I can see why people don't like Combat Expertise, but I don't mind it personally. Its one of those feats that you actually start to enjoy should you remember to use it. The only feat I can think of that I truly feel is a feat tax is Mobility; its got a super specific bonus and only exists to make it more difficult to get Spring Attack. I would rather Spring Attack had a minimum 5th level requirement over choosing Mobility any day.
Ultimately, a feat should either give you a new ability you didn't have before or increase your chance of doing something cool. Its okay if you can't use your Improved Trip feat because the enemy has no legs. Its also okay that Weapon Focus is only a +1 bonus because you are always going to use it. But Mobility combines the worst of both words; it is a boring bonus that you can't always use.
I can see why people don't like Combat Expertise, but I don't mind it personally. Its one of those feats that you actually start to enjoy should you remember to use it. The only feat I can think of that I truly feel is a feat tax is Mobility; its got a super specific bonus and only exists to make it more difficult to get Spring Attack. I would rather Spring Attack had a minimum 5th level requirement over choosing Mobility any day.
Ultimately, a feat should either give you a new ability you didn't have before or increase your chance of doing something cool. Its okay if you can't use your Improved Trip feat because the enemy has no legs. Its also okay that Weapon Focus is only a +1 bonus because you are always going to use it. But Mobility combines the worst of both words; it is a boring bonus that you can't always use.
Honestly, I don't mind the bonus CE provides. It actually is quite useful once fighters get to higher levels and hit with most every swing. But the problem is that it requires a fighter to be not only as smart as an average commoner, but in fact smarter than even that to know how to trip someone without giving them a chance to hit you back, which to me isn't so much intelligence as specialized training.
Its also okay that Weapon Focus is only a +1 bonus because you are always going to use it.
Oddly enough, they used that logic with a point buy feat system once. The result was spell focus cost half as much as weapon focus.
I'm actually not sure what to think about feats. Ones that give you new abilities sometimes just take away from cool things you probably should've already done. Simple bonuses are boring, and feat chains definitely take free will and opinion out of the equation. Half the time the feat has nothing to do with whatever your doing! Definitely not a fan of Feat Taxing. Feats are a big chance to customize your character, both his backstory, his training, all sorts of crazy things. What's up with getting mobility to learn how to reload a gun?
Combat Expertise I just don't like because I never use it. I like to use power attack, if I use them both I'm taking a hefty hit to attack sometimes! I also don't see what it has to do with every combat maneuver. Feat chains are okay if the previous feat had a direct impact on the next one, and they're both worth a feat. Combat Expertise has nothing to do with many of those things, and definitely doesn't impact what I'm doing with it...
Distant Scholar has the origins of the term exactly correct. (FYI, 4e AC scales more-or-less spot-on, so there's no feat tax for AC.)
The problem with 3e, and PF unless I'm mistaken, is that there are no explicit expectations about hit rates and whatnot -- so only a relatively few system masters can separate the true feat taxes from the merely useful and cheesy feats. And even then, there's controversy about just how many feat taxes there are!
Also, in the context of 3e and its descendants, I think it's reasonable to expand the definition of 'feat tax' to include 'largely useless feats I'm required to take to get something I actually want.' (4e doesn't have these, so it's not an issue there.)
This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit. Feat Tax was a pretty simple concept that came in two forms:
1) A feat you have to take to remain functional/competitive. Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Natural Spell all fall into this category. It is, of course, just a feat tax for the build.
2) A feat you have to take as a stepping stone to another feat/class that provides no benefit, or exceedingly little benefit to the character. Some of the biggest offenders in 3.5e were Toughness (3 hitpoints), Mobility (a low DC tumble check negated the feat), Skill Focus (skill DCs were very easy to make), or any feat that was then replaced by a class feature in the prestige class (this was surprisingly common). Pathfinder has gotten rid of most of these, but a few still exist.
I can't agree that Combat Expertise is a feat tax, though. It's done better with Crane Style but it still expands your abilities as a combatant and does so fairly successfully. It's only a "tax" if you choose never to use it.
Honestly in 3.x I had more issues with skill taxes for PrCs. I swear at least half of them needed concentration at 5 ranks even if the class had no uses for the skill for its abilities or the abilities that would dictate the classes that might want to take it.
hmm ok, here's my 2 pence.
CE: dpending on the build can be fairly workable, not all fighters are strength monkeys. not all fighters strive to just kill everything, you are thinking of barbarians.
Crane style has 2 feat requirement. one of which is most defenitely a "feat tax" for most fighters. While dodge is fairly useful in almost any fighter, not all.
power attack is not always useful either. Improved init is useful the first round of combat (usually). Spell focus (conj) well... acid splash... acid arrow... darkness? oh wait no dc on darkness.... ok, htis one i cant defend...
Honestly in 3.x I had more issues with skill taxes for PrCs. I swear at least half of them needed concentration at 5 ranks even if the class had no uses for the skill for its abilities or the abilities that would dictate the classes that might want to take it.
Iron Will is used for half the things in pathfinder. I have no idea why. I don't know what it has to do with being a class. I mean its nice, just wish it wasn't necessary.
I can see why people don't like Combat Expertise, but I don't mind it personally. Its one of those feats that you actually start to enjoy should you remember to use it. The only feat I can think of that I truly feel is a feat tax is Mobility; its got a super specific bonus and only exists to make it more difficult to get Spring Attack. I would rather Spring Attack had a minimum 5th level requirement over choosing Mobility any day.
Well, let's look at the two feats and their respective chains.
Dodge makes you harder to hit.
Mobility makes you harder to hit when you're moving around the battlefield.
Spring Attack has you moving around the battlefield.
So, while you may not feel that Mobility is necessary, especially since Spring Attack removes AoOs for movement you'd otherwise provoke from your target, Mobility definitely plays into the theme here, and CAN help with Spring Attack, by making your movement to and from your target less dangerous. Also, the Dex requirement for the feats is in-line with their goals, as more Dex makes you harder to hit as well.
Now let's look at Combat Expertise and things like trip and disarm feats.
CE doesn't benefit your using trip or disarm AT ALL. In fact, it makes you WORSE at these things, by lowering your CMB, and a bonus to CMD is irrelevant when you're attempting the maneuver in most cases.
The Int requirement similarly doesn't help at all, since Int does absolutely NOTHING for maneuvers. You cannot leverage it into any sort of benefit whatsoever. In fact, by having to spend the points raising Int, you are correspondingly being forced to lower one of the stats that would be useful (or seriously dump Cha and/or Wis, though you could dump those and raise Str and Dex by a little bit more instead).
There are some feats and abilities out there that allow you to gain some benefit on, say, Bull Rush when using Power Attack, but I don't think I've ever seen something that does the same for Combat Expertise.
And for some characters, the AC bonus may be totally irrelevant. I'm sure many barbarians would love to be able to trip regularly and effectively, but with their potentially multiple significant penalties to AC, all Combat Expertise is doing is partially negating those penalties, which will only be relevant if they heavily invest in AC-boosting gear and feats.
CE is definitely a feat tax.
I'd call Weapon Finesse a tax as well. You take Power Attack to get better at what you want to be doing (dealing damage), and take Weapon Focus (weak as it is) to be better at attacking. You take Weapon Finesse so you can do everyone else is already doing (applying probably their highest stat to attack rolls). There are some definite benefits in playing a Dex-based character, but I don't know that I'd classify them as being worth wasting a feat on.
Another example: Spell Focus (conjuration) for Augment Summoning. Now, yes, there are plenty of good DC-based conjuration spells that most characters would want to use alongside their summoning, but if all you want to do is summon (or summon and use spells from other schools), Spell Focus is conferring no benefit upon you in this endeavor.
This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit.
Was this before 2008?
|
There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently. The player has to decide if dumping another stat to get Int 13 and combat expertise is worth it for the feats that CE is a prereq for, and balance the usefulness of improved combat maneuver chains against other options. As a DM, I can design a fight on a bridge or next to a pit and give the npcs the improved combat maneuver feats without weighing the cost. The BBEG hired fighters, rangers and barbarians who specialize in bull rushing and tripping. Those npcs don't have to balance out stat allocation and feat allocation- they exist for that one encounter, presumably from an endless supply, wherever BBEG hires minions and henchlings.
This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...
There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently.This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...
The more niche the ability, the less balanced it is. Since NPCs exist only for a single encounter, they can easily be overspecialized to the point of totally unbalanced. PCs, on the other hand, have to be generalists because they have to handle everything the campaign can throw at them.
|
|
There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently.This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...The more niche the ability, the less balanced it is. Since NPCs exist only for a single encounter, they can easily be overspecialized to the point of totally unbalanced. PCs, on the other hand, have to be generalists because they have to handle everything the campaign can throw at them.
Absolutely...but when it comes to NPCs...it's all in the DM's hands, anyhow. If it's too powerful, all he has to do is lower the Str and raise the Wis a bit...or drop a level...or just understand that it's likely to be a tough encounter. *shrug*.
Absolutely...but when it comes to NPCs...it's all in the DM's hands, anyhow. If it's too powerful, all he has to do is lower the Str and raise the Wis a bit...or drop a level...or just understand that it's likely to be a tough encounter. *shrug*.There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently.This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...The more niche the ability, the less balanced it is. Since NPCs exist only for a single encounter, they can easily be overspecialized to the point of totally unbalanced. PCs, on the other hand, have to be generalists because they have to handle everything the campaign can throw at them.
The imbalance wasn't the point. The point was the NPC are trash who can afford to take the feats. They only serve one purpose and can dump 5 feats into bull rushing on bridges if they wanted to. DM Fiat can even give them "bull rush on a bridge" as a bonus feat if they really wanted.
PCs however, can't usually afford to overspecialize. If they need 5 feats to be good as something that may as well not be an option. PCs are going to run into a long variety of challenges, and are usually not throw away. If you can do one trick really well that's cool, don't get me wrong, and sometimes its fun. Now if that one trick suddenly isn't useful you may end up looking for new tricks... on a new character sheet possibly.
|
|
Absolutely...but when it comes to NPCs...it's all in the DM's hands, anyhow. If it's too powerful, all he has to do is lower the Str and raise the Wis a bit...or drop a level...or just understand that it's likely to be a tough encounter. *shrug*.There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently.This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...The more niche the ability, the less balanced it is. Since NPCs exist only for a single encounter, they can easily be overspecialized to the point of totally unbalanced. PCs, on the other hand, have to be generalists because they have to handle everything the campaign can throw at them.
The imbalance wasn't the point. The point was the NPC are trash who can afford to take the feats. They only serve one purpose and can dump 5 feats into bull rushing on bridges if they wanted to. DM Fiat can even give them "bull rush on a bridge" as a bonus feat if they really wanted.
PCs however, can't usually afford to overspecialize. If they need 5 feats to be good as something that may as well not be an option. PCs are going to run into a long variety of challenges, and are usually not throw away. If you can do one trick really well that's cool, don't get me wrong, and sometimes its fun. Now if that one trick suddenly isn't useful you may end up looking for new tricks... on a new character sheet possibly.
Yes...agreed...absolutely, even. I understood that, and that was what I based my response on. NPCs are very situational...especially one-encounter NPCs. It's in the DM's hands.
You are not looking to the whole chain. The last link is whirlwind strike,a feat that can only be used if you basialy stand still so it basically have no synergy with mobility or spring attack.
Oh, if you want to talk about Whirlwind Attack, the entire chain is an incredibly steep feat tax.
Mobility doesn't help with it, because you have to basically stand still in order to use it.
Ditto for Spring Attack.
Combat Expertise, again, has little bearing on it (other than helping a little in avoiding getting pummeled when you allow yourself to be surrounded and then piss off everyone around you).
Dex isn't helpful at all here, really.
Neither is Int.
I'd really like to know why the WotC 3.5 writers felt the need to tie such a weak feat to so many awful prerequisites...and why the PF writers didn't feel the need to change such a mind-boggling decision, but that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
So, yes, Mobility is a major feat tax for Whirlwind Attack...as are Spring Attack and Combat Expertise. Hell, compare Whirlwind to Great Cleave, which has a prerequisite of Power Attack (something that directly contributes to your goal of beating encounters by hitting and hurting monsters), and Cleave (useless after you get GC, but you get to use it until then, so not really a tax), and then, so long as you're hitting, you get to do the same thing as Whirlwind, except as a standard action. It's a little more restrictive in its effect (if you miss a target, you stop attacking, and take an AC penalty), but MUCH easier to get into.
This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit.Was this before 2008?
Yeah, why?
Yeah, why?This has been a pretty interesting conversation. I was pretty involved (lurker status) in the 3e boards of WotC and their CharOp folks, and you saw the term get thrown around quite a bit.Was this before 2008?
I never spent much time in CharOp, so I didn't see the term appear until 4e.
Guess ya learn something new every day. :)
With all this talk about Combat Expertise being just a feat tax - a few months or a year ago I would have agreed with you. However,
I am playing a tripping focused fighter in my Pathfinder game right now and I picked this feat up purely because it was a prereq to Improved Trip. However, I have found myself using it quite a bit. Basically anytime that I won't be able to get iterative attacks (like when moving up to the monsters and swinging first at the beginning of combat) I often tend to Expertise it up that round for a few extra points of armor class. As a fighter, chances are my first attack is going to hit anyways (especially if I went first and they are flat footed), so if that is the only attack I am making in a round might as well boost up my AC a bit to survive their inevitable full-attack retaliation. It might not be the most sexy feat ever, but it definitely gets regular tactical use from my character.
I think it would be a major improvement to the game if martial characters were given more options that are realistically usable.
How do you think the game would shift if all characters could pick one maneuver at BAB +1, and another at BAB +5 and 5 levels thereafter that they don't provoke AoOs for using? And if feats that require Improved <combat maneuver> instead required either that feat and its prerequisites, or the maneuver to have been selected in this way and the standard BAB requirement (that is, Greater Trip would not necessarily require Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, or Int 13)?
Or...what if NO maneuvers provoked AoOs for attempting them, but DO provoke if you fail to beat your target's CMD (which makes more sense to me anyway). Improved <combat maneuver> feats would need to be reassessed, maybe removing the AoO for failure?
Either of those would serve to make combat more interesting, I suspect, because people would feel a little freer to attempt maneuvers in situations where they make sense. In the game I'm running currently, the only person that ever bothers doing so is the Crane Style Flowing monk, because he has enough AC (and Crane Wing) to ignore most AoOs for attempting maneuvers that he hasn't spent feats on, which is cool, but I don't think anyone else would even attempt it.
|
|
There is another element to feat taxes and feat chains. They affect NPCs differently. The player has to decide if dumping another stat to get Int 13 and combat expertise is worth it for the feats that CE is a prereq for, and balance the usefulness of improved combat maneuver chains against other options. As a DM, I can design a fight on a bridge or next to a pit and give the npcs the improved combat maneuver feats without weighing the cost. The BBEG hired fighters, rangers and barbarians who specialize in bull rushing and tripping. Those npcs don't have to balance out stat allocation and feat allocation- they exist for that one encounter, presumably from an endless supply, wherever BBEG hires minions and henchlings.This is true, and will be true, no matter what. I'm not sure I get what you're driving at, though...MrSin and Orfamy Quest described my point, that feat chains requiring a lot of specialization penalize PCs who take them and don't have the same kind of penalty for npcs. On one hand excessive feat requirements (excessive being subjective) for improved combat maneuvers benefit the party to a certain extent, if any character with a BAB of +12 could automatically get the bonuses from improved trip/bull rush/grapple that would make some encounters more difficult for PCs. But the requirements for some feat chains can be prohibitive for PCs, and they are not prohibitive for NPCs. If a 20 point buy NPC barbarian spends all feats on the improved bull rush feat chain and the sword and shield feat chain that allows bull rushing with a shield they don't have to give up versatility, because the barbarian exists for that one encounter. A PC barbarian with a 20 point buy who buys 13 int for CE and the feat chains gives up a lot of versatility. So a cool maneuver that requires a lot of feats is a less viable option for a PC than an NPC opponent.
It's good for the DM to have cool options in designing encounters, but players...
Oh, I get the point. It really doesn't bother me, but I understand what you're getting at. I don't use point buy, so he's not giving up points, for one thing...YMMV...and this is part of what makes a fighter powerful. He CAN take 2 or 3...maybe even more full chains.
|
MrSin and Orfamy Quest described my point, that feat chains requiring a lot of specialization penalize PCs who take them and don't have the same kind of penalty for npcs. On one hand excessive feat requirements (excessive being subjective) for improved combat maneuvers benefit the party to a certain extent, if any character with a BAB of +12 could automatically get the bonuses from improved trip/bull rush/grapple that would make some encounters more difficult for PCs. But the requirements for some feat chains can be prohibitive for PCs, and they are not prohibitive for NPCs. If a 20 point buy NPC barbarian spends all feats on the improved bull rush feat chain and the sword and shield feat chain that allows bull rushing with a shield they don't have to give up versatility, because the barbarian exists for that one encounter. A PC barbarian with a 20 point buy who buys 13 int for CE and the feat chains gives up a lot of versatility. So a cool maneuver that requires a lot of feats is a less viable option for a PC than an NPC opponent.
It's good for the DM to have cool options in designing encounters, but players...
How is this any different than a Wizard that doesn't have to hold back any spells in an encounter (because if he wins, he lives and is done, and if he dies, he is dead, and done)? Or an alchemist throwing bombs... etc. I'd say that spell casters as foes are under fewer restrictions than any martial characters, and will likely see even more specialization.
A BBEG wizard is probably not going to have any spells for approaching the battle site, exploration, and the like. He won't need things like Remove Curse, Water Breathing, Gentle Repose, Phantom Steed, Locate Object, etc. They can focus more on the single battle.
Now, if a GM is really good, they may still have some utility spells, but in the PFS scenarios I have seen, spell casters have reasonably focused spell lists.
On the other hand, a trip specialist will be focusing on tripping, rather than something else. Tnat's a cost, and one you should be able to exploit, should you realize it is there. That is, assuming the GM limits NPCs to the same rules as PCs follow.