Combat Expertise is Redundant


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Matthew Downie wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Attack and AC changes just increase or reduce outgoing or incoming damage by 5%.
If you were only being hit on a 19+ before, and you increase your AC by one, your incoming damage is reduced by 50% (ignoring criticals).

Unless the crit is 3X or higher, you still reduce damage by 50 percent.


rainzax wrote:

so:
Combat Expertise (combat)
Benefit: You may add your Intelligence bonus to attack rolls made while fighting defensively. This bonus may not exceed your BAB, nor the penalty imposed by fighting defensively (usually -4). Also, you may gain the benefits of total defense while using the withdraw action.

(last sentence my add. i wanted, like Combat Reflexes, to throw a bone to folks with no Int mod)

hmm... well this breaks similitude with Power Attack... which for some reason i want to cling to... but i like your reasoning... however at BAB 4 this becomes a double-Dodge feat... no bueno...

how about this?:

Combat Expertise (combat)
Prerequisites: Int 13
Benefit: While fighting defensively or using total defense, you gain a +1 bonus to attack (if applicable) and a +1 dodge bonus to AC. When your base attack bonus reaches +5, and every +5 thereafter, these bonuses increase by +1.

...

total penalty/bonus sums by BAB:

BAB 0: -3/+3 or +5 total
BAB 5: -2/+4 or +6 total
BAB 10: -1/+5 or +7 total
BAB 15: -0/+6 or +8 total
BAB 20: +1/+7 or +9 total

i think what is interesting here is that 'fighting defensively' ceases to have any drawback around the time maneuvers (and arguably, AC) lose significant viability as a strategy. compare to Power Attack.

thoughts?

I think it would be better to change combat expertise to a feat that adds your int mod to your CMB/CMD, that was it actually effects the feats that you have to take it to get.

Then make a feat improved defense that improved fighting defensively and all out defense.


Atarlost wrote:
Attack and AC changes just increase or reduce outgoing or incoming damage by 5%. The number of attacks don't matter. The total magnitude of damage may, but if you're on the wrong side of the damage disparity dropping both incoming and outgoing damage by the same ratio isn't helping you win.

You are not alone. While you can keep the 8 orcs busy, your teammates have more time for a variety of things :)

Verdant Wheel

next try.
this removes Intelligence as a requirement but not as a beneficiary, and thus models Combat Reflexes. The last sentence (somebody's houserule i think?) is the spice - serving as an entryway to using any maneuver, without rendering the actual maneuver feats obsolete.

...

Combat Expertise (Combat)
Benefit: You may substitute your Intelligence modifier in for your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice) when calculating your combat maneuver defense. A condition that causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC causes you to lose this bonus to CMD. Also with this feat, while you are performing a combat maneuver, you only provoke an attack of opportunity on a failed roll.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity before you perform a combat maneuver and take a penalty to your roll equal to the damage you sustain from the attack, if any.

...

since the opportunity attack is only bypassed if you hit, this favors higher-BAB classes, as it should, even though it gives lower-BAB classes a shot. i'm ok with a good feat tax, but not with a wasteful feat tax. i feel this change makes it good(er).

finally, the old mechanics will be renamed below:

...

Improved Defensive Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 13, BAB +1
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
Special: You may use this feat independent from or in addition to the standard rules for fighting defensively. All penalties and bonuses stack.

...

now, to implement, some feat chains will keep and others will swap the above two feats. for example Improved Disarm will keep Combat Expertise as a pre-req, whereas Crane Style will now use Improved Defensive Fighting.


Rickmeister wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Attack and AC changes just increase or reduce outgoing or incoming damage by 5%. The number of attacks don't matter. The total magnitude of damage may, but if you're on the wrong side of the damage disparity dropping both incoming and outgoing damage by the same ratio isn't helping you win.
You are not alone. While you can keep the 8 orcs busy, your teammates have more time for a variety of things :)

But then you run into the question of why the 8 Orcs keep swinging at the guy they can't hit instead of going after the real threats.


Role-Play Reasons?

An Orc Barbarian with INT of 6 will probably keep attacking the one who gave them the greatest insult(s).


An or barbarian should have an int of 8. There's only one value less than 10 in the elite array and it'll do the least damage in charisma and barbarians, as a PC class, use the elite array when constructing NPCs.

There's some room for variety in how they lay out their physical stats if you want them to have less terrible AC or more damage or more hp. You might even put the 11 in dex so you can put the 13 or 14 in wisdom if you're worried about saves, but int is going to be 10 and cha 8 before stat mods. Because orc barbarians are more likely to need to make non-charisma skill checks than to make charisma skill checks.

And 8 int isn't dumb enough to whale on a mostly harmless brick wall while there are others to kill. You can kill the mouthy one later, but it's better to have more kills to your credit than less when it's time to brag around the campfire.

Verdant Wheel

consider the maneuver access paradigm, scaled by power:

1 - maneuvers provoke beforehand, at penalty equal to damage
2 - maneuvers provoke beforehand, at no penalty
3 - maneuvers provoke, simultaneous (!)
4 - maneuvers provoke after a miss (only)
5 - maneuvers do not provoke

character default set at 1
Combat Expertise (four posts up) boosts to 2, 3, or 4 (i prefer 4)
maneuver feats grant 5 to one type of maneuver

(i was planning on having one of my monk changes be starting them on 2, folded into Unarmed Strike class feature...)


Even animals know how to target the weak.

That also showcases a problem with Pathfinder feat design. Want your fighter to distract those orc barbarians? Okay, no problem. You just need to spend a feat (can't even attempt this without the right feat, of course) and max Intimidate (obviously that's the only skill that could work). Then you can spend a standard action each round (you're not allowed to actually fight and shout at the orcs at the same time, that would imply a basic level of competence on par with walking and chewing bubble gum) to have a chance of occupying one of the barbarians (can't distract two, it's not like you're a wizard or something).


"Killing a Stronger Foe is more Credit than 10 Kills of lesser foes."-Achilles, The Illiad.

And yeah I forgot that they only have a -2 penalty not a -4 in INT...


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

"Killing a Stronger Foe is more Credit than 10 Kills of lesser foes."-Achilles, The Illiad.

And yeah I forgot that they only have a -2 penalty not a -4 in INT...

mostly true except when those 10 lesser foes have a means of combined damage output that exceeds the one stronger foe and make it harder to focus fire on the stronger one.


But in a typical Party, who is the Strongest as viewed by the Orcs.


And what do you do when you're fighting literally anything that isn't an orc barbarian?


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
But in a typical Party, who is the Strongest as viewed by the Orcs?

who is strongest in the view of the Orcs?

not the big beefy warrior who seems to be a misplaced barbarian, but the puny looking "Shaman" in robes with the odd hat, any Orc with a hint of common sense knows to take out the enemy "Shaman." Shaman being their word for "Wizard."

the "Shaman's" strength comes not from his prowess with a weapon, but his ability to mess with reality in a way that screws over most foes. and from personal experience, even an orc barbarian knows to target the "Shaman" Asap. and they know the clothes of enemy "Shamans" having engaged so many.


So does that mean my fighter just needs to wear Glammered Armour that looks like a Wizard's Robes and put the Wizard in Mock Armour?

But you have to remember. Shamans typically wouldn't be combat Personnel. They would mostly be some form of Divine Caster, most likely a Druid. Maybe a Sorcerer.

That is if we go based on the definition of Shaman.


Ravingdork wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

Perhaps you should have fled more swiftly then, in which case fighting defensively would still be counter productive to that goal, unless of course you were valiantly laying down your lives to let the others escape :O

...in which case I still wouldn't waste a feat on that being a possible contingency.

Perhaps you should stop telling others how to play their games. :O

This feat is fine. It's perfect for holding an enemy or enemies at bay, particularly in a tight space (such as a doorway).

Yup. Horatio had combat expertise!


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

So does that mean my fighter just needs to wear Glammered Armour that looks like a Wizard's Robes and put the Wizard in Mock Armour?

But you have to remember. Shamans typically wouldn't be combat Personnel. They would mostly be some form of Divine Caster, most likely a Druid. Maybe a Sorcerer.

That is if we go based on the definition of Shaman.

For orcs it appears the shamans are scarred witch-doctors. Or half-ors. Or both. And judging by some of the alternate racial traits they go around torturing their apprentices. Orcs are generally going to be wary of them and killing enemy shamans are going to count for a lot.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

So does that mean my fighter just needs to wear Glammered Armour that looks like a Wizard's Robes and put the Wizard in Mock Armour?

But you have to remember. Shamans typically wouldn't be combat Personnel. They would mostly be some form of Divine Caster, most likely a Druid. Maybe a Sorcerer.

That is if we go based on the definition of Shaman.

Glamered Armor could change it's appearance to look like any other form of clothing or armor technically. and the appearance could be changed infinitely.

Shaman would most likely be a divine caster, but arcane works just as well. the historical Shaman were nothing more than "Wise men" who served as advisors for the chieftan. herbalism was an associated skill, but not all of them had it.

the definition of "wise man" leeks over into the definition of "sage". so a Shaman is technically a sage. which could be anybody with a high intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, a decent sense of awareness, a few key knowledge skills, and the ability to play the role of "Advisor". though most fantasy cases of "Shamans" tend to be spellcasters of the non-armor wearing variety. which could be anything from a cleric, oracle, or druid who eschews martial prowess to a sorcerer or wizard who focuses on divination spells.


There are a lot of cases where the enemy is likely to keep attacking the person using combat expertise. The minions are dead; the boss is alone. The injured fighter attacks the boss in melee while the rest of the party is attacking from a distance. The boss can now either do a full-round attack on the injured fighter, or provoke an AoO to get one attack on one other member of the party. Even if the fighter is fighting defensively, there's a good chance the boss will go for the 'obvious' opponent.

Liberty's Edge

Personally from what I read fighting defensivly and combat expertise would be a boon for spell casters seeing as how even if your not in melee you still get the boost to AC vs. range and you dont use BAB to often as a caster execpt for tock atk spells.


Stalarious wrote:
Personally from what I read fighting defensivly and combat expertise would be a boon for spell casters seeing as how even if your not in melee you still get the boost to AC vs. range and you dont use BAB to often as a caster execpt for tock atk spells.

But... but... you couldn't cast a spell while fighting defensively.

Liberty's Edge

why not? you can cast defensively cant you? whats the difference?


Quote:

Combat Expertise (Combat)

You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.

Prerequisite: Int 13.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.

and

Quote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

Most spells being standard actions.


Is a touch spell a melee weapon?


Matthew Downie wrote:
Is a touch spell a melee weapon?

I don't believe the free touch attack granted by a touch spell is a melee weapon. There are probably people who will argue the opposite, however.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Is a touch spell a melee weapon?
I don't believe the free touch attack granted by a touch spell is a melee weapon. There are probably people who will argue the opposite, however.

it counts as one for the purpose of weapon focus. i'm fairly sure that if it is a valid option for weapon focus, that it is a valid option for combat expertise, power attack, and the like.


ok how would one justify Power Attacking with a Touch Attack?

Liberty's Edge

Also you actually ahave to roll to hit so you are technically making a melee attack from 30ft away


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
ok how would one justify Power Attacking with a Touch Attack?

takes a bit of reflavoring. you are timing your touch and precisely aiming to hit a point where it will do more harm from striking that nerve or whatever. much like deadly aim.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
ok how would one justify Power Attacking with a Touch Attack?
takes a bit of reflavoring. you are timing your touch and precisely aiming to hit a point where it will do more harm from striking that nerve or whatever. much like deadly aim.

So basically how you would justify PA with a Rapier. And what of the Damage would it count as adding to the spell, there by ignoring DR, or would it not be and there by be subject to DR?


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rickmeister wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Attack and AC changes just increase or reduce outgoing or incoming damage by 5%. The number of attacks don't matter. The total magnitude of damage may, but if you're on the wrong side of the damage disparity dropping both incoming and outgoing damage by the same ratio isn't helping you win.
You are not alone. While you can keep the 8 orcs busy, your teammates have more time for a variety of things :)
But then you run into the question of why the 8 Orcs keep swinging at the guy they can't hit instead of going after the real threats.

This is where RPG combat FAILS to accurately represent the historical melee.

Players are always attempting to conduct an ongoing threat assessment of the battlefield. In effect, PLayers are all generals who survey the battlefield from a detached aerial viewpoint. Characters don't have that advantage. It's meta thinking, but it is unavoidable.

Why, why are the 8 Orcs disengaging from the opponent that is within range of their falchions and great axes to step back and find a new target? This makes no sense. At best the argument is that the Orcs would disengage (wasting possible full attacks) to provoke an AoO to then move and engage another target.

Wasted actions. In a tight action economy.

That makes Combat Expertise an exceptional feat.

Of course the above example is actually rare. Very few encounters are written that way in the modern era, because humanoid swarms are extremely dangerous to PCs and have an ability to kill off PCs almost accidentally. To most players that is ignominious.


Real orcs would also spread out to avoid getting each other's way. Probably not more than four to a victim, and more likely they'd try to get all four PCs fighting one on on two rather than all eight piling on one guy.

Sovereign Court

You can justify all sorts of different tactics for those orcs.

* If some of them engage the PC archers, then the PC archer isn't getting any full attacks. Basically, trade your full attack for their full attack. Archers are probably not quite as well-armored as a melee fighter (no shield, probably), so once you take them down you can go back to humping the melee fighter.

* 8 orcs to one fighter seems excessive. Orcs are supposed to be confident, so everyone attacking the fighter is poor tactics; they'd expect to kill the fighter using orcs 1-3, and that means 4-8 would be stuck there without a target anyway.

* How did they come to surround the fighter? If they charged him, no more than 3 of them would've engaged the fighter - the rest can't get there in a straight line (assuming all orcs come from the same direction).

* Maybe the orcs got angry about getting shot in the back? The fighter isn't fighting back at all of them at the same time, so maybe the ones ignored by the fighter turn on that annoying archer instead? It's not weird behaviour to focus your attacks on the one that attacked you. Even if it may not be optimal, orcs aren't necessarily that bright.

Of course, you can also argue the reverse position. My point is, you can justify all manner of different tactics, particularly if the enemy is allowed to take suboptimal actions. (Suboptimal actions that frustrate the PCs more than "optimal" actions... are you sure that's really that suboptimal?) So there's no guarantee for mr. CE that the enemy will focus on him. Tabletop "aggro" can be much trickier than in computer games.


The example is not really a case of balance.
It'd make no sense for 8 Orcs to only attack 1 of 4 people.

CE does prove useful in games where players get outnumbered. Those are likely not the norm, judging from forum examples; but it happens.

I agree that 8 on 1 is super unlikely, unless the overall odds are 6 to 1 or more, which is unwinnable unless there is a huge CR deficit.

But 4 on one, yeah, and that scenario means the PC is also flanked. AC boosts are indispensable there.

Grand Lodge

I just found out its needed for Improved Dirty Tricks too... that bums me out. A barroom brawler has to be intelligent to know how to kick people in the nadgers without getting an AoO.


I'd say a barroom brawler would be a good candidate for CE. Since he's almost certainly unarmored.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Power Attack can't be used with touch attacks, it's in the feat text. Combat Expertise requires you to take the attack or full-attack action, so it couldn't be used with the free touch from a touch spell but I think it could be used for a held charge.

I personally think Combat Expertise is fine. I've seen it save PCs in actual play. It raises touch AC, so it can make it more difficult for a bad guy caster to land that disintegrate. Like all AC bonuses, it gets even more powerful the more you have. Raising a 14 AC to a 16 is not as nice as raising a 35 AC to a 37. Obviously it's not a "no-brainer" feat to use in every situation - you have to intelligently assess the combat and decide whether it's worth using on a round-by-round basis. It's not as powerful and "always take" as Power Attack, but it's also not a trap in the hands of a good player.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Now you *could* cast the spell, hold the charge, then wade into combat on the next round using CE. Might be useful to a touch spell that has multiple uses.


Atarlost wrote:
Attack and AC changes just increase or reduce outgoing or incoming damage by 5%. The number of attacks don't matter. The total magnitude of damage may, but if you're on the wrong side of the damage disparity dropping both incoming and outgoing damage by the same ratio isn't helping you win.

That's commonly thrown in the forums, and it's not true.

The amount of increased or reduced damage of every +1 AC depends on your current AC and to hit ratio. Vs someone with, say, +10 attack, going from 10 to 11 AC is roughly a 5% reduction on incoming damage. But going from 20 to 21 AC is roughly 10% reduction on incoming damage, and going from 29 to 30 AC is roughly 50% reduction on incoming damage, while going from 40 to 41 AC gives you no reduction at all. It becomes more complicated to measure when the attacker has different attacks with different attack bonus and/or damage (like itterative attacks, or secondary natural attacks)

Normally, every point of AC is closer to be worth 10% of reduction in incoming damage. It's only ~5% if you are normally hit with 2+ and you are now hit by 3+. If you are hit around 10+, it's 10%


Darklone wrote:

Dodge bonuses to AC stack. You can use both.

This.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
ok how would one justify Power Attacking with a Touch Attack?
takes a bit of reflavoring. you are timing your touch and precisely aiming to hit a point where it will do more harm from striking that nerve or whatever. much like deadly aim.
So basically how you would justify PA with a Rapier. And what of the Damage would it count as adding to the spell, there by ignoring DR, or would it not be and there by be subject to DR?

the damage would be the same type as the spell. for example a PA shocking grasp would treat it as electricity damage while a PA inflict light wounds would treat it as negative energy damage. so it would count as adding to the spell.

Shadow Lodge

Something I thought I'd throw in on the side of Combat Expertise is useless. Ranged attackers. There's some room to quible that as long as you attack, but not a full-attack, you don't have to use a melee weapon. But even then your benefit is marginal.

Why would a ranged attacker even look at it? Feint. Improved Feint also required combat expertise. And denying a dex bonus on your hit works wonders for a ranged attacker. Even gunslingers benefit (as if they needed help hitting).

So for us, it's even more of a useless tax.


thistledown wrote:

Something I thought I'd throw in on the side of Combat Expertise is useless. Ranged attackers. There's some room to quible that as long as you attack, but not a full-attack, you don't have to use a melee weapon. But even then your benefit is marginal.

Why would a ranged attacker even look at it? Feint. Improved Feint also required combat expertise. And denying a dex bonus on your hit works wonders for a ranged attacker. Even gunslingers benefit (as if they needed help hitting).

So for us, it's even more of a useless tax.

Hmmm....

Quote:
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

Shadow Lodge

Oops. Didn't read enough. Nothing to see here, move along...


Yeah......
Ranged Feint exists, but it's not just Improved Feint with a ranged weapon. It's been a class feature of PrClasses every time I've ever seen it.

But yeah you're right it's worthless for ranged attackers. Unless they are vulnerable when they get "based", where it becomes pretty handy. (Like a character that is so ranged focused that he has no melee abilities at all).

And no, Touch Spells don't qualify for Power Attack.
A touch spell is not a Melee Attack. It's a Touch Attack. They are different.


No one has mentioned it.
But

The Madu is remarkable in combination with CE and Fighting Defensively or both.

Quote:

Madu

The madu is a round, light shield with four spikes extending from the sides. 

Benefit: If you are proficient with the madu, you may wield it and fight defensively with a –2 penalty instead of the normal–4 penalty for fighting defensively, and your attack penalty for using Combat Expertise improves by +1 (minimum –1 penalty). You cannot hold anything else in the hand that bears a madu. If you are not proficient in madu, treat it as a light spiked shield.

Source Adventurer's Armory, Legacy of Fire Player's Guide

Now you need an Exotic Profeciency, which is a tax, but think about what this actually gives.

Shield Bonus +1
Fight Def bonus -2/+2
CE bonus _/+1

It can be combined with Crane Style.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Both Madu and Crane Style say you take only a -2 penalty while fighting defensively instead of a -4 penalty (as opposed to saying "reduce the penalty for fighting defensively by 2" or something), so they don't really stack.


Technically, You can't use Power Attack on a touch attack.
BUT!
You could hold that spell then discharge it through a Finessed Improved Unarmed Strike and use Power Attack or Piranha Strike on it.

Crane Style still give you some nice bonuses for a Madu Build.


Yeah I guess it would work with something like Chill Touch.

Liberty's Edge

what about ghostly hand it allows to touch people from range as if you were right there? you give it HP it has a AC would it work then?

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Combat Expertise is Redundant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.