| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with Int 13 as a prereq for Improved Trip, Disarm, Feint, etc. It reflects a preference for a certain kind of tactical fighting style and having a prereq of a decent Int score as as sensible a stat prereq as any, in my personal opinion. My bias of course is that I like to build smart fighters, so the prereq doesn't often affect my fighter builds, but that's just me.
I agree with the OP way back when, however, the feat Combat Expertise makes no sense. Combat Expertise is a defensive feat, it would make sense if it led to more defensive abilities.
Instead, it leads to offensive abilities... and helps lead to Whirlwind Attack??
I'm fine with Combat Expertise as it is for what it does, if you want to build a character who's really good at fighting defensively. But just as Weapon Specialization leads to Greater Weapon Specialization, if Combat Expertise leads anywhere, it should lead to relevant feats (like, maybe for example, a feat that allows you to add Int to your AC ;) ).
It seems the real purpose of it is to make all combat maneuver feats require a prerequisite feat so that likely, only a fighter and/or human is only going to be able to have an "Improved..." at first level, and otherwise the earliest anyone can get such a feat is at level 3. In which case, just say you can't take the feat until level 3, unless you're a fighter. Or have a prerequisite BAB requirement.
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.
I thought I just did that - the ability to perform combat maneuvers is available to anyone. I could attempt to trip you. The ability to perform combat maneuvers without becoming vulnerable in the process is unusual and the INT13+ represents that raw ability while the Combat Expertise feat represents the disciplined focus on using that raw ability in combat. The Combat Expertise discipline grants a more conservative, "mistake-free" fighting style which gives access to non-vulnerable combat maneuvers and also lets you boost your AC at a cost to attack bonus.
@Kaiyanwang Think Batman. There is a mental component to using that style of fighting well.
Because there are many posts if this has already been said forgive me. Combat Expertise allows access to the "Improved" ability to trip, disarm, etc. These combat maneovers are still available to anyone (fighters included) they simply will not be as good at it.
Crunch the numbers. Without the feats, you are completely inept at it. A big issue is the whole provoking AoO's. Against CR = level monsters, you'll likely never even get to roll your dice. When you do, you got like 20% chance.
|
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.
Because by taking combat expertise, you learn to fight more carefully and know where to attack without provoking.
And it is not a prerequisite because some of the combat maneuvers aren't really tactical. Sunder and Bull rush are pure brawn.
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.I thought I just did that - the ability to perform combat maneuvers is available to anyone. I could attempt to trip you. The ability to perform combat maneuvers without becoming vulnerable in the process is unusual and the INT13+ represents that raw ability while the Combat Expertise feat represents the disciplined focus on using that raw ability in combat. The Combat Expertise discipline grants a more conservative, "mistake-free" fighting style which gives access to non-vulnerable combat maneuvers and also lets you boost your AC at a cost to attack bonus.
Then why isn't it needed for Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, or Improved Bullrush?
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.Because by taking combat expertise, you learn to fight more carefully and know where to attack without provoking.
And it is not a prerequisite because some of the combat maneuvers aren't really tactical. Sunder and Bull rush are pure brawn.
Then why don't you continue to take AoOs while performing them? Shouldn't you continue to do so because you don't have Int 13 and Combat Expertise?
Then why don't you continue to take AoOs while performing them? Shouldn't you continue to do so because you don't have Int 13 and Combat Expertise?
It's fun how people continue to go around without answer to this specific thing.
Please explain why, then, that if Int 13 and Combat Expertise are needed to avoid AoOs for combat maneuvers, why it is not a prerequisite for all combat maneuvers.I thought I just did that - the ability to perform combat maneuvers is available to anyone. I could attempt to trip you. The ability to perform combat maneuvers without becoming vulnerable in the process is unusual and the INT13+ represents that raw ability while the Combat Expertise feat represents the disciplined focus on using that raw ability in combat. The Combat Expertise discipline grants a more conservative, "mistake-free" fighting style which gives access to non-vulnerable combat maneuvers and also lets you boost your AC at a cost to attack bonus.
@Kaiyanwang Think Batman. There is a mental component to using that style of fighting well.
Just like how Power Attack clearly helps you make error free bull rushes and overruns.
It's fun how people continue to go around without answer to this specific thing.
Then why don't you continue to take AoOs while performing them? Shouldn't you continue to do so because you don't have Int 13 and Combat Expertise?Specific Answer:
You don't have to divert your attention off your opponent to perform an over run, you simply have to knock your opponent's weapon so it isn't in an immediate position to strike you.
You do have to divert your attention away from your opponent to your opponent's grip on his weapon to perform a disarm.
(Personally, by that reasoning I'm wondering if sunder shouldn't have required combat expertise, but que sera sera.)
So why do you take AoOs when performing those actions without the feats in question?
So why do you take AoOs when performing those actions without the feats in question?It's fun how people continue to go around without answer to this specific thing.
Then why don't you continue to take AoOs while performing them? Shouldn't you continue to do so because you don't have Int 13 and Combat Expertise?Specific Answer:
You don't have to divert your attention off your opponent to perform an over run, you simply have to knock your opponent's weapon so it isn't in an immediate position to strike you.
You do have to divert your attention away from your opponent to your opponent's grip on his weapon to perform a disarm.
(Personally, by that reasoning I'm wondering if sunder shouldn't have required combat expertise, but que sera sera.)
+1
|
|
Because you have little formal training in the maneuver.
Anybody can try to trip me. An unskilled person will probably get socked on the head. A trained tripper will trip me and laugh from above.
You are either trolling, or simply refusing to accept our reasoning, in which case all this is pointless. And i do not do pointless stuff.
So why do you take AoOs when performing those actions without the feats in question?Because the movements themselves put you at risk perhaps if you don't know how to execute them properly. The str 13 requirement shows you have the brawn to execute them correctly and power attack shows the knowledge of how to throw yourself forward with reckless abandon (either represented in how you perform the maneuver or how you knock their weapon out of the way).
But isn't "know how" represented by int? I.E. knowing how to trip someone?
Because you have little formal training in the maneuver.
Anybody can try to trip me. An unskilled person will probably get socked on the head. A trained tripper will trip me and laugh from above.
You are either trolling, or simply refusing to accept our reasoning, in which case all this is pointless. And i do not do pointless stuff.
Your "reasoning" has holes I could drive a barn through.
So why do you take AoOs when performing those actions without the feats in question?Because the movements themselves put you at risk perhaps if you don't know how to execute them properly. The str 13 requirement shows you have the brawn to execute them correctly and power attack shows the knowledge of how to throw yourself forward with reckless abandon (either represented in how you perform the maneuver or how you knock their weapon out of the way).
...
What?
But isn't "know how" represented by int? I.E. knowing how to trip someone?So why do you take AoOs when performing those actions without the feats in question?Because the movements themselves put you at risk perhaps if you don't know how to execute them properly. The str 13 requirement shows you have the brawn to execute them correctly and power attack shows the knowledge of how to throw yourself forward with reckless abandon (either represented in how you perform the maneuver or how you knock their weapon out of the way).First, note this particular reply was about overrun and bull rush, which don't have the int requirement. The know how isn't represented by int. The know how is represented by the feat in question.
IMO: The int part of the requirement for combat expertise is the ability to pay attention to several things simultaneously and to think in a logical manner under duress. (Ie. His fighting style is the 12 sign of the zodiac, so if I step in with a thrust to his abdomen he will parry six inches along the blade which will allow me to . . .)
So if you need know how to not provoke AoO's from tripping, and the know how is represented by the feat, then why do you need 13 int to trip without provoking AoO's?
AoOs are trip int 13+ with bull rush feat tax. Why AoOs? How can you trip lightly with AoO time in the design intent? It's certainly fair to expect that maneuver forms will execute properly if you meet pre-requisites.*
|
You guys do know it's a game right? Justify it anyway that makes you happy, i.e. Aliens beamed the idea directly into Jason's brain works for me. Without knowing the process that Jason and team went through to develop the final rule-set can we ever know? Other than my alien theory, it was probably there to stop INT always being a dump stat AND to make the later feats appear at later levels to balance things out at lower/mid levels. Seriously, as suggested before, if you feel that the rules stop you having your cake and eating it too, then house-rule it. I get the feeling that it would make people happier if the game stated put 20 in each stat, add 10 point every level and start at level 20. Of course then people would b-arch about there not being an Epic level players books.
Paizo, you can't win guys, but please keep doing what you are currently doing - moderates think you guys rock.
I'll return you to your regular bickering,
S.
If you are not trained in what you are doing the actual movements will leave you vulnerable to attack.
...
What?
So why do you need 13 Str to be trained in it?
Because there are many posts if this has already been said forgive me. Combat Expertise allows access to the "Improved" ability to trip, disarm, etc. These combat maneovers are still available to anyone (fighters included) they simply will not be as good at it.
I think many people forget that any character can do these things, the feats just make you better and having an INT requirement to be better at tactical fighting makes perfect sense.
Go ahead have a STR of 20 and INT of 5 as your fighter build. You can still trip, etc. you just won't be as good at it. You will do more damage, however, so that is the trade off.
Any character can do it, and I would add we tend to forget that fighters (paladins, rangers, cavaliers and barbarians) are already trained to be better at those maneuvres - i'ts called having a high BAB. And Str also adds to CMB, so lets see.
STR fighter:
You want to trip using a Guisarme with BAB +5, Str 20, Int 10 and no Improved Trip: you add +10 to your check, and you provoke. You'll get to attack (+9) when your opponent tries to stand, and, if you hit, deal 2d4+7 dmg.
INT fighter:
You want to trip with BAB +5, STR 18, Int 13, and Improved Trip : You add +11 to your trip attempt, don't provoke, and when you hit the target trying to stand (+9) and you deal 2d4+6 dmg.
So, you are trading 1 dmg on all attack and 2 feats for the ability to not provoking when you trip and 1 skill point/level.
Conclusions:
1 - you don't need improved trip to be good at tripping - you'll just have to forfeit tripping adjacent opponents. Or one of those 2 feats you saved could be spent on Thougness or Dodge (or both) to help you cope with AoOs.
2 - The trade is flavorfull, and seems balanced to me.
In the game, it is not. Its watching your opponent for the exact moment where his balance is slightly compromised and his guard is slightly down, its testing to see how he will react to your movements and it is doing all of this while your opponent is attempting to stab you in the face with a sharp pointy stick.
Because that obviously happens every 6 seconds.
Intelligence 13 represents the minimum mental capability to do all the calculations you have to do as well as split your concentration to the different things you have to watch. (This doesn't mean you know how to do it, only that you have the ability to do it.)
I'm a fencer and a physicist. People don't do calculations in the middle of battle. They use instincts to feel out weak spots. There simply isn't time to do any rational analysis. At least nothing that isn't better represented by combat reflexes.
So why do you need 13 Str to be trained in it?You need the brawn to be able to keep their weapon away from you while you do it.
Keeping weapons away is not a matter of strength. The stereotypical clash of guys with swords pushing on each other isn't realistic. You only need the strength of a child to parry a weapon because of how much leverage works against the parried. And no, you don't need to be very smart to do it either.
You guys do know it's a game right? Justify it anyway that makes you happy, i.e. Aliens beamed the idea directly into Jason's brain works for me. Without knowing the process that Jason and team went through to develop the final rule-set can we ever know? Other than my alien theory, it was probably there to stop INT always being a dump stat AND to make the later feats appear at later levels to balance things out at lower/mid levels. Seriously, as suggested before, if you feel that the rules stop you having your cake and eating it too, then house-rule it. I get the feeling that it would make people happier if the game stated put 20 in each stat, add 10 point every level and start at level 20. Of course then people would b-arch about there not being an Epic level players books.
Paizo, you can't win guys, but please keep doing what you are currently doing - moderates think you guys rock.
I'll return you to your regular bickering,
S.
Int 13 for CE happened in 3.5.
"the designer did it so is correct" is something more similar to a religion, in my opinion. Moreover, if it was true, why say (as I firmly think) that pathfinder is better than 3.5?
Because. You know. Stuff designers did (they are people, nothing strange with that) was wrong. And needed improvement, streamlining and stuff.
|
|
Int 13 for CE happened in 3.5.
"the designer did it so is correct" is something more similar to a religion, in my opinion. Moreover, if it was true, why say (as I firmly think) that pathfinder is better than 3.5?
So after thinking about creating Pathfinder from the ashes of 3.5e and deciding INT 13 still ok, this was a wrong choice? Based on what? The game boils down to statistics pure and simple. The designers come up with how they, not you or I, perceive the chance of something happening as shown by a die roll with modifiers. They are attempting to model things that are and things that will never be. Wrong in the game design game can be very subjective. Most of the changes in PF were around tweaking the game to promote more balanced classes and plug the obvious offending gaps that 'ruined' 3.5e - that included changing and developing new rules. Errata have been released to tweak a bit further as play bears out more gremlins. However, INT 13 has not been addressed and if Jason and the team really felt this was an error in 3.5e they could have simply errata'd it by now. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and it's on the 'to do' list.
Jason and team I'm sure listen to what people are saying but when the ink hits the page it's all Paizo.
S.
EDIT: CunningMongoose gave an excellent example earlier where mechanically it's not really such a big deal and ended with two astute observations - well worth scrolling back up to read.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes.
As they can in the rules. Doing it without getting hit is harder.
Anyone can carry two swords (and use them alternating or one for AoO, etc), but with a feat (and an added ability requirement) you can attack with both on your turn. Take the Dex out of TWF and we'll talk.
Everyone is inherently capable of "clever" fighting. Your argument falls in upon itself because ANYONE can ALREADY trip or disarm or throw dirt in someone's eyes.As they can in the rules. Doing it without getting hit is harder.
Anyone can carry two swords (and use them alternating or one for AoO, etc), but with a feat (and an added ability requirement) you can attack with both on your turn. Take the Dex out of TWF and we'll talk.
PS, you can already attack with two weapons on your turn.
Add Int 13 and Combat Expertise to Improved Sunder, Improved Bullrush, and Improved Overrun and we can talk.
My impression of why CE is what it is in Pathfinder is that Paizo had a crushing publishing schedule to meet and so they were only going to spend time on the rules that really stood out as needing to be addressed. Since CE isn't one of those hot topic issues it just got copy and pasted into the new system.
Except it wasn't. It was edited to work like Power Attack, thereby making it awful.
|
|
Except it wasn't. It was edited to work like Power Attack, thereby making it awful.
My impression of why CE is what it is in Pathfinder is that Paizo had a crushing publishing schedule to meet and so they were only going to spend time on the rules that really stood out as needing to be addressed. Since CE isn't one of those hot topic issues it just got copy and pasted into the new system.
Er, what is wrong with Power Attack now? As a GM I find it far less over-powered when coupled with a two-handed weapon compared to the 3.5e version. I class the new Power Attack as a win for Pathfinder over 3.5e.
S.
Except it wasn't. It was edited to work like Power Attack, thereby making it awful.
My impression of why CE is what it is in Pathfinder is that Paizo had a crushing publishing schedule to meet and so they were only going to spend time on the rules that really stood out as needing to be addressed. Since CE isn't one of those hot topic issues it just got copy and pasted into the new system.Er, what is wrong with Power Attack now? As a GM I find it far less over-powered when coupled with a two-handed weapon compared to the 3.5e version. I class the new Power Attack as a win for Pathfinder over 3.5e.
S.
He didn't say Power Attack was bad. A +2 or +3 bonus to damage for a -1 to attack is pretty good most of the time. A +1 to AC for a -1 to attack and you HAVE to make an attack to make use of it is a pretty awful most of the time.
There's no reason Combat Expertise should follow the same mechanics as Power Attack except for some arbitrary streamlining.
PS, you can already attack with two weapons on your turn.
Doh. Yes, of course you can. You'll just, you know, never hit anything.
[qoute="Cartigan"]Add Int 13 and Combat Expertise to Improved Sunder, Improved Bullrush, and Improved Overrun and we can talk.
I'd be happy if they were, but they do make some amount of sense (see the online/offline discussion).
Add Int 13 and Combat Expertise to Improved Sunder, Improved Bullrush, and Improved Overrun and we can talk.I'd be happy if they were, but they do make some amount of sense (see the online/offline discussion).
So fighters that have less than 13 Int and don't have Combat Expertise should not be able to do anything in combat effectively except hit things?
FWIW, I've house ruled for several years now that Combat Expertise is not a prereq for Whirlwind Attack. It makes no sense to me that a barbarian needs to be smarter than the average bear to spin in a circle with two weapons and hit a bunch of people all at once. This is exactly the sort of logical flaw I'd like to see a Pathfinder 2E remove from play.
FWIW, I've house ruled for several years now that Combat Expertise is not a prereq for Whirlwind Attack. It makes no sense to me that a barbarian needs to be smarter than the average bear to spin in a circle with two weapons and hit a bunch of people all at once. This is exactly the sort of logical flaw I'd like to see a Pathfinder 2E remove from play.
Don't hold your breath on either of those things happening - either logical flaws being done away with or a Pathfinder 2e
FWIW, I've house ruled for several years now that Combat Expertise is not a prereq for Whirlwind Attack. It makes no sense to me that a barbarian needs to be smarter than the average bear to spin in a circle with two weapons and hit a bunch of people all at once. This is exactly the sort of logical flaw I'd like to see a Pathfinder 2E remove from play.Don't hold your breath on either of those things happening - either logical flaws being done away with or a Pathfinder 2e
It could happen, but it could not.
I'm sure there will be a 2nd ed. But don't hold your breath, you'll pass out in a few minutes.
No, it means that they develop different styles.So fighters that have less than 13 Int and don't have Combat Expertise should not be able to do anything in combat effectively except hit things?Add Int 13 and Combat Expertise to Improved Sunder, Improved Bullrush, and Improved Overrun and we can talk.I'd be happy if they were, but they do make some amount of sense (see the online/offline discussion).
Read as "yes"
Reading as being obtuse. The Combat Expertise tree is for the Roy Greenhilt style of fighter, not Groo that min-maxers seem to think is the fighter ideal.
Combat Expertise is the arbitrary character for smart fighters style of fighter. That has NOTHING to do with Improved Trip or Disarm. When has Roy done either? Roy's schtick is hitting his opponent with a magical longsword as hard as possible. The bloody IDIOT SAVANTE Bard is the "smart fighter."
Combat Expertise is the arbitrary character for smart fighters style of fighter. That has NOTHING to do with Improved Trip or Disarm. When has Roy done either? Roy's schtick is hitting his opponent with a magical longsword as hard as possible. The bloody IDIOT SAVANTE Bard is the "smart fighter."
Combat expertise in use here?
Combat Expertise is the arbitrary character for smart fighters style of fighter. That has NOTHING to do with Improved Trip or Disarm. When has Roy done either? Roy's schtick is hitting his opponent with a magical longsword as hard as possible. The bloody IDIOT SAVANTE Bard is the "smart fighter."Combat expertise in use here?
Bullrush.
Bullrush.Combat Expertise is the arbitrary character for smart fighters style of fighter. That has NOTHING to do with Improved Trip or Disarm. When has Roy done either? Roy's schtick is hitting his opponent with a magical longsword as hard as possible. The bloody IDIOT SAVANTE Bard is the "smart fighter."Combat expertise in use here?
He did not push the ogre back - the ogre fell by himself. Maybe after the inital charge, combat expertise to force him back while defending against the AoO?