Look at a class called learned duelist; if you prestiege class into duelist at level 10 you get a lot of benefits from high intellegence.
The vital strike feats work great with this. also, look at the kirin style feats
Feats such as Combat Expertise only require an investment of 13 in Intelligence. Look at some of the feats that have CE as a prerequisite and then ask yourself if some of those are things you would like your character to do. If you decide to go this route, check out the Lore Warden fighter archetype as one option.
If I have a 25 point buy, those extra 5 points are going into INT.
So the option is at least there. All my builds are based off 20 point buys so I haven't given it much thought.
Somewhat off-topic, but the odd ability score requirements, like CE's 13 Int, has always bugged me. If the threshold for gaining new knowledge, for having better memory and analytical skills, and for picking up a new language is always an even number, why 13 Int? Why not just 12, or 14? Same thing with Power Attack and a 13 Str.
Th problem is somewhere people got th idea th game was harder than it is. On 20 pt but I can make a fighter with 13 or 14 int while finishing PFS any published adventure.
Th feats combat expertise acts as prereq for are good and well worth the "sacrifice"
Look at a class called learned duelist; if you prestiege class into duelist at level 10 you get a lot of benefits from high intellegence.
The vital strike feats work great with this. also, look at the kirin style feats
The learned duelist is actually bad at vital striking. +int to a single hit doesn't make it good.
The point of that crappy decision, Cerberus Seven, was attempting to make meeting those prerequisites more burdensome on the character. Qualifying for those feats is 'a goal unto itself' so to speak.
Wow, did WotC actually once state that was the reasoning for it? That's just dumb, you're already smarter / stronger / more nimble than the average person with those scores anyways. Why make it harder when meeting that level of inherent capability doesn't actually represent any kind of new threshold in what you can do, physically or mentally? Not like there aren't enough hurdles to overcome to get the full effect of a good feat chain as in.
Why make it harder when meeting that level of inherent capability doesn't actually represent any kind of new threshold in what you can do, physically or mentally? Not like there aren't enough hurdles to overcome to get the full effect of a good feat chain as in.
Welcome to 3.x dnd! Pathfinder is more than happy to continue this idealism and continue to add more feat taxes and unnecessary feat prereqs.
The point of that crappy decision, Cerberus Seven, was attempting to make meeting those prerequisites more burdensome on the character. Qualifying for those feats is 'a goal unto itself' so to speak.Wow, did WotC actually once state that was the reasoning for it?
No, he's making that up. And, in any case, it wasn't WOTC's decision, this came from 3.5.
No, he's making that up. And, in any case, it wasn't WOTC's decision, this came from 3.5.The point of that crappy decision, Cerberus Seven, was attempting to make meeting those prerequisites more burdensome on the character. Qualifying for those feats is 'a goal unto itself' so to speak.Wow, did WotC actually once state that was the reasoning for it?
Wait, weren't 3.0 and 3.5 WotC products?
Wait, weren't 3.0 and 3.5 WotC products?No, he's making that up. And, in any case, it wasn't WOTC's decision, this came from 3.5.The point of that crappy decision, Cerberus Seven, was attempting to make meeting those prerequisites more burdensome on the character. Qualifying for those feats is 'a goal unto itself' so to speak.Wow, did WotC actually once state that was the reasoning for it?
They were.
Wait, weren't 3.0 and 3.5 WotC products?No, he's making that up. And, in any case, it wasn't WOTC's decision, this came from 3.5.The point of that crappy decision, Cerberus Seven, was attempting to make meeting those prerequisites more burdensome on the character. Qualifying for those feats is 'a goal unto itself' so to speak.Wow, did WotC actually once state that was the reasoning for it?
Whoops, I meant it wasn't Paizo's decision.
Whoops, I meant it wasn't Paizo's decision.
Paizo actually did make a change to the feats that required combat expertise.
They made more of them! Even in the CRB they split the martial maneuvers into two feats. Among other things, some good, some bad.
Whoops, I meant it wasn't Paizo's decision.Paizo actually did make a change to the feats that required combat expertise.
They made more of them! Even in the CRB they split the martial maneuvers into two feats. Among other things, some good, some bad.
Yes, they nerfed trap instead of bring the other maneuvers up to par.
It has ups and downs.
Somewhat off-topic, but the odd ability score requirements, like CE's 13 Int, has always bugged me. If the threshold for gaining new knowledge, for having better memory and analytical skills, and for picking up a new language is always an even number, why 13 Int? Why not just 12, or 14? Same thing with Power Attack and a 13 Str.
Yes, the intent was since ability score bonuses increase every even level, feat prerequisites would be set at odd level ability scores. Otherwise, no one would ever have a reason to have an odd number for their ability score.
As far as the topic is concerned, I changed the stat requirement of Combat Expertise from Int to Dex. Makes taking them less prohibitive for marshals and makes more sense to me thematically as well.
Combat expertise is the most annoying feat tax in the game, period.
Ther is a reason why I give Power Attack, Deadly Aim and Combat Expertise for free in my games to anyone who meets the prereqs.
Pathfinder at its inception left a lot of legacy items in for baclwards compatability.
Pathfinder at its inception left a lot of legacy items in for baclwards compatability.
Which... was entirely their choice, for whatever reasons. As is it their choice as to what changes are made later down the road, and what content to add.
I'm going to presume you meant trip, rather than crossdressing?Whoops, I meant it wasn't Paizo's decision.Paizo actually did make a change to the feats that required combat expertise.
They made more of them! Even in the CRB they split the martial maneuvers into two feats. Among other things, some good, some bad.
Yes, they nerfed trap instead of bring the other maneuvers up to par.
It has ups and downs.
Yep. Cross-dressing is actually pretty easy in PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Cross-dressing is actually pretty easy in PF.
At least until some book gets published with a cross-dressing feat, necessitating that all would-be cross-dressers then take it.
Yep. Cross-dressing is actually pretty easy in PF.At least until some book gets published with a cross-dressing feat, necessitating that all would-be cross-dressers then take it.
Considering it is explicitly covered in the disguise skill, I think the dangers of that are low.
|
One could argue that they did indeed nerf traps... by giving trapfinding to more classes besides Rogues. Of course, that's the thread derail right there.
There are a lot of reasons that Combat Expertise bothers people.
1.It requires INT, which most martial types don't really have any other need for.
2.It's a prereq for a lot of different feats that involve combat maneuvers, but its effect has nothing to do with combat maneuvers.
3.Maneuvers provoke AoO's if you don't have the "Improved" feat, which means you NEED the feat (and the irrelevant prereq) if you ever want the corresponding maneuver to be a viable option.
All that said, there's quite a bit of fun to be had with these feats, tax and all, and quite a few people suck up and take Combat Expertise and build effective characters with them.
Personally, I recommend talking to your play group about house rules to patch that little problem (outside PFS of course). Here's a few suggestions for possible work-arounds.
Idea 1. Combat Expertise now reads "You add your Int modifier to your CMB and CMD." Fighters who want to trip people now benefit from the feat, and from high INT.
Idea 2. Delete Combat Expertise entirely. If you're afraid this is too much of a buff, a different feat (Power Attack? Weapon Finesse?) could replace it as the prereqs for later feats.
Idea 3. Attempting a Combat Maneuver no longer provokes an AoO, but failing at it does. The "Improved" feats prevent that AoO.
Way back in 3.5 Skip Williams or Monte Cooke said that the reason for making all the feat requirements Odd numbers was to give players a reason for even having odd number stats.
The idea was that the even number would give you the raw numerical benefit, but the odd number was required for you to make use of that modifier as a qualifier.
I think there is even a dragon magazine article from 1999 or 2000 (when they were discussing what 3.0 was going to be like) where soembody says that they were considering requiring you to have the Odd stat for bonus spells too.
Anyway combat expertise and its chain are not bad, I just wish that the chain didn't become all about maneuvers like sunder and trip.
I wish that the chain was more like this:
Combat Expertise: NO Stat requirement, take -1 to hit for +2 AC, penalty increase by -1 bonus increase by +2 for ever 4 bab. Must be be wielding a 1 handed weapon or shield.
Threatening Stance: Requires combat expertise, While using combat expertise gain 1 bonus attack of opportunity for every 4 BAB. Additionally, foes whom you threaten that attack an ally provoke an attack of opportunity from you.
Punishing Counter Attack: Requires Threatening Stance: while using combat expertise your regular and opportunity attacks gain a damage bonus equal to the AC bonus from combat expertise.
Impregnable defense: While using combat expertise you gain +2 to AC and +1 to reflex saves every time an opponent misses you with an attack or you make a successful reflex save.
Those 4 may not be as powerful as the trip-star but they better capture a defensive fighter.
|
Maneuvers do give martial characters interesting things to do in combat besides direct damage, and sometimes these can be very effective. I've got an effective trip monk, and the first time I played PF we had a sundering fighter who chopped the adamantine full plate off a BBEG, reducing his AC to something the rest of the party could actually hit.
That said, Combat Expertise itself is lackluster, and its associated maneuvers aren't good enough to justify that, especially with the other maneuver prerequisite, Power Attack, being itself a highly desirable feat.
I like IthinkIbrokeit's ideas for improving Combat Expertise and giving it its own chain, though Threatening Stance actually looks a little too good and could probably use a limiting clause like "Attacking the same ally multiple times only provokes one AoO from you."
3.Maneuvers provoke AoO's if you don't have the "Improved" feat, which means you NEED the feat (and the irrelevant prereq) if you ever want the corresponding maneuver to be a viable option.
Not quite. There are several situations in which someone might be unable to take an AoO. For example, if the attacker has reach and the defender does not, or if the defender has already made an AoO and doesn't have Combat Reflexes or a similar ability. In these situations you can safely attempt maneuvers untrained.