You assume the players were always in the optimal situation. But I didn't put them in the optimal situation.I in no way said, hinted, suggested, or in any way implied that the players needed an optimal situation. My argument does not require "optimal conditions"
In fact the opposite is true, the usefulness of combat expertise relies on the DM making situations where its useful: narrow bridges or corridors and monsters to hold off and a party of ranged people behind you AND some reason why the foes need to be held off rather than simply carved through AND the foes are targeting your armor class and not your fort saves, reflex saves, will saves etc. I dislike a feat for MY character that becomes useful when the DM thinks it should be useful.
If the fighter is taking huge penalties to attack, Its usually expedient to simply walk around him and attack someone else.
Except that I didn't suggest this kind of use. Example:
Round 1: the fighter full attacks in the usual bloody, gory manner. Enemies retaliate.
Round 2: fighter prepares a standard action attack. Enemies countinue to retaliate, but in the triggered attack goes first and the whole CE + defending is activated. AC raises, a lot of attacks miss. In a favorable situation, every attack misses barring 20.
Round 3: reinforcements arrive (along with a web, a fireball of whatelse, a poisoned arrow from the rogue, what you want), healed fighter eviscerates the enemies.
Something like that.
Something like that.
Something like that requires the exact situation you denied, or the foes can look for easier meat elsewhere.
Even then What you're doing depends on your level. You've blown a feat and (for a fighter) a harsh prerequisite in order to add to your armor class at the cost of your to hit for three rounds. Gaining 3 ac for 1 rounds is the same as gaining 1 ac for 3 rounds.. which you could have easily done with dodge, shield specialization, or probably 6 other feats. You wouldn't come out ahead in your own scenario until level 13 (and even then you have the hit problems to worry about)
-If your AC is so high that they need a 20 to hit you thats an even WORSE case for combat reflexes, not a better one. The extra AC you gain is useless.
Also, why can't you kill at least 1 foe in three rounds and drop the amount of damage you're taking that way?
Skill Focus (profession (telephone sanitizer))
Balderdash. Entire civilizations would have remained viable if a few more people had taken this feat!
Something like that requires the exact situation you denied, or the foes can look for easier meat elsewhere.
My situation is just an example. And I'm not saying that CE is the "bestest feat EVARR", see my previous posts. I just brought examples.
And no, gaining 3 AC for un round is different, if you cap AC en oug to make yourself not hittable. And again, I talked about synergies with defending weapons, so the net increase is far bigger.
My player did this in 3.5. I already said you need more work for a less gain in PF.
I don't understand what you say about combat reflexes.
My situation is just an example. And I'm not saying that CE is the "bestest feat EVARR", see my previous posts. I just brought examples.
-In your example you would have been better off with another feat. Thats part of the problem with your analysis, you're not considering opportunity costs.
And no, gaining 3 AC for one round is different, if you cap AC en oug to make yourself not hittable. And again, I talked about synergies with defending weapons, so the net increase is far bigger.
-Except that you NEVER make yourself unhitable. A 20 always hits. It doesn't matter if you have a defending weapon and a +1 dodge bonus for 3 rounds or a defending weapon and +3 to dodge for one round. You take the same damage... unless your AC goes passed the point that they need a 20 to hit, in which case you take MORE damage. This isn't opinion, this is math.
9th level fighter Eric the expertister vs 4 things with spears that need an 18 to hit him. He cranks on combat expertise for a +3 bonus, meaning they need a 21 to hit him.
The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.
h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.
Per mook on the 2 rounds you fight normally they hit on an 18, 19, or 20 you get (i think i'm doing this right)
.15*(3.5)+ .5*1*3.5
=2.275 per round X 2 rounds = 4.55 damage
So per mook on the round you use combat expertise round you get
.05 (3.5+0)+ .5*1*3.5
= 1.95 damage.
So 6.5 damage over the three rounds.
Compared to Simon the shield specialist
.10 (3.5) + .5*1*3.1 =1.9 X 3 rounds= 5.7 damage per mook.
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.
-there's no special synergy with combat expertise there. a + is a +
But we're getting off-track again. What about Toughness? I haven't used it, but I wonder if a character who doesn't expect to make it to higher levels in PFS might consider it just for the increased low-level survivability. Thoughts?
Oddly enough, I favor toughness at high level more. Eventually, no matter what you do, you really will need more HP, and toughness is pretty hard to replace.
Expertise, once activated, should give a - to hit with normal attacks, but the bonus for all special manuvers that target CMB/CMD. This bonus would increase by level at the same pace.
That's the definition of 'expertise'. A +5 bonus to CMB and CMD at level 20 is worth a 13 Int, and dovetails with the Improved feats that 'specialize' in Expertise manuvers. It makes these manuvers quite viable at higher levels, but while he's doing them, he's not going to be hitting stuff normally...trade-off.
The whole Defensive Fighting shtick should be a feat tree that starts with Dodge, and brings back 3.5 Expertise. If someone wants to be unhittable, let them be unhittable. 3.5 Expertise + Defensive fighting with ranks is +8 to AC, and it's all good vs Touch...a massive AC jump. If you're fighting mooks with an AoO build, it's a great tactic, and it can help you tank the dragon that's unloading on you. If you're bonus to hit is high enough, it becomes 'free AC'. It would work especially well with a Vital strike or Charge that is at the auto-hit level.
It's also the way to neutralize a CAGM barbarian going balls-out with Rage AoO's. If he can't hit you, he's useless. I liked to note that Expertise turned Robilar's Gambit into a +4 AC against all attacks from the Gambit user, at no penalty to the attacker.
The primary problems with it are bad scaling rules and a lousy requirement.
===Aelryinth
My vote definitely goes to Combat Expertise, the most hated feat ever.
On it's own, it's a bad feat, one that hardly ever gets used except by characters purposely made to use it. However, Paizo then decided to make this terrible feat a pre-requisite to almost every single Combat Maneuver feat in the game, thus creating the cult of hate that surrounds CE.
Toughness is a good feat at low levels, and one that you can retrain at higher levels. I wouldn't call it sub-par because it can help your low-level character survive long enough to get to a level where he/she doesn't need it anymore.
There are only a few feats that I would consider sub-par. There are some that are weaker than others, true, but the still have a place in certain builds. The following five feats are ones that I would only consider taking in VERY rare circumstances.
Eclectic: You get another favored class. Nice to see that Paizo considers the half-elf trait Adaptability to be worth a feat, but really just take toughness. Or don't multiclass. If you do multiclass, try to do only a level or two. Maybe... maybe if you are human, and are multiclassing into Sorcerer for more than a few levels for the bonus spells, but if you are why isn't Sorcerer your favored class already?
Galley Slave: Oh boy, +2 to profession (Sailor) and +2 damage to a ship on your first attack. Really? A whole 2 points of damage to a big wooden structure, and that's so powerful I can only do it once? Just take Skill Focus, if you really want to be the master of sailing.
Gnome Trickster: you can cast mage hand and prestidigitation 1/day... if you are a gnome. Who already gets prestidigitation 1/day. And you need a charisma of 13. Is being able to lift 5 lbs worth that much to you? Then pick up a hand of the mage for 900 gp (for mage hand at will), and use your feat for something useful.
Racial Heritage: You count as two different races, human and another humanoid race, for things like magic items, spells, and so on. Now, I'm all for flavor feats, if you can afford them, and if they are likely not to get you killed. Okay, so you get to pick up iron guts, or can get into the arcane archer prestige class. You also count as two enemies for rangers. Or traps that target orcs. Ot maybe a disease that only targets dwarves. If it was a trait... maybe. As a full feat, you need some very specific build, and even then I'd think twice.
Run: Wow, you get to run five times your normal speed instead of four times your normal speed. Quick question... when was the last time your character ran? Now look at the feat Fleet, a feat many people consider to be one of the weaker feats. Your base movement increases by 5 feet. So if you're base move is, say, 20 feet, it's now 25 feet. So when you run, it would be... 100 feet. Same as if you took Run instead. Hmmm... an extra five foot move that's useful all the time, or the same amount that's useful only very occasionally? (Okay, you also get to keep your dex bonus when running, so I guess if you are running in combat all the time.... erm, why are running in combat all the time?) I guess you could take both fleet and run at the same time to really go faster. No, wait, you can take fleet multiple times. Still worthless.
My campaign actually uses the Run action quite often, but the DM has battles that are mostly outside in vast wildernesses, rather than confined to the interiors of buildings or dungeons. Also, my PC has a base speed of 20, and the rest of the party has a base speed of 40 due to several different templates and racial features, so I often have to spend a round running from one region of combat to the other region of combat. But I've spent my feats on other aspects of my character. I just need to get a carpet of flying or something....
|
My campaign actually uses the Run action quite often, but the DM has battles that are mostly outside in vast wildernesses, rather than confined to the interiors of buildings or dungeons. Also, my PC has a base speed of 20, and the rest of the party has a base speed of 40 due to several different templates and racial features, so I often have to spend a round running from one region of combat to the other region of combat. But I've spent my feats on other aspects of my character. I just need to get a carpet of flying or something....
I'm not sure the run feat is unusable, but I will say its not that good. He makes a good point that fleet does the same thing+, and its considered a fairly weak feat. at +5ft (especially wit those armor limits)? I'd have a hard time considering it as an option. +10(stacking with monk/barbarian fast movement) it would be viable.
To be fair, it can be really good at low levels when you don't have iterative attacks yet. Or at least, so I hear from the people I've seen use it. I don't actually know this one first hand.
Maybe if the spiked chain still had reach like it used to I would agree at lower levels.
Cleave - Why do I want to give up a standard action and take an AC hit just to hit 2 targets when I get 3+attack at higher levels.If you've found yourself taking a move action cleave gets you a shot at two instead of one. If you've taken a move action without this feat you'd only get one shot period.
That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.
That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.
Vital Strike requires you to have a +6 BAB, Cleave you can get at first level. So you get 5 levels of being able to cleave an opponent and since you don't have extra attacks, you can do it all the time if you want. Much more valuable than your giving it credit for.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.Vital Strike requires you to have a +6 BAB, Cleave you can get at first level. So you get 5 levels of being able to cleave an opponent and since you don't have extra attacks, you can do it all the time if you want. Much more valuable than your giving it credit for.
Perhaps the good Captain mostly plays high-level games?
Perhaps the good Captain mostly plays high-level games?That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.Vital Strike requires you to have a +6 BAB, Cleave you can get at first level. So you get 5 levels of being able to cleave an opponent and since you don't have extra attacks, you can do it all the time if you want. Much more valuable than your giving it credit for.
True. Our group has been on the high end.
We played Age of Worms which got to pre-epic 19-20 if I remember correctly. After that was Savage tide, that got up to intro epic at 21. We then play-tested PF with Curse of the Crimson Thrown, which got into pre-epic, lvl 20, but accelerated progression for the playtest. Now we are doing a CoT into Kingmaker and are currently lvl 15.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps the good Captain mostly plays high-level games?That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.Vital Strike requires you to have a +6 BAB, Cleave you can get at first level. So you get 5 levels of being able to cleave an opponent and since you don't have extra attacks, you can do it all the time if you want. Much more valuable than your giving it credit for.True. Our group has been on the high end.
We played Age of Worms which got to pre-epic 19-20 if I remember correctly. After that was Savage tide, that got up to intro epic at 21. We then play-tested PF with Curse of the Crimson Thrown, which got into pre-epic, lvl 20, but accelerated progression for the playtest. Now we are doing a CoT into Kingmaker and are currently lvl 15.
Then in the interest of clarity, perhaps your analyses of various feats should include an "at higher levels" caveat, since a great many feats' power levels change based on the level of the character.
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks...
Man.
If you raise a little bit the AC, can not worth that much. BUT different sources raising the AC can significantly decrease the chance of being hurt. If done well, even of being if by the first attack, charge or iterative.
This was my point, and I was not even trying to show that CE is a good feat because I think is not.
If you get this, well. Otherwise, good luck with your games. DPR means nothing in this case.
It's useful for long time calculation, not for specific rounds.
Dear god, ever heard of the chicken joke about statistics?
|
|
Perhaps the good Captain mostly plays high-level games?That is what vital strike is supposed to be for. Finding two target standing next to each other and both in reach, and being a wise idea to move up to them at that time, is way too situational. Rather have an occasional free extra attack, with charge, no action, no minus to AC.Vital Strike requires you to have a +6 BAB, Cleave you can get at first level. So you get 5 levels of being able to cleave an opponent and since you don't have extra attacks, you can do it all the time if you want. Much more valuable than your giving it credit for.True. Our group has been on the high end.
We played Age of Worms which got to pre-epic 19-20 if I remember correctly. After that was Savage tide, that got up to intro epic at 21. We then play-tested PF with Curse of the Crimson Thrown, which got into pre-epic, lvl 20, but accelerated progression for the playtest. Now we are doing a CoT into Kingmaker and are currently lvl 15.
You do realize that Cleave and Vital Strike CANNOT be used together right ?
Cleave is a standard action and Vital Strike is a standard action and you only get one standard action a round so no vital strike cleaves.
You do realize that Cleave and Vital Strike CANNOT be used together right ?
Cleave is a standard action and Vital Strike is a standard action and you only get one standard action a round so no vital strike cleaves.
That combo actually has nothing to do with my comment. My point was that if you wanted to do more damage after moving, the vital strike would be a better option.
That combo actually has nothing to do with my comment. My point was that if you wanted to do more damage after moving, the vital strike would be a better option.You do realize that Cleave and Vital Strike CANNOT be used together right ?
Cleave is a standard action and Vital Strike is a standard action and you only get one standard action a round so no vital strike cleaves.
More damage to one target than you would have, but still less total damage than you normally would if you hit your two cleave targets. Cleave is very good for softening things up for the next person to come in and finish off one of the targets. Definately not that subpar a feat.
|
|
More damage to one target than you would have, but still less total damage than you normally would if you hit your two cleave targets. Cleave is very good for softening things up for the next person to come in and finish off one of the targets. Definately not that subpar a feat.That combo actually has nothing to do with my comment. My point was that if you wanted to do more damage after moving, the vital strike would be a better option.You do realize that Cleave and Vital Strike CANNOT be used together right ?
Cleave is a standard action and Vital Strike is a standard action and you only get one standard action a round so no vital strike cleaves.
Actually it is, the current cleave feat requires your target to literally be standing side by side. (adjacent to each other) meaning if they try to flank anyone or take a free 5 ft step you can't use this feat. The new upgraded cleave feat in Ultimate combat fixes this but imposes a nasty feat tax before you can use it like it was in 3.5
Man.
If you raise a little bit the AC, can not worth that much. BUT different sources raising the AC can significantly decrease the chance of being hurt. If done well, even of being if by the first attack, charge or iterative.
My point was that raising it a little all the time is the same as raising it a lot some of the time.
It's useful for long time calculation, not for specific rounds.
It works for specific Fights, and to get a comparison. Its a bad feat if you use it for 1 round out of 3. In my experience it is used far less.
Dear god, ever heard of the chicken joke about statistics?
No, lets hear it.
My point was that raising it a little all the time is the same as raising it a lot some of the time.
My point was that is not. In a quite swing-y game like pathifinder, an all-or nothing round MAKES the difference.
It works for specific Fights, and to get a comparison. Its a bad feat if you use it for 1 round out of 3. In my experience it is used far less.
If you use it 1 round in 3, is a good feat. Now, I can agree with you that is bad feat, because most times the PF version is taken only for improved trip for the old concept that you cannot have a good feat immediately, you just have to take a sucky one before, and for how has been changed. Can be used, but is sub-par definitively.
No, lets hear it.
I have zero chicken, you have two chicken. "Statistically" we have one chicken each, but actually I am hungry and you are a satiated big wolf ;)
Now, is not a matematically correct joke, but it's useful for me now to point out my opinion: DPR is an useful tool but not to adjudicate short term damage output.
If I have to stack up AC, and I succeed, is not the same of increasing my AC by 3, expacially with people with greataxes around. If they hit with a 12 instead of a 8 is one thing, but if they hit with a 20 instead of a 12, things change, expecially since everybody barring, IIRC, 20th level fighters must confirm criticals.
Now I see that you pointed out the DPR and said the other way around, but there are other factors involved - HPs of the fighter. The DPR could be the same, but is the x3 greataxe critical killing him. not going to happen if you play it defensively one round AND the party plays in your favour (see example)
Otherwise, yeah, better avoid defense and hope to drop everybody fast&furious.
|
I'll start this off with a couple I think are worth mentioning:
Vital Strike: The Entire chain:
Not only is VS not subpar, it outperforms Weapon Specialization for many (if not most) two-handed builds.
"...outperforms Weapon Specialization for any weapon whose dice damage is 1d12/2d6 or larger (i.e, Enlarged or Lead Blades'd or both). Supposing, for the sake of argument, that you get full-attacks 50% of the time, and other times you must move to reach your target without charging (a common example being you killed your adjacent opponent last turn and now need to march through the fray to the next) -- in such a case you're better off taking Vital Strike instead of Weapon Specialization at 6th if the choice is between the two. Given one move+attack and one full-attack over each "set" of two rounds, WS grants +6dmg with a greatsword's three total attacks while VS grants +2d6(~7)dmg from the one that qualified."
My point was that is not. In a quite swing-y game like pathifinder, an all-or nothing round MAKES the difference.
No, it doesn't. You don't get a clobbered or stunned condition for taking multiple shots. What is "swing-y" supposed to mean here? You may as well be arguing that the feat works in those circumstances because its more smurfy.
I have zero chicken, you have two chicken. "Statistically" we have one chicken each, but actually I am hungry and you are a satiated big wolf ;)
If i'm round 2 and you're round 1 then it doesn't matter.
If you use it 1 round in 3, is a good feat.
No, it is not. It gives you the same reduction as dodge or improved natural armor or shield specilization at the cost of DPR.
Now, I can agree with you that is bad feat, because most times the PF version is taken only for improved trip for the old concept that you cannot have a good feat immediately, you just have to take a sucky one before, and for how has been changed. Can be used, but is sub-par definitively.
No, lets hear it.
If I have to stack up AC, and I succeed, is not the same of increasing my AC by 3, especially with people with greataxes around. If they hit with a 12 instead of a 8 is one thing, but if they hit with a 20 instead of a 12, things change, expecially since everybody barring, IIRC, 20th level fighters must confirm criticals.
-Its disingenuous to compare combat expertise AND a defending sword vs dodge.
Now I see that you pointed out the DPR and said the other way around, but there are other factors involved - HPs of the fighter. The DPR could be the same, but is the x3 greataxe critical killing him. not going to happen if you play it defensively one round AND the party plays in your favour (see example)
you are not more likely to be crit over the length of the 3 round fight with shield focus up all the time than you are with Combat expertise up- you will suffer the same number of crits either way. Again, math, not opinion.
did i hit my head or is there something up with my avatar....
|
|
Fleet
IMO almost any ability that increases movement is suboptimal over the, pun intended, long run -- because there is so much equipment out there which rectifies slow movement. When you're well into the double-digit levels, you'll probably have two or even more pairs of Boots of Speed (you'll want to wear them just to counteract Slow).
(As a fighter, I'd rather dip barbarian or even cleric/Travel than spend feat for additional movement. Yes: even for a feat-loaded dwarf fighter -- and I have one who dipped cleric/Travel and is very happy with the decision.)
Combat Expertise
The real purpose of Combat Expertise is to keep your butt in one piece, not be an annoying stepping-stone to Improved Trip (the real overrated feat, because all most maneuvers do is tempt you into not damaging an enemy), Stack in another untyped AC bonus-granted feat or ability (Shield of Swings comes to mind), and you have the ability to make yourself almost unhittable in those situations you really need to be unhittable (such as after taking a massive x3 crit to the face).
Improved trip is rated as highly as it is because its one of the few ways to genuinely keep mooks away from your casters, and to stop people from getting away from you. On top of that you get a +4 to hit for yourself and any other melee types you have. Improved trip, combat reflexes, and enlarge person has helped make my melee characters RELEVANT to fights again.
|
|
Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
On the other hand a better than average feat using a weak feat like spell focus divination gives a diviner a reason to take spellfocus and actually be better at using detect thoughts and scrying than other casters.
I am not sure what diviner's delving does from the top of my head, but if it is a good feat I do not actually have a problem with these mechanics.
Critical Mastery.
Oh, I forgot.
Improved [Combat Maneuver]/Greater [Combat Maneuver]
Every single one of those is a feat tax. Improved/Greater Combat Maneuvers were a single feat in 3.5. You could do in 3.5 with Improved Trip what you need Improved/Greater Trip in Pathfinder to do. Including the +4 bonus. It was split in two and divided between the Improved/Greater feats so you have to take both.
Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
What? Diviner's Delving is a feat designed to improved your ability to divine on something. Which is what Spell Focus (Divination) does. I don't think feat tax means what you think it means.
Go Spell Focus (Conjuration) and get back to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh, I forgot.
Improved [Combat Maneuver]/Greater [Combat Maneuver]
Every single one of those is a feat tax. Improved/Greater Combat Maneuvers were a single feat in 3.5. You could do in 3.5 with Improved Trip what you need Improved/Greater Trip in Pathfinder to do. Including the +4 bonus. It was split in two and divided between the Improved/Greater feats so you have to take both.
Wouldn't that make exactly half of them feat tax, rather than every single one of them?
Wouldn't that make exactly half of them feat tax, rather than every single one of them?Oh, I forgot.
Improved [Combat Maneuver]/Greater [Combat Maneuver]
Every single one of those is a feat tax. Improved/Greater Combat Maneuvers were a single feat in 3.5. You could do in 3.5 with Improved Trip what you need Improved/Greater Trip in Pathfinder to do. Including the +4 bonus. It was split in two and divided between the Improved/Greater feats so you have to take both.
Half of them are a feat tax and they are both half crap.
Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
What? Diviner's Delving is a feat designed to improved your ability to divine on something. Which is what Spell Focus (Divination) does. I don't think feat tax means what you think it means.
Go Spell Focus (Conjuration) and get back to me.
Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Sepia Snake Sigil, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Planar Binding, Wall of Stone, Plane Shift, Incendiary Cloud, Trap the Soul would like to say hello. That's just out of the core book, and just Sorcerer/Wizard. Clerics fighting undead also would like to say hi. The entire line of pit spells in the APG.
Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Sepia Snake Sigil, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Planar Binding, Wall of Stone, Plane Shift, Incendiary Cloud, Trap the Soul would like to say hello. That's just out of the core book, and just Sorcerer/Wizard. Clerics fighting undead also would like to say hi. The entire line of pit spells in the APG.Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
What? Diviner's Delving is a feat designed to improved your ability to divine on something. Which is what Spell Focus (Divination) does. I don't think feat tax means what you think it means.
Go Spell Focus (Conjuration) and get back to me.
Wall of Stone? What? There are better spells for that purpose. I think I was thinking of the feat that lets your overcome spell resistance anyway.
Big Norse Wolf, when did I quoted Shield Focus or Dodge?
I was talking about using the feat along with a piece of equipent.
Again, what is related with this the stunned condition?
I don't understand your line of reasoning.
Wall of Stone? What? There are better spells for that purpose. I think I was thinking of the feat that lets your overcome spell resistance anyway.
Actually, Wall of Stone is shapeable, unlike Wall of Force or Wall of Iron, so it is still useful.
Wall of Stone? What? There are better spells for that purpose. I think I was thinking of the feat that lets your overcome spell resistance anyway.Actually, Wall of Stone is shapeable, unlike Wall of Force or Wall of Iron, so it is still useful.
I meant for the part that requires a save.
|
I think the biggest problem everyone seems to have with CE is the idea that Fighters would want it. To me, it looks like a feat for Rogues and Wizards. Both classes are already likely to have 13 Int anyway, neither can compare to a fighter's HP and AC, and both are aiming to make their melee attacks against a reduced AC (Rogues aim to flank or flat-foot their enemies, Wizards make melee touch attacks like Shocking Grasp), so -1 to hit is less of a big deal. Plus, Rogues want Improved Feint anyway.
The Exotic Weapon Proficiency feats are all pretty lackluster, especially since just about every race but Human gets one of those as a martial weapon anyway-- the only ones you can't get without a feat are Net and Dire Flail. (Clerics of Zon-Kuthon get spiked chain since it's his favored weapon.)
Side Note: Lots of people are upset that the spiked chain is no longer a reach weapon, but I always thought it was a double weapon. The chain has two ends, right? If it were a double weapon I'd take a feat for it.
Big Norse Wolf, when did I quoted Shield Focus or Dodge?
I was talking about using the feat along with a piece of equipent.
Again, what is related with this the stunned condition?
I don't understand your line of reasoning.
you said use combat expertise with a piece of equipment.
i said use [shield focus or dodge or whatever] instead of combat expertise with the equipment and get the same result.
You said combat expertise was better.
I showed you math that said it wasn't.
Side Note: Lots of people are upset that the spiked chain is no longer a reach weapon, but I always thought it was a double weapon. The chain has two ends, right? If it were a double weapon I'd take a feat for it.
It was in 3.0, Oreintal adventures had a double weapon version, but 3.5 only had the reach weapon version.
|
|
What? Diviner's Delving is a feat designed to improved your ability to divine on something. Which is what Spell Focus (Divination) does. I don't think feat tax means what you think it means.Spell Focus (Divination).
A +1 to the DC for saves against my divination spells? Awesome? Now, name a divination spell that requires a save. Detect Thoughts and Scrying are the only two I can think of.
But in order to get Diviner's Delving, you must have Spell Focus (Divination). That's a feat tax. Diviners seriously get no love.
Spell Focus (Divination) does absolutely nothing to improve your ability to divine things. Imagine you want to create an Oracle who is a bad ass diviner, because hey Oracle -> Diviner, makes a certain amount of sense.
So you get Spell Focus (Divination). This does nothing for you until 9th level, when you finally get a +1 DC to the Will save against Scrying.
But if you want Diviner's Delving, which actually does make you a better diviner (all divination spells cast at +2 caster level, and you get information faster from the 3-round divination spells), you have to get it. If you want Diviner's Delving sometime before 11th level (the end game of many campaigns!), then you have to pick up SF(D) at an earlier level, where it sits there, using up a feat, and doing nothing.
If that isn't a feat tax, then I don't know what a feat tax is. Isn't a feat tax a completely useless feat you have to take to qualify for a feat? Because if that's what's meant by feat tax, and I'm pretty sure it is, then SF(D) is one of the kings of the tax feats.
I mean seriously, even at 9th level, a +1 DC to one spell is not worth an entire feat. Especially not when you compare it to Spell Focus (Evocation), (Enchantment) and (Illusion).
And while Diviner's Delving is nice, its not worth-two-feats nice.
Go Spell Focus (Conjuration) and get back to me.
Conjuration spells of 3rd level or less that require a saving throw:
Divination spells of 3rd level or less that require a saving throw:
I only went up to the 3rd level because it's boring going through the spells, and this is enough to make my point.
Sure, Spell Focus (Conjuration) is weak compared to Spell Focus (Evocation), but its still nowhere near as bad as SF(D). Only Spell Focus (Abjuration) is as suck as Spell Focus (Divination).
Which reminds me: Spell Focus (Abjuration) also sucks.
Someone asked about toughness: Toughness is AWESOME.
At all levels.
It's effectively a +2 to constitution. Barbarian doesn't have too much AC? Here's some extra HP. Caster will dump con because of low point stat buy? Well he still has feats, right?
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and Dwarven War Axe
It's been bothering me that both can be two handed martial weapons, that have sub par stats versus the great sword and great axe. Basically you take the feat or in the later be a dwarf to be able to use them one handed. The two handed aspect frequently becomes lost to dual wields or shield usage.
I've home ruled a +1 stacking damage per a hit for those that take either feat and still use a bastard sword or dwarven war axe two handed. A little extra oomph to each hit resulting from practice (expending a feat).
I'm trying to encourage a melee type that can switch up as needed in various combat scenarios.
Martial weapon proficiency.
If it was the abuility to use Martial weapons I'd be interested.
Light armour proficiency
...just, wow...