RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add an anecdote to the discussion, my fighter in out local group playing CC would have died last night if it weren't for CE. Twice. The +3 bonus (we're level 11) prevented two scorching rays from hitting me that would have likely killed me outright (single digit hp at the time). Plus the GM had a lot of describing me parrying the rays with my sword.
Luck? Heck yes. But I wouldn't have had that luck without CE.
I even bought the 13 Int with 15 point buy and I don't regret it.
Not everyone thinks it's a waste of a feat.
Just think if you had gotten your Con up to another +1 bonus--the +1 Fortitude/+22 HP would have saved you much better.
How did you get 22 extra HP from a +1 Con boost at 11th Tom?
Good question.
Just think if you had gotten your Con up to another +1 bonus--the +1 Fortitude/+22 HP would have saved you much better.
Would the 11 hit points have saved him? We don't know that for sure. What we do know is that the +3 AC did save him. The Fortitude save would have been pointless in that scenario.
Just think if you had gotten your Con up to another +1 bonus--the +1 Fortitude/+22 HP would have saved you much better.
Two scorching rays dealing each 4d6 would have dealt a total of 28 damage on average.
The 11 hp would not have been much help there... heck, even the minimum damage for those two rays is already 8.And combat expertise would still be there to ward against the next spell whereas the 11 hp would have been used up...
And still, just because another option might have been equal or better, such as higher con instead, does not mean that Combat Expertise wasn't useful.
Not optimal =/= useless.
Another possible nit-pick of RD's setup is that Natural Armor doesn't stack with other sources of Natural Armor.Actually, it does. That is to say, the natural armor bonus provided by Amulets and the like provide an enhancement bonus (as with Barkskin) which does stack with normal natural armor. A Lizardfolk (natural armor +5) wearing an +1 amulet will have +6 total.
Damn, that's pretty nifty.
Learn something new every day, I guess.
+1 con bonus and toughness give 22 HP. Then he can still fight defensively.
As I mentioned before, the +1 Con bonus to Fortitude saves is irrelevant in this scenario. Fighting defensively would have given him a +2 AC at a -4 penalty to his attacks. Combat Expertise gave him a +3 AC with a -3 penalty to his attacks. Combat Expertise was superior in all ways to Fighting Defensively. The additional 11 hit points (not 22) would not have been enough to protect him. Combat Expertise reduced that minimum of 8 to a total of zero. I would also like to point out that increasing his Constitution could have had no bearing on his feat selection. We don't know what his Constitution was and how many points he would have gained by not having a 13 Intelligence (which did give him 11 skill points and an additional +1 bonus to any Intelligence skills he chose to put ranks in).
No matter how you try to argue this one, in the scenario given, combat expertise was the better choice. The only other option that would have been better would have been a miss chance.
Um, can't someone using Combat Expertise STILL fight defensively?
Um, can't someone using Combat Expertise STILL fight defensively?You can. you can also use a guardian weapon (which has the same effect as CE, except you can decide the amount of bonus/penalty) and a tower shield (which has the same effect as +2/-2 CE).
So, CE has a unique effect when it stack on top of a guardian weapon, a tower shield, and you're fighting defensively with 3 rank in acrobatics. if you're always fighting defensively with a guardian weapon and a tower shield, then you should consider CE. And monsters should consider totally ignore you, making your AC irrelevant.
Or making it entirely relevant. ;P
If your defenses deter people from harming you than your defenses are doing their job.
And then they walk around you and murder your comrade.
IF they can.
That's something a lot of people tend to forget when making such statements. Your allies often have their own means of defending themselves, making their murder no sure thing. And that's only IF they can get around YOU, which again, is no sure thing depending on what else your tank might be capable of.
Something as simple as a tank with a reach weapon is going to be a pain to get past if he keeps tripping up people who try to slip past him.
... and then you realize you're a 1 handed fighter with subobtimal strength or con who cannot shield bash and is now next to useless in combat unless its a 5 foot corridor...
Many creatures will not just ignore the guy with the sword. Until he has tried to hit for a few rounds and they have tried to hit him for a few rounds they really have know way of knowing they can't hurt him and he can't hurt them.
Besides, even with some penalties, the first itterative attack will often hit. So he still will be doing some damage.
...Tanking is not about popping your defenses its about stopping your enemies from attacking your allies.
If you're not tanking why are you sacrificing dpr for defenses
Occasionally it has just been about trying to stay alive.
Occasionally? When adventuring, staying alive is often* the only thing that truly matters!
* I say "often" because sometimes, saving the kingdom or some such similar scenario is the point of the whole adventure and may require self-sacrifice.
... If I use a resource which is more costly than a known spell (eg: a feat slot), I want it to come into play more often than a spell (or to be more decisive than a spell when it comes into play... But hey, we're talking about fighter's feats). The fact that in some rare circumstances, the feat has a 15% chance of saving my life, isn't very relevant in my final selection (it would be relevant if it had a 100% chance of saving my life under those circumstances)...
People take feats that aren't used often and aren't always decisive all the time.
Ex: Last night our game was very combat heavy with zero RP. So there were a lot of encounters. I think I made 3 will saves the entire night. I made 2 and failed 1. The rolls and bonuses were such that taking or not taking iron will would have made no difference at all. However, iron will is still one of the most suggested feats on the list.
I would say combat expertise is even more extreme. It is used even less often. Since the AC bonus can be higher it could have an effect more often. But a single attack is usually not as dangerous as will save effects. So I would rate it normally less useful than iron will for a build.
But I would not rate it nearly as horrible as many of the people on this thread seem to do.
Occasionally? When adventuring, staying alive is often* the only thing that truly matters!
* I say "often" because sometimes, saving the kingdom or some such similar scenario is the point of the whole adventure and may require self-sacrifice.
I always haded those unless they are the final for a long campaign.
I once had a GM who often put those in. So if you were really into the role/mission, you kept having to make new characters.
If the entire party is tanking than nobody is dying. That seems like a pretty effective party to me. If even one guy isn't tanking, then suddenly the other tanks have to divert resources to protect him. That doesn't seem so efficient to me.
...There are far more situation in which you must make the save than situations in which you must not be hit. And you also have more way to improve AC than save.
Agreed, that's why I said "... But a single attack is usually not as dangerous as will save effects. So I would rate it normally less useful than iron will for a build. But I would not rate it nearly as horrible as many of the people on this thread seem to do."
I was responding to the statement that it was irrelevant unless it came into play much more often than a spell or was 100% effective. There are a lot of very common feats that don't meet that criteria.
TOZ: I miscalculated, I was thinking of +2 points of Con and a +1 Con bonus, and I mixed them up in my head in doing HP calculations. However, my point still stands: bonus HP and another feat would do more to help the character survive than Combat Expertise.
If the entire party is tanking than nobody is dying. That seems like a pretty effective party to me. If even one guy isn't tanking, then suddenly the other tanks have to divert resources to protect him. That doesn't seem so efficient to me.
If everyone is tanking, then the enemy isn't dying, either. And the enemy is probably going to be throwing out non-tankable effects (spells and supernatural abilities).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, I'm a roleplayer in a room full of gamists. You're all about metagame strategy, party builds, and such. I'm thinking of it all from the perspective of the character. If he can protect his comrades in arms, he will, but he's got to protect himself first. A dead tank doesn't even make difficult terrain, much less help anyone else.
This is the way real world life guards think: if it comes to them or the person they are trying to save, they will put the drowning victim in harms way to protect themselves (such as a rescuer putting the victim in between himself and the jagged rocks in river rapids). After all, if the rescuer dies, the victim most certainly will too.
In our games, the party doesn't all stand around saying "we need a tank and trapfinder rogue for this quest" or "let's go to the nearby Goblin Wood and grind some easy XP by slaughtering a few tribes." They are usually hapless people who got thrown a strange lot and thus became adventurers. They deal with things as they come, and adapt when able. They don't kill monsters for loot and XP. That's what PC gamers do. Roleplaying characters have lives and goals. A gamist's character is all about the numbers, gear, and leveling up for bragging rights. Our party kills living creatures to save themselves, to save others, or as part of a fight for a cause, not because they can.
In short, gamist characters are all about the mindless grind towards the top. Roleplaying characters CAN be about that, but they have a story to tell too.
It's saved my characters' lives plenty of times. I think smart fighters take CE and the everyone else either finds alternate means of surviving, or die.
That should be narrativist, not roleplayer. In the GNS theory none of the groups are more or less likely to roleplay.
Edit: Ok, I suppose I can't really say that a narrativist is less likely to roleplay than a gamist, but none of the categorizations prevent roleplay.
Clearly, I'm a roleplayer in a room full of gamists.
Stormwind fallacy. You've heard of it?
You're all about metagame strategy, party builds, and such. I'm thinking of it all from the perspective of the character. If he can protect his comrades in arms, he will, but he's got to protect himself first. A dead tank doesn't even make difficult terrain, much less help anyone else.
I'm thinking of it from the perspective of your fellow party members. I'm wondering why they don't say, "Here's a guy who's first priority is protecting himself, at the expense of his ability to hurt the enemy. So the rest of the party does all the heavy lifting of defeating monsters, AND he takes less damage than everyone else because of his defenses (and the fact that they are less likely to attack him) AND everyone else in the party takes more damage as a result."
"So why do we have you around, exactly? You don't sound like a team player."
I'm thinking of it from the perspective of your fellow party members. I'm wondering why they don't say, "Here's a guy who's first priority is protecting himself, at the expense of his ability to hurt the enemy. So the rest of the party does all the heavy lifting of defeating monsters, AND he takes less damage than everyone else because of his defenses (and the fact that they are less likely to attack him) AND everyone else in the party takes more damage as a result."
"So why do we have you around, exactly? You don't sound like a team player."
We all do what we can. The example of thought you propose is completely foreign to our group, to the point of sounding like an absurd extreme.
We all do what we can. The example of thought you propose is completely foreign to our group, to the point of sounding like an absurd extreme.I'm thinking of it from the perspective of your fellow party members. I'm wondering why they don't say, "Here's a guy who's first priority is protecting himself, at the expense of his ability to hurt the enemy. So the rest of the party does all the heavy lifting of defeating monsters, AND he takes less damage than everyone else because of his defenses (and the fact that they are less likely to attack him) AND everyone else in the party takes more damage as a result."
"So why do we have you around, exactly? You don't sound like a team player."
Having some of the other characters take issue with a character that they think is not really contributing in battle doesn't strike me as all that absurd. There is a general expectation that each character who wants an equal share of the treasure will do a more-or-less equal share of the work.
You guys are optimizing, you can't optimize and roleplay!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having some of the other characters take issue with a character that they think is not really contributing in battle doesn't strike me as all that absurd. There is a general expectation that each character who wants an equal share of the treasure will do a more-or-less equal share of the work.We all do what we can. The example of thought you propose is completely foreign to our group, to the point of sounding like an absurd extreme.I'm thinking of it from the perspective of your fellow party members. I'm wondering why they don't say, "Here's a guy who's first priority is protecting himself, at the expense of his ability to hurt the enemy. So the rest of the party does all the heavy lifting of defeating monsters, AND he takes less damage than everyone else because of his defenses (and the fact that they are less likely to attack him) AND everyone else in the party takes more damage as a result."
"So why do we have you around, exactly? You don't sound like a team player."
Yes. You're right. Allow me to rephrase: My fellow roleplayers don't think that way, we've never had any problems, and we all do as much a fair share as we can during the adventure.
We are all there ultimately to have fun. Accusing one another of not "pulling one's weight" doe not contribute to that end. The idea that someone would be so sensitive as to risk the groups fun by bringing it up seems strange to me.
I wonder if such a person would do well with "new" roleplayers who didn't know exactly what they were doing--or if they'd just run them off with accusations of not being powerful enough, of not pulling their weight. That is the kind of gamist behavior that I try and stay away from.
It has nothing to do with optimization, and everything to do with how one confronts the game and treats the other players. Coming in here and essentially shouting down everyone who thinks that Combat Expertise might be halfway decent is a good example of the unproductive gamist behavior to which I am referring.
It has nothing to do with optimization, and everything to do with how one confronts the game and treats the other players.
I hope the DM takes all that roleplaying into consideration when writing up encounters. Wouldn't want anyone's character to get hurt.
Having some of the other characters take issue with a character that they think is not really contributing in battle doesn't strike me as all that absurd. There is a general expectation that each character who wants an equal share of the treasure will do a more-or-less equal share of the work.We all do what we can. The example of thought you propose is completely foreign to our group, to the point of sounding like an absurd extreme.I'm thinking of it from the perspective of your fellow party members. I'm wondering why they don't say, "Here's a guy who's first priority is protecting himself, at the expense of his ability to hurt the enemy. So the rest of the party does all the heavy lifting of defeating monsters, AND he takes less damage than everyone else because of his defenses (and the fact that they are less likely to attack him) AND everyone else in the party takes more damage as a result."
"So why do we have you around, exactly? You don't sound like a team player."
Yes. You're right. Allow me to rephrase: My fellow roleplayers don't think that way, we've never had any problems, and we all do as much a fair share as we can during the adventure.
We are all there ultimately to have fun. Accusing one another of not "pulling one's weight" doe not contribute to that end. The idea that someone would be so sensitive as to risk the groups fun by bringing it up seems strange to me.
I wonder if such a person would do well with "new" roleplayers who didn't know exactly what they were doing--or if they'd just run them off with accusations of not being powerful enough, of not pulling their weight. That is the kind of gamist behavior that I try and stay away from.
It has nothing to do with optimization, and everything to do with how one confronts the game and treats the other players. Coming in here and essentially shouting down everyone who thinks that Combat Expertise might be halfway decent is a good example...
I think there's a big difference between a character telling a character that they're not pulling their share of the weight, and a player telling a player that.
That is an important distinction. Sadly, it can get real blurry where player's emotions are involved. Best to avoid it entirely.