficient at summoning stronger effects), and since people do take it, they believe the end result (the feat they actually want) to be worth two feat slots.
An example of 3) would be Power Attack. That has no business being a feat. It is a combat stance, much like Fighting Defensively, that should be available to all, regardless of class, stat, or BAB. In any round, a combatant should be able to declare 'fight normally', 'fight defensively', or 'fight offensively', making the appropriate adjustments to attack, damage and AC.
"If I take a real big swing, I should hit harder..." does not make you a tactical genius.
You will not find it in the scrolls of Sun Tzu.
No-one ever climbed to the highest peaks of the Himalayas, to prostrate themselves at the feet of ancient sensei, and beg for this Hidden Wisdom.
So, why is Power Attack a feat, again?
IMO, it's not a design flaw, but pretty good design for D20 in regard to balancing the classes. Let me explain myself. Good design is for me about this question: does the set of decisions you take on the basis of you core system (D20: abilities, class, skills, feats, etc.) make for a the best game experience you can get from this system, knowing the core system limitations? You won't get a perfect game, you know that, because the core system is always setting limits on what you can and can't do. But if the set of decisions made about how to use this system is the optimal set, then you have perfect game design. I won't say Pathfinder is the optimal ruleset for D20, but I think it's a very good one. Let me explain.
About the feat tax - yes, it's a feat tax, but we must not forget that it's a flat rate taxe, so that it cost less for a fighter than for, lets say, a Paladin or a Bard who have way fewer feats to spend. So it's a balance advantage for Fighters. So, IMO, feat taxes is a way to somehow granting Fighters easier access to some feats.
About the MAD issue for INT 13+ : same thing. Here, Fighter and Magus are the one getting the less impaired by this. Ask the Paladin who must already have good STR, CON and CHA, or the Ranger who must pump up wisdom.
So, maybe I'm wrong, but again I see this as a way to balance classes so the Fighter gets the best access of those feats.
What if you want to play a dumb fighter? Well, you take the hit - as you would take the hit playing a low charisma Paladin or low wisdom Ranger. Seems fair, and a good ruleset for somehow creating from the D20 core a good and consistent playing experience.
Is Int 13+ the best way to represent access to those skills? I don't know. Is Charisma the best way to represent a more powerfull Smite Evil - why not wisdom?
It's not a design flaw - in fact, given the way the system works, it seems to me to be solid design. If we want to criticize more, I don't think it's Pathfinder we are arguing about, it's D20 in general. Yep, the D20 core is abstract, not perfect at modeling real human beings, and the strict tie between abilities and powers is sometime hard to explain.
In D20, you have to choose wich ability score ties to a given power somewhere. Maybe Dex would be better to "model reality" but then again, the same could be argued about almost any tie between an ability score and a power. Why do I get a better will save because I want to be better at detecting things in my environnement? Some games make a distinction between Perception/Awareness and Willpower and this game don't, after all! And I want my perception to get me a bonus to archery as well, so can I add Wis to ranged BAB? No. You can't. Why? Well, because the D20 forces a choice to be made. The designer made one, and it seems a good one to me if the aime is for those feats to be easier for a Figther to get.
Just sayin it's only one case of a deeper problem with the D20 system, and not with the Pathfinder ruleset. You could play a different system, one where you can freely switch the ability used for a check with another one on the fly, like WOD, a system much more flexible in that regard. You'll find other flaws there, but not this one.
So, lets blame D20, not Pathfinder. Feats like this one are probably one of the best way to get a class based D20 game to work when you try to keep the big picture in your head.
Again, all that IMO. I'm not a game designer, only a modest semiotician. But hey, it's been playtested, so I guess we could also argue from an experiment point of view ;-)
It is reasonable for a player to expect his fighter to be able to do fighting related actions correctly and well. It is unreasonable for a player to discover his 15 fighter is unable to perform a trip maneuver against a level 8 fighter without provoking AoOs because the action is too extraordinary to do so without even further specialized training (another words, feats). It's even worse if my example was a wizard with his dagger.
What's wrong with a 15 Fighter triggering an 8 Fighter or even a 1 Wizard's AoO? They aren't going to do any damage in anything but exceptionally lucky circumstances anyway. You provoke an AoO if you haven't rigorously disciplined your tripping technique to the point where you can do it without making yourself vulnerable in a combat situation. In this case, the ability necessary to undergo that rigorous discipline is represented by INT and entered into through Combat Expertise.
Are you arguing for or against this ridiculous feat and its pre-req? I couldn't tell because the first half of your post was about how much it screwed over non-Fighters.
What's wrong with a 15 Fighter triggering an 8 Fighter or even a 1 Wizard's AoO? They aren't going to do any damage in anything but exceptionally lucky circumstances anyway. You provoke an AoO if you haven't rigorously disciplined your tripping technique to the point where you can do it without making yourself vulnerable in a combat situation. In this case, the ability necessary to undergo that rigorous discipline is represented by INT and entered into through Combat Expertise.It is reasonable for a player to expect his fighter to be able to do fighting related actions correctly and well. It is unreasonable for a player to discover his 15 fighter is unable to perform a trip maneuver against a level 8 fighter without provoking AoOs because the action is too extraordinary to do so without even further specialized training (another words, feats). It's even worse if my example was a wizard with his dagger.
False. Combat Expertise in no way, shape, or form "trains" you to be good at tripping. Improved Trip does that. Combat Expertise stands in the way. You get no bonus to trip from Int. Combat Expertise provides no bonus to tripping.
Are you arguing for or against this ridiculous feat and its pre-req? I couldn't tell because the first half of your post was about how much it screwed over non-Fighters.
Yes, it does. And for me that's the point. Feat acess is almost the most important class feature of fighters. Good for them. They don't get spells, skills points, animal companions and smite evil, but they are less restricted in feat access.
Wow, who would have thought? ;-)
You provoke an AoO if you haven't rigorously disciplined your tripping technique to the point where you can do it without making yourself vulnerable in a combat situation. In this case, the ability necessary to undergo that rigorous discipline is represented by INT and entered into through Combat Expertise.False. Combat Expertise in no way, shape, or form "trains" you to be good at tripping. Improved Trip does that. Combat Expertise stands in the way. You get no bonus to trip from Int. Combat Expertise provides no bonus to tripping.
*chuckle*
Not what I said. What I said, in simple language, is that the prereq for Improved Trip is INT13+Combat Expertise. Moreover, I interpreted that prereq as the demonstrated ability to undergo rigorous discipline as it relates to the feat tree.
Well, then just take the feat and don't use it. You need to learn to be more careful in combat in order not to get hit when you attempt to trip or disarm somebody. Makes perfect sense to me. Plus, not every concept is viable.A real grown-up reaction. You know who's pissed off? Who want to accomplish certain character concepts WITHOUT min-maxing.Simple really. The feat is there to piss off min/maxers and it's doing a beautiful job. I love it :DI don't see any good arguments why 13 int is a necessary and logical requirement for combat expertise or the trip and dirty tricks feat chains.
I see a ton of arguments saying that you need skill to execute trips and dirty tricks safely or basically a BAB requirement.
Read my posts. I'm actually quite OK with the feat, barring the prequisites which are asinine.
"not every concept is viable" is not a good sign. Expecially if is something like S&B + a flail.
Plus, you only feel like you have a higher Int when you're tripping.
Try reading what you wrote once you come down some time.
It doesn't take a skilled tactician to throw a chain around someone's leg.I would agree that it doesn't take a skilled tactician to try. It would certainly take some practice to be able to do it well. A chain is not an easy improvised weapon to use. And it would take at least a little bit of smarts or experience to even think of it. To me this represents fairly well the difference between Trip, which anybody can attempt, with limited chance of success, and Improved Trip, which only a trained expert can attempt, but which has a pretty decent chance of success for that expert.1) A "Spiked Chain" is a weapon you have to take a feat to be proficient in the use of.
2) How would it take "smarts" to think of? I hit something with a flexible weapon, said flexible weapon inherently starts to wrap at the point of impact. "Hey, I bet I could wrap that around someone's leg." And if you have ever watched ANY show about people doing stupid stuff, you would realize "Hey, I bet I could..." has NOTHING to do with smarts. At all. I wonder how many Darwin Awards started out with "Hey, I bet I could X with this here Y." Geniuses all, no doubt.
3) How is an argument against an Int 13 and Combat Expertise being a pre-req for Improved Trip an argument against needing Improved Trip to be good at tripping?
1. So what you are really saying is that someone who is proficient with a Spiked Chain should be able to get the Improved Trip feat even if they lack the 13 Int and CE pre-reqs? I can buy that. The whole intent of a weapon like that is to entangle and trip (although in RL it is hellishly difficult to learn how to do it without doing as much damage to yourself as anyone else or effectively disarming yourself as soon as you do succeed), and there's not much point to having it if you can't.
2. Chains and such aren't always sitting around waiting to be used. They also aren't particularly easy to use without fouling yourself up in the process. The fact that you are trying to use one indicates you have both prepared for this battle and probably trained in the attempted combat maneuver. That already probably places you as above average in the intelligence realm. 90+ percent of real fighters learn just a few basic tactics and apply them repeatedly as necessary to achieve success. Most folks trying this at home, as you point out, are likely to hurt themselves badly before they figure out how to do it well. They will likely not try to do it again after that, unless they are really gunning for that Darwin Award.3. It doesn't. Like many things in the rules, logic is completely secondary to design concerns like game balance or flavor. These rules are hardly the worst offenders as far as being illogical. That said, I can invent a twisted logic to make them make a weird kind of sense if I care to bother. I think the crux of this is that if you think Fighters need access to more feats without pre-reqs to be competitive and/or fun to play, then you hate the pre-reqs. If you don't, then you're probably fine with them. I happen to think fighters are just fine and have plenty of options already. I also think it is cool to offer some special options to smart fighters that aren't available to their less intellectually gifted brethren. Armies need officers and NCOs as well as grunts.
If you look higher in the thread, I stated that I think it would be a good houserule to allow formal training to substitute for the Int requirement in these feats. Anyone, even someone of limited intelligence, can learn most physical tasks through instruction by someone more knowledgeable and repetition. In my mind it can be an either/or thing. Either you are smart enough to figure this out on your own, or you need a sensei to show you how it's done. Note the internal logic with my previous note on your wolf example - the wolf had a sensei and trained. The problem is that 3.X/PF eliminated the concept of training for level advancement, learning all these new feats, etc., except as an optional rule. I would fully support dropping the Int requirement in exchange for a training requirement.
1. So what you are really saying is that someone who is proficient with a Spiked Chain should be able to get the Improved Trip feat even if they lack the 13 Int and CE pre-reqs? I can buy that. The whole intent of a weapon like that is to entangle and trip (although in RL it is hellishly difficult to learn how to do it without doing as much damage to yourself as anyone else or effectively disarming yourself as soon as you do succeed), and there's not much point to having it if you can't.
Yes, I am saying someone proficient in the use of a chain as a weapon could use it to trip someone without being an expert tactician. You can beat yourself up as badly as the opponent with any number of weapons that don't require a Int minimum pre-req.
2. Chains and such aren't always sitting around waiting to be used. They also aren't particularly easy to use without fouling yourself up in the process. The fact that you are trying to use one indicates you have both prepared for this battle and probably trained in the attempted combat maneuver. That already probably places you as above average in the intelligence realm. 90+ percent of real fighters learn just a few basic tactics and apply them repeatedly as necessary to achieve success. Most folks trying this at home, as you point out, are likely to hurt themselves badly before they figure out how to do it well. They will likely not try to do it again after that, unless they are really gunning for that Darwin Award.
That really has nothing to do with my argument here. The argument is that it is clear that a flexible object, like a chain, when used to hit something will naturally coil around it. It is therefore concludable, by most if not all idiots, that you can use the flexible weapon to do something with other than beat people. Like trip. Or disarm. Summarily: It is nonsense to assert that coming to the conclusion that a chain, or similar object, can trip someone would take 13 Int.
3. It doesn't. Like many things in the rules, logic is completely secondary to design concerns like game balance or flavor.
Except neither of these apply here. Especially given the fact that a number of things put forward in 3.0 and 3.5 were either terribly designed or designed as a jerkmove.
If you look higher in the thread, I stated that I think it would be a good houserule to allow formal training to substitute for the Int requirement in these feats.
That makes just as little sense as requiring the minimum Int and the feat. You do not need Int 13 or Combat Expertise to trip someone. You need them as a pre-req to learn a feat that makes you good at tripping someone. That is your formal training. You want formal training taking the place of arbitrary hurdle to formal training.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for me that's the point. Feat acess is almost the most important class feature of fighters. Good for them. They don't get spells, skills points, animal companions and smite evil, but they are less restricted in feat access.
Wow, who would have thought? ;-)
And since feat access is (almost) the only class feature Fighters get, the game is improved by forcing them to waste those feat slots on worthless feats that have no relevance to the tactics they want to use, but are simply roadblocks on the way to another feat which by the time they can qualify for that, has ceased to be relevant, compared to the class abilities of the other classes?
What about thugs, people?
If anyone deserves improved disarm, trip, and dirty trick, it's thugs.
And Int 13 is not what springs to mind when I hear that word.
1. So what you are really saying is that someone who is proficient with a Spiked Chain should be able to get the Improved Trip feat even if they lack the 13 Int and CE pre-reqs? I can buy that. The whole intent of a weapon like that is to entangle and trip (although in RL it is hellishly difficult to learn how to do it without doing as much damage to yourself as anyone else or effectively disarming yourself as soon as you do succeed), and there's not much point to having it if you can't.Yes, I am saying someone proficient in the use of a chain as a weapon could use it to trip someone without being an expert tactician. You can beat yourself up as badly as the opponent with any number of weapons that don't require a Int minimum pre-req.
2. Chains and such aren't always sitting around waiting to be used. They also aren't particularly easy to use without fouling yourself up in the process. The fact that you are trying to use one indicates you have both prepared for this battle and probably trained in the attempted combat maneuver. That already probably places you as above average in the intelligence realm. 90+ percent of real fighters learn just a few basic tactics and apply them repeatedly as necessary to achieve success. Most folks trying this at home, as you point out, are likely to hurt themselves badly before they figure out how to do it well. They will likely not try to do it again after that, unless they are really gunning for that Darwin Award.That really has nothing to do with my argument here. The argument is that it is clear that a flexible object, like a chain, when used to hit something will naturally coil around it. It is therefore concludable, by most if not all idiots, that you can use the flexible weapon to do something with other than beat people. Like trip. Or disarm. Summarily: It is nonsense to assert that coming to the conclusion that a chain, or similar object, can trip someone would take 13 Int.
3. It doesn't. Like many things in...
I agree with you that it's not logical. I just don't agree that it needs changed. There are lots of things in the rules that aren't logical. Changing them all would result in a much different and probably worse game. This one doesn't bother me and I can see a twisted justification of giving nice things to smart Fighters. Now, being able to swim in platemail, that bothers me. But that's a totally different topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree. It's the system mastery that was baked into the system because WotC designers were taking elements from Magic the Gathering that is the problem.
Dungeons: The Dragoning?
And since feat access is (almost) the only class feature Fighters get, the game is improved by forcing them to waste those feat slots on worthless feats that have no relevance to the tactics they want to use, but are simply roadblocks on the way to another feat which by the time they can qualify for that, has ceased to be relevant, compared to the class abilities of the other classes?
Yeah. This is the same, when I say fighter don't have defenses barring AC. People always say "but they have a lot of feats! they can afford iron will and GIW" ignoring the fact that this means the effectiveness in combat drops.
And then add feat taxes -__-
And since feat access is (almost) the only class feature Fighters get, the game is improved by forcing them to waste those feat slots on worthless feats that have no relevance to the tactics they want to use, but are simply roadblocks on the way to another feat which by the time they can qualify for that, has ceased to be relevant, compared to the class abilities of the other classes?And for me that's the point. Feat acess is almost the most important class feature of fighters. Good for them. They don't get spells, skills points, animal companions and smite evil, but they are less restricted in feat access.
Wow, who would have thought? ;-)
The balance between classes is improved, yes. Because the "tax" is very light for a Fighter in comparison to a Paladin or a Bard. Flat rate taxes are good for the rich and hard for the poor.
You must take the system as a whole, not only look at one class.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The balance between classes is improved, yes. Because the "tax" is very light for a Fighter in comparison to a Paladin or a Bard. Flat rate taxes are good for the rich and hard for the poor.
You must take the system as a whole, not only look at one class.
Every single feat tax results in forfeiting an entire level worth of class abilities.
What would happen if the casters were told "No new spells for you this level. No extra spell slots. No bonus metamagic. No mercies. No domain features. No new wildshape forms. No new bardic music. No bloodline powers."
Casters: "So what do we get?"
"You get an ability called Feat Tax, which qualifies you for all those class abilities you were intending to take this level. You can take those abilities next level, instead! Is that good, or what?"
Casters: "And what does this Feat Tax do, exactly? In and of itself?"
"Do? Why should it do anything?"
WOW, lots of posts here... and few various arguments I don't want to read much of ;)
As for the OP question, I have no problem with Feat prerequisites that MEAN something... If Combat expertise, ie. trade attack for AC... or quick feet APPLIES to the feat your taking... then I approve.
I haven't disected the Expertise tree to see if that applies or not.. but tripping?? I'm not sure. I don't see why I have to be able to trade AC and Attack in order to trip better. If they want you to be smart... just tack the INT 13 requirement on trip...
Combat REFLEXES however is a very unnecessary hurdle. Apparently in order to be stealthy ninja type shadowdancer... you have to be able to make multiple AoO strikes...
Why??
I have NO idea...
Requirements that build on each other are good... Requirements JUST for the sake of having requirements... THAT I hate..
Just to clarify, feat tax doesn't always have to mean the tax feat is bad, just unrelated to what you're trying to accomplish.
Even if combat expertise was an amazing feat, it still has nothing to do with tripping. A person building a character that's an expert at tripping should not have to take a defensive feat (that, when used, even makes him worse at tripping!).
"You get an ability called Feat Tax, which qualifies you for all those class abilities you were intending to take this level. You can take those abilities next level, instead! Is that good, or what?"
Casters: "And what does this Feat Tax do, exactly? In and of itself?"
"Do? Why should it do anything?"
Combat expertise does something. Maybe it's not that good, but it's not nothing, and some people are actualy arguing that, even if not the best ability ever, it's still an average ability you may use once in a while effectively.
It at least beats Trap Sense +1, and is at least on-par with Woodland Stride, and other powers IMO. I'ts not that good, ok, but how can we roll it into the class without giving to much to other classes?
Here is a proposition:
What if you gained this as an ability as a first level Fighter? Seems pretty Ok to me. Now, make all the other feats in the tree depending on Combat Expertise have for prerequisite This new Combat Expertise Class Feature(tm) and 13 INT.
Now add a new feat giving access to this class feature if you don't get it from your class, but needing, I don't know, BAB + 4 or something. Something like this:
Combat Training
Pre: Bab +4
You can use the Combat Expertise power, but an effective fighter level of your level - 4. You now qualifies for all feats asking for this class feature.
Combat expertise does something. Maybe it's not that good, but it's not nothing, and some people are actualy arguing that, even if not the best ability ever, it's still an average ability you may use once in a while effectively.
It at least beats Trap Sense +1, and is at least on-par with Woodland Stride, and other powers IMO. I'ts not that good, ok, but how can we roll it into the class without giving to much to other classes?
But in many situations, the only thing a fighter get's for leveling up (aside from BAB, HP, low skill, and low save progression) is a single feat. If it's a feat that they don't care about, won't use, and only took in order to get to another feat, then this is essentially a "dead level."
On the other hand, while Trap Sense +1 may not be amazing (I still like this for a rogue more than I like CE for a fighter) it isn't alone at it's level. It comes with an additional 1d6 sneak attack damage- which is much better than CE.
And sure Woodland Stride is nothing to write home about. But at this level Druids also get more spells per day and an improved animal companion (including a feat for the companion). And rangers are looking at a whole new spell level and an improved animal companion (it gets evasion) on top of Woodland Stride.
So yeah, fighters get the short end of the stick with these kind of feat taxes.
On the other hand, while Trap Sense +1 may not be amazing (I still like this for a rogue more than I like CE for a fighter) it isn't alone at it's level. It comes with an additional 1d6 sneak attack damage- which is much better than CE.
Barbarian 3. Yes, also you get 2 rounds of rage. Still not overwhelming.
Another solution: maybe I would give another trait to Fighters whan he takes this feat? It maybe the worst "class feature" - granted, but is it that debalanced? I doubt it. Half a feat, maybe.
And don't forget that removing the feat tax is more an advantage for the Ranger than for the fighter, because the Ranger has way more to loose by spending a precious feat for this.
|
|
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.
i'm thinking to circumvent this problem with a 10,000gp ioun stone... round brown amorphous rock, let's call it, which grants the Combat Expertise feat...
pricing based on this (from Seekers of Secret)
Scarlet and Green Cabochon
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 12th
Slot none; Price 10,000 gp; Weight —
Description
This stone grants you the Endurance feat.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bull’s strength, cat’s
grace, creator must be 12th level; Cost 5,000 gp
In Seekers of Secret, Combat Expertise is also listed as a Resonant Power (Method 2), so instead of Improved Unarmed Strike or Blind Fight, the following two stones could have Combat Expertise as resonant powers (each sold separately for 8K each! :) )
Deep red sphere: Improved Unarmed Strike.
Incandescent blue sphere: Blind-Fight.
Deep red gives you +2 enhancement to Dex and Incandescent blue gives you +2 enhancement to Wis... one could invent a +2 to Int stone and key it to Combat Expertise...
On the other hand, while Trap Sense +1 may not be amazing (I still like this for a rogue more than I like CE for a fighter) it isn't alone at it's level. It comes with an additional 1d6 sneak attack damage- which is much better than CE.Barbarian 3. Yes, also you get 2 rounds of rage. Still not overwhelming.
You got me here. Barbarian 3 is pretty horrible. But I'm still not convinced that just because Barbarian 3 is a horrible level that Fighter x should be a horrible level because I have to take CE to get what I want at a later level.
Another solution: maybe I would give another trait to Fighters whan he takes this feat? It maybe the worst "class feature" - granted, but is it that debalanced? I doubt it. Half a feat, maybe.
You want to give fighters something on top of CE? I'm game, depending on what it is.
And don't forget that removing the feat tax is more an advantage for the Ranger than for the fighter, because the Ranger has way more to loose by spending a precious feat for this.
I disagree. Sure, removing the feat tax means Rangers can get Improved X easier, but that means a Fighter could get Improved X and Improved Y easier.
Honestly, I really don't think the game would be broken if the rules were rewritten so that by 20th level, a Fighter could be proficient in most if not all combat maneuvers without too much sacrifice in other areas. Along the same vain, I don't think it would be bad if other martial classes (such as the Paladin or Ranger) could be respectable at a combat maneuver or two without ridiculous investment. But maybe that is just me.
Honestly, I really don't think the game would be broken if the rules were rewritten so that by 20th level, a Fighter could be proficient in most if not all combat maneuvers without too much sacrifice in other areas. Along the same vain, I don't think it would be bad if other martial classes (such as the Paladin or Ranger) could be respectable at a combat maneuver or two without ridiculous investment. But maybe that is just me.
First, I think you only need a high BAB to be pretty decent at most maneuvers. If you are trying to do them on level appropriate critters who have not spent feats on those maneuvres or do not have bonuses for being huge or etc. In those case - well, sure, you can hit a wall, as can a sorcerer facing a critter with high SR. Maybe we should roll spell penetration into a class feature? You see, I largely agree with you, but it could lead to an arm race we should avoid. That is why I say we should be prudent when giving away feats for free.
Oh, and Fighter need skill more skill points too, agreed- In my game they always get 3 skill/level + one free profession, knowledge (not all, but nobility, local, etc.) or craft skill.
It's more fun for the players, and not really debalanced. But I would not care to play a fighter in another game without that - I'll just go human, take a higher INT and maybe spend a feat on skill focus. I know I'll have room for doing that and still be a DPR machine.
As for CE I posted a fix above : moving CE from being a feat to being a class feature, and moving prerequisites from CE to the other feats in the chain. And the more I think about it, the more I like this solution. But I would not mind playing in a game without this fix, because in the end, I'll still be able to do well with a feat less.
But again, I tend not to min/max, and to use maneuvres even if I am not optimised to do so for all of them, and hey, it still works... not alway, but always enough to be fun and profitable!
I have a theory.
The combat maneuvers fall into one of three categories - maneuvers that can be performed "on-line" (i.e., your weapon threatens the enemy throughout, or at least you take your opponent's weapon out of play as part of the maneuver), "off-line" (i.e. your weapon is temporarily out of play), or "combat as chess" (see below, but I don't think people complain about INT requirements on these maneuvers).
Power Attack-based maneuvers are on-line. You can bull rush, overrun, or drag while threatening with a blade, or you take their weapon offline and do the maneuver with your body. Sunder by definition tries to take the opponent's weapon off-line, doesn't require you to get near the opponent, and needs a horrendous amount of brute force. For these maneuvers, the best defense (the way to prevent the AoO) is a good offense.
Combat-Expertise-based maneuvers are either off-line or "combat as chess" types of moves:
Improved Dirty Trick: While kicking sand might be done on-line, the other examples are pretty clearly off-line.
Improved Disarm: this is the weak link in my theory. Also, I've never tried disarm in RL.
Improved Feint: seeing where to threaten to get more effective and easier feints - combat as chess
Improved Reposition: making the flow of combat take the opponent where you want it - combat as chess
Improved Trip: with a trip weapon, you're taking your focus off-line. Without a trip weapon, this could be an on-line maneuver (similar to bull-rush). My guess is that both types were folded here for simplicity.
Performing an off-line maneuver without creating an opening is HARD. It's not about reflexes, it's about prior planning, anticipation, and prevention. That's where the 13 INT comes in. As for CE itself, consider each maneuver an "upgraded" version of CE - no penalty to one particular combat maneuver, with an infinite AC bonus to the AoO caused by it.
