Best not to play with people so easily offended.
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.
Really? Because being so sensitive that one's fun is ruined by having someone pointing out that they are not contributing is kinda strange to me. I'd think they would want to contribute.
Besides, don't you believe in roleplaying? If your character is a hardened mercenary (as many of mine have been), do you think they're really going to put up with a slacker on their team, when they are risking their lives against trolls and demons?
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.
Instead of running them off, how about some constructive criticism and explaining to them how they could do better? I find people tend to have more fun when they see their character being effective.
Do you really think a newcomer fighter is going to feel that his character is a mighty warrior, when he can't kill anything and everything ignores his character?
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...
If you feel that anyone who disagrees with you and posts reasons why is "shouting down" others, you have taken oversensitivity to a whole new level.
If you feel that anyone who disagrees with you and posts reasons why is "shouting down" others, you have taken oversensitivity to a whole new level.
Actually RD is completely correct here. There have been multiple examples give to show that combat expertise isn't a feat worthy of punching a developer for creating it. That was the original title of the thread and the theme that a few people have taken throughout. They have zero intention on acknowledging that other people play the game differently. I am glad that a few of us were able to get at least one lurker to reconsider his position on the feat. I am also glad to see that there are people who want to play Pathfinder instead of just running the numbers.
Ravingdork, you are welcome at my table any time. Even with your crazy builds, you are more than welcome to join us if you're ever in Seattle.
...being so sensitive that one's fun is ruined by having someone pointing out that they are not contributing is kinda strange to me. I'd think they would want to contribute.
I never said anything about not contributing, Mr. Lynch. Quite the contrary, I was talking about tanks using polearms and effective tactics to protect their teammates. It was YOU who brought up the whole "not pulling their weight" thing. All I said was that every adventurer should have some capability to defend themselves. Do you disagree with that statement? If not, then we're closer to being on the same page than you might think.
Please try not to demonize people for things they didn't say or do.
I never said anything about not contributing, Mr. Lynch. Quite the contrary, I was talking about tanks using polearms and effective tactics to protect their teammates. It was YOU who brought up the whole "not pulling their weight" thing. All I said was that every adventurer should have some capability to defend themselves. Do you disagree with that statement? If not, then we're closer to being on the same page than you might think.
First, where we agree: certainly every adventurer should have some capability to defend themselves.
Yes, I did bring up the "not pulling their weight" thing (actually, I think some brought it up before me, but I agree), and about not contributing. This is because some of us believe that if a fighter is using Combat Expertise to focus on defense, this (at the minimum) lessens his ability to effectively contribute to combat. Yes, you suggested using polearms and effective tactics...but did not give any evidence of how they are supposed to do this when taking a substantial penalty to attacks (and CMB).
To summarize:
A fighter's ability to survive is meaningless if he is not contributing otherwise. Agree/disagree? After all, the easiest way to survive a hostile encounter would be to flee, or hide (perhaps invisibly)...but I doubt most people would consider someone who did this to be contributing (especially if they are a "fighter").
So: a fighter's survivability aside, one of their major priorities should be contributing towards defeating foes. Agree/disagree? This can be through directly damaging enemies, making it easier for the rest of the party to damage them, reducing the damage they can inflict on the party, or just plain soaking damage (tanking) to protect others.
IF the fighter cannot impress on his foes that he is dangerous (through his ability to do one of the above things) and thus worth killing, they will ignore him. Agree/disagree?
Please try not to demonize people for things they didn't say or do.
Happily.
Now, could you please post a direct quote with words of mine that you feel were "demonizing"? Because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
I have had enough situations where I have used Combat Expertise with my Sword Saint Samurai that I have found it as a useful feat. I took it more as color for my master swordsman. (I have him mainly fight with a bladed sheathe, I got the Equipment Trick feat and picked up CE for the Disarms and Range Tripping I could eventually do. He fights with a sheathed sword until he meets a worthy opponent.)
I was in a situation where I had to "off tank" a creature that did a lot of damage. An ijitsu (sp?) strike got its attention. I did enough HP per hit that a +1 or +2 to my Con would not have meant much. Combat Expertise gave me a little push to my AC that it would usually only land a blow with 1 of its three attacks instead of 2. It bought my party about three rounds to take care of his friend.
I brought this thread up with the GM for the session. He confirmed that I "CE"ed away about four blows.
I have found it to be a niche feat and I enjoy it for this build, but I wouldn't want it for every build.
I never said anything about not contributing, Mr. Lynch. Quite the contrary, I was talking about tanks using polearms and effective tactics to protect their teammates. It was YOU who brought up the whole "not pulling their weight" thing. All I said was that every adventurer should have some capability to defend themselves. Do you disagree with that statement? If not, then we're closer to being on the same page than you might think.First, where we agree: certainly every adventurer should have some capability to defend themselves.
Yes, I did bring up the "not pulling their weight" thing (actually, I think some brought it up before me, but I agree), and about not contributing. This is because some of us believe that if a fighter is using Combat Expertise to focus on defense, this (at the minimum) lessens his ability to effectively contribute to combat. Yes, you suggested using polearms and effective tactics...but did not give any evidence of how they are supposed to do this when taking a substantial penalty to attacks (and CMB).
To summarize:
A fighter's ability to survive is meaningless if he is not contributing otherwise. Agree/disagree? After all, the easiest way to survive a hostile encounter would be to flee, or hide (perhaps invisibly)...but I doubt most people would consider someone who did this to be contributing (especially if they are a "fighter").
So: a fighter's survivability aside, one of their major priorities should be contributing towards defeating foes. Agree/disagree? This can be through directly damaging enemies, making it easier for the rest of the party to damage them, reducing the damage they can inflict on the party, or just plain soaking damage (tanking) to protect others.
IF the fighter cannot impress on his foes that he is dangerous (through his ability to do one of the above things) and thus worth killing, they will ignore him. Agree/disagree?
Please try not to demonize people for things they didn't say or do....
I get what you are trying to say here, but I think you aren't looking outside the box enough.
I GMed a one shot, and one of the most interesting PC combinations I saw was this Heavy Armored Warrior with a Tower Shield and a Bombing Throwing Alchemist. Low level. They got into this odd fight in the woods and the Fighter used the Towered Shield defense to negate incoming Arrows and provide the Alchemist behind him cover. The Alchemist was destroying enemies with bombs. It was interesting to watch these mooks try to find a path to deal with it. (It didn't help when some tried to flank around they ran into a stealthy Fighter/Rogue PC and a Ranger PC). They had no way to get to the Alchemist to hurt him because of the tower shield defense and clever use of terrain. They couldn't get to the Tower Shield Fighter because of the bombs.
This wouldn't work in every scenario, but it was surprising how often they got this combo working.
A fighter's ability to survive is meaningless if he is not contributing otherwise. Agree/disagree?
That depends on the situation. Sometimes, the party's only goal is to survive the encounter. Agree.
One of [the fighter's] major priorities should be contributing towards defeating foes. Agree/disagree?
A fighter's major priorities can change based on the situation. Defeating foes quickly and efficiently is wholly inconsequential when holding off an enemy force to buy his friends time to unlock the door to their escape, or rescuing the kidnapped princess from the Mansion of Darkness, or Helping to find the artifact before the villain does. Situational agreement.
IF the fighter cannot impress on his foes that he is dangerous (through his ability to do one of the above things) and thus worth killing, they will ignore him. Agree/disagree?
Disagree. He may fall a few steps on the priority ladder, but that's different from being outright ignored.
Now, could you please post a direct quote with words of mine that you feel were "demonizing"? Because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
I was reading your posts and getting a sense of hostility. If that was not the case then I apologize (the apparent tone of your most recent post seems much more friendly).
In this thread: If you do anything that lessens your DPR at all or do not optimze completely, you are not pulling your weight and the DM has to soften the encounters for you.
I have a firm belief that Ravingdork's skilled enough at optimizing for a role that he can contribute meaningfully, handle appropriate-CR opponents AND use combat expertise.
And Stormwind Fallacy can go to hell, because it's stupid and a straw man fallacy in itself. No-one's saying you can't roleplay an optimized character - it's about whether you create your role to match your numbers or of you optimize within the role you want to play.
Sure, you can optimize and still roleplay - but when we're talking the levels of optimization where you _can't take one feat "wrong"_, that drastically diminishes the number of different concepts you can play.
And it IS rude to say someone's "not pulling their weight" if they can handle appropriate-CR encounters.
EDIT: Basically, when people talk about "gamist" vs "roleplayer", it's this difference:
Gamist: So, this is how I can optimize. Now, how can I develop a character that fits with this optimization?
Roleplayer: So, this is the character I want to play. Now, how can I optimize it to be useful to the party?
See the difference? And not that it's bad to be a gamist necessarily, you can roleplay just as well - but the number of characters you can play is more limited. I think RavingDork's comment was on the "you shouldn't play this kind of character because it's not optimal" talk.
Of course, most "roleplayers" too realize all concepts won't work, like aforementioned basketweaver-fighter. If they don't, that can be an issue, but I believe that RD from his post history has proven more than able to optimize for a role.
IF the fighter cannot impress on his foes that he is dangerous (through his ability to do one of the above things) and thus worth killing, they will ignore him. Agree/disagree?
This is heavily dependent on what the enemy is. Not all enemies are smart - there's a whole bunch of unintelligent or nonsentient enemies in the bestiary. A demon or wizard would get that it's better to kill the squishies, a zombie or dire tiger might not. Also, it depends on what relation the party members have to the enemy. Sometimes, there are roleplay reasons for the enemy to attack the fighter - not everyone is completely rational even if they are intelligent.
Also, Antagonize.
And it IS rude to say someone's "not pulling their weight" if they can handle appropriate-CR encounters.
I agree completely. Telling a character that they're not pulling their weight is a pretty harsh thing to say, so it shouldn't be said unless its true. If the character handles appropriate-CR encounters, then by definition, they're pulling their share of the weight.
Personally, I wouldn't say something like that unless I was dealing with a character that was literally close to useless, and even then I would go for some suggestions on how to make the character better first. However, I (and i suspect plenty of other players) have run into the occasional player that will stubbornly insist on playing a character that just doesn't work.
... 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 think this makes sense in character for a tightly knit group. A military unit, religeous order action team, a close group of lifelong friends, a family, etc...
However, most PC groups I have seen are not like that. The are a huge scatter alignments, beliefs, professions, backgrounds, and attitudes. Most campaigns start with the PC's never even having met each other. If I really think about it, it is fairly implausible that most PC groups stay together and cooperate as much as they do.
Insisting that a person can not choose to learn a skill that might help him survive because he might not be as good at protecting someone he doesn't know and has little in common with, does not seem reasonable to me IC. That is what it sounds like you are saying. That is why it sounds like you are not playing a character and are determining the most optimal build for out of character reasons.
......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.I know real life marines. I've known people that have done the good old, helmet over a freaking grenade to protect their party. Not everyone else puts thier allies in harms way to protect themselves first. I won't say thats selfish but that doesn't approach lawful good by a long shot. I'd put it neutral with good tendencies at best so good luck playing a paladin like that...
Agreed. That is amazing learned behavior after substantial training. It is part the military progam (or at least it used to be, I've heard it no longer is). It is a perfect example of self-sacrifice that saves his comrades in arms from the grenade.
However, it is not the same situation as RD's example. His is one in which that level of self-sacrifice results in no one surviving. It actually is what I would call lawful behavior because it is a trained learned response against their natural inclination. The natural response of the kind of personality that becomes a life guard would be to protect the target at the risk of their own life. They are trained very rigoriously to not yield to that inclination.
Howwever, I don't think that either example has much parallel with learning a skill that is not always optimal.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I make no claim that my fighter example was ruthlessly minmaxed. I outgrew optimization for its own sake about 25 years ago. Not trying to say optimization is badwrongfun, just saying that I no longer find it stimulating except as an intellectual exercise. Heck, the character involved uses a long sword and shield, and doesn't use the shield bash feats. Heavens! (insert fainting dowager here) I still manage 50-100 damage per round (depending on crits), which is good enough for most monsters to target me so I don't feel it's ineffective.
My point was that you could build a viable character who both takes and uses Combat Expertise and gets utility out of it. I'm not trying to argue that it's the staple go-to for all characters, it's not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also glad to see that there are people who want to play Pathfinder instead of just running the numbers.What does CE exactly do except changing some numbers?
It gives options. Viewing the game from a purely mathematical point of view is not how the majority of people play. You don't have to like the feat but to assume that it is never a good choice is obviously wrong. It has been demonstrated more than once that it can be a good choice. Unless you are saying that everyone who found it useful to be lying. You don't have to like the feat and you might find it useless but that isn't a given for all players.
What option except changing some numbers?What does CE exactly do except changing some numbers?It gives options.
It gives me the option of saying "my dashing duelist spins about on his hands, easily parrying the incoming attacks with his blade-boots."
And you know, it boosts my Touch AC against touch attacks too.
It gives me the option of saying "my dashing duelist spins about on his hands, easily parrying the incoming attacks with his blade-boots."Why can't you say this sentence if you don't have CE ? O_o
I'm sure I could, but it wouldn't carry as much weight.
I've actually said similar whacky things only to have other roleplayers look at me funny. However, if I can mechanically back up the words, I don't get those kinds of looks.
If anybody can do something so "out there" (such as by making the same statement when fighting defensively) than it becomes anything but special, but if I take a feat, then that backs up the notion that my character can do crazy things that others can't.
But if I'm fighting defensively AND using combat expertise, then suddenly I'm doing something normal people can't do. Good look hitting me with your scorching ray then!
Why can't someone with higher numbers LOOK much more skilled at defending himself to others in the game world?
I'm just a layman, but even I can watch two people fight and quickly figure out which one is the more skilled combatant if there's enough of a difference.
Sorry, but I can't help you get past that imaginative road block if you've chosen to impose it upon yourself.
Why can't someone with higher numbers LOOK much more skilled at defending himself to others in the game world?
I'm just a layman, but even I can watch two people fight and quickly figure out which one is the more skilled combatant if there's enough of a difference.
Sorry, but I can't help you get past that imaginative road block if you've chosen to impose it upon yourself.
Yeah, I've noticed that there is a problem with imagination that I see a lot of players have. It's probably because it's a table top game with nothing to see, and they're just seeing the numbers as only numbers with little meaning behind it.
Imagination is the ability to making images appear in your head.
Watching characters and events unfold in a video games =/= imagination.
*old man voice* All them newfangled gadgetologies have ruined the youngins' imagination!
Aside from being mechanically weak, Combat Expertise's greatest sin is that it's boring. It boosts your AC, and that's it. It doesn't offer any sort of new functionality to the characters who take it. If, for instance, the feat simply made your touch AC equal to your normal AC, it might do what Ravingdork wants. But, as it is, it shifts some numbers around, which is not particularly interesting.
It's a shame, really. Even though I'm a s#+&poster, I do have a soft spot in my heart for 3e/Pathfinder, and I would much rather have it succeed than fail.
Imagination is the ability to making images appear in your head.
Watching characters and events unfold in a video games =/= imagination.
*old man voice* All them newfangled gadgetologies have ruined the youngins' imagination!
Yeah, that's where I was going. To many people it's a game of just numbers and tactics with roleplaying. Technically that's true, but obviously I would think there would be a clear difference in someone's speed if you were to compare 10 dexterity to 20. Apparently it doesn't for some people.
I would think there would be a clear difference in someone's speed if you were to compare 10 dexterity to 20. Apparently it doesn't for some people.
If I may step off my trollhorse for a bit, I would comment on this. The problem with D&D is that it does not make enough of a mechanical distinction between someone with 10 Dexterity and 20 Dexterity for this to be true. Even in a post-2e world where every +2 to a stat translates into a +1 bonus, a +5 bonus versus a +0 bonus isn't that much of a difference, especialy not when your numeric randomizer is twenty numbers long.
1d20 + 0 vs. 1d20 + 5 isn't that big of a difference. It's one of the flaws of the d20 system, unfortunately, one that has yet to be rectified.
I would think there would be a clear difference in someone's speed if you were to compare 10 dexterity to 20. Apparently it doesn't for some people.If I may step off my trollhorse for a bit, I would comment on this. The problem with D&D is that it does not make enough of a mechanical distinction between someone with 10 Dexterity and 20 Dexterity for this to be true. Even in a post-2e world where every +2 to a stat translates into a +1 bonus, a +5 bonus versus a +0 bonus isn't that much of a difference, especialy not when your numeric randomizer is twenty numbers long.
1d20 + 0 vs. 1d20 + 5 isn't that big of a difference. It's one of the flaws of the d20 system, unfortunately, one that has yet to be rectified.
Well, in a game where you can go from low level sword fights between ordinary people to high levels where a fighter can single handedly fight off a dozen T-rexes in melee combat without a scratch (if made right), it makes it harder to make distinctions between the numbers. A guy with 20 strength is about 4 times stronger than someone with 10, so I'd say that logic would apply to other stats as well.
Also just simple positioning. Unlike a computer MMORG, your enemies simply can't walk through you.
Agreed, though that too depends on your level and what opposition you're up against. At high levels, I feel most enemies can outmaneouver you quite easily unless you've optimized for keeping them in place (with combat patrol, reach weapon and so on).
|
Whst has always bothered with feats like CE is that those types of feata as well as the Improved version of feats is that it's a feat tax which I despise to no end.
what does nother me more though is that you have feats tht have no prequistes. Feats that do who sole purpose os a feat tax. either impose a feat tax across the board or none at all. Item and Creation feats require no attribute minikums when they both should. One should have at least a decent amount of int or dex to make something. Instead beyond money no penalty at all. Combat Casting is another one. Fighters don;t have much compared to classes. They hit and do damage. Absorb damage and are on the frontlines. Forced to take an improved version of a feat or take a AOO. With on top of that attrbute requirements. I totally understan the OP frustration to some extent. While casters can turn themselves into walking talking magic item shops with no real penalties.
While casters can turn themselves into walking talking magic item shops with no real penalties.
Fighters don't get nice things.
Aren't fighters able to make magic items?
I've always liked fighters because, if built right, can endure nearly anything with no prep.
I've always liked fighters because, if built right, can endure nearly anything with no prep.
Except a single spell hitting their Will save.
I've always liked fighters because, if built right, can endure nearly anything with no prep.Except a single spell hitting their Will save.
As long as they don't dump Wisdom and take a few feats to empower their will save, they've got a decent to good chance at resisting anything CR-appropriate, at least if it's only a single spell. Of course, an optimized NPC will break the monster CR guidelines, but that's for another topic.
Not saying they're _safe_ from them, but just casting a single will-targeting spell won't usually sink a well-rounded fighter unless you hyperspecialize (and, say, Fey sorcerers with GSF (enchantment) and a few rods of persistant spell are going to break ANY save with decent ease).
Homebrew solution feat:
Precursor Training (Combat)
Looking towards the future of your combat prowess, you have focused your training on learning more advanced techniques later.
Benefit: You gain two combat feats that you qualify for and are considered to have +4 to a single ability score of your choice, but only for the purpose of meeting feat and ability score prerequites. You gain no actual benefit from the selected feats.
Problem is that dropping Wisdom is almost a necessity to get Str/Con/Dex up on a 15 point buy. 20 point buy is better but not ideal. I do favor the way that 4e allows the better of two stats to add to your saves, though, which is a house rule I plan on implementing in 3e.
I've always liked fighters because, if built right, can endure nearly anything with no prep.Except a single spell hitting their Will save.As long as they don't dump Wisdom and take a few feats to empower their will save, they've got a decent to good chance at resisting anything CR-appropriate, at least if it's only a single spell. Of course, an optimized NPC will break the monster CR guidelines, but that's for another topic.
Not saying they're _safe_ from them, but just casting a single will-targeting spell won't usually sink a well-rounded fighter unless you hyperspecialize (and, say, Fey sorcerers with GSF (enchantment) and a few rods of persistant spell are going to break ANY save with decent ease).
True that a well geared, optimized anything can be really good against most monsters. I've always liked to have a ring of spell turning and a shield with the reflection property against single target will saves. My last fighter I used (20th level) had all good saves (wearing cloak of resistance), had huge touch AC, Evasion, deflection feats, and high initiative pretty much rendered me pretty invulnerable to nearly anything. Using stunning assault against enemy casters always gave me a nice warm feeling inside, lol.
The reason why I had such high touch AC was from combat expertise and active defense ability from shielded fighter archetype.
1d20 + 0 vs. 1d20 + 5 isn't that big of a difference. It's one of the flaws of the d20 system, unfortunately, one that has yet to be rectified.
Doesn't combat expertise cap out at a -5 penalty to attack?
I guess using combat expertise, by your reasoning, doesn't make much of a difference.
(Nor does taking Iron Will, or Weapon Focus, or lowering your Str score from 18 to 17 so you can get a 13 Int score)
Combat Expertise caps out at -6, and yes, that does make a difference because you're looking at a 30% less chance to hit. Someone with 20 Dexterity, on the other hand, should be more than 25% better than someone with 10 Dexterity. You're looking at the difference between Joe Schmoe on the street and the peak of non-magical human capability.
Combat Expertise caps out at -6, and yes, that does make a difference because you're looking at a 30% less chance to hit. Someone with 20 Dexterity, on the other hand, should be more than 25% better than someone with 10 Dexterity. You're looking at the difference between Joe Schmoe on the street and the peak of non-magical human capability.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please (i.e. why, exactly, should 20 Dex be a greater difference than 25% better than 10? Human gradations of physical ability really aren't super-pronounced)
Also, I find it curious that you find 30% to be a huge difference, but 25% to be fairly insignificant. So much seems to change with just 5%, eh?
That's really a misrepresentation of my statement, though I suspect you're attempting to get a rise out of me.
I'm genuinely puzzled why you think a 5pt difference in one category is significant, but a similar difference in a different category isn't pronounced enough - After a playing a lot of DnD, I generally think of a +5 bonus as being pretty major, and while I have no problem with you taking an opposing stance, you haven't really explained the reasoning behind it.
At the very least, I'd like to hear your thoughts about Dex 20 vs Dex 10, because I've always thought that the ability scores were pretty apt in their modeling.