I know there is a feat "Steadfast Personality" that allows a character to use their Charisma Mod instead of their Wisdom mod when making Will Saves for Mind-affecting Effects.
Would a a "Steadfast Intellect" feat be equally balanced, or do you foresee issues that could arise that are not present for the Charisma-based feat?
I know there is a feat "Steadfast Personality" that allows a character to use their Charisma Mod instead of their Wisdom mod when making Will Saves for Mind-affecting Effects.
Would a a "Steadfast Intellect" feat be equally balanced, or do you foresee issues that could arise that are not present for the Charisma-based feat?
Great for Int-based munchkins... lousy for any other consideration.
Generally Int pulls more weight as a stat than Charisma for most characters so it's not an equivalent situation.
If you have a poor will save progression gain int instead of wisdom.
If you have a god will save progression gain half int instead of wisdom bonus but keep any wisdom penalties.
This to me seems like how they'd make a kinda balanced feat for it. Making it more useful for more non-int classes and worse but still worthwhile for casters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, if you were going to associate a save to a stat that's not traditionally associated with a save, Charisma should go with Will, Strength should go with fortitude, and Intelligence should go with reflex.
So I don't like a feat for Int to Will since I don't think those two things have anything to do with each other. If anything, being really smart should make you less self-confident rather than more.
i think if the feat had a requirement for X ranks in spellcraft, int to will saves makes sense.
I had actually been looking at an investigator when I thought of the questation.
|
it would make wizards even more broken while doing little for any other class.
Not true. It would be great for Alchemists. Given that Wizards (and Witches/Psychics/Occultists) already have a good Will save, the spike in power would not be nearly as dramatic for them. Bear in mind there's something of a diminishing returns effect when saving throw/skill/attack modifiers get high enough. It would also benefit Fighters, come to think of it, since between the desire for more skill points and the need for a modicum of Intelligence to get Combat Expertise, it would allow them to consolidate and get more out of their investments in mental attributes.
One of the few things I liked about 4E was that they introduced some flexibility and personal choice in what your saving throws were based on: Fortitude could come from Constitution OR Strength, Reflex from Dexterity OR Intelligence, Will from Wisdom OR Charisma. I'd have made Wisdom the alternate source of Reflex saves rather than Intelligence (since Wisdom is instinct and sensory acuity, and Intelligence is frontal lobe stuff) and Intelligence the other Will save source, but other than that, it was a good idea (of course, in 5th Edition, ALL the abilities can be used for saving throws depending on what it is that's being saved against, which is a good idea too).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
meh none of the fighters i make would touch combat expertise with a 10 foot pole...
The Combat Expertise thing applies to all melee classes that plan on doing anything beyond straight damage. there are 40 different combat feats that have Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. Tripping, Throwing, Stealing, Disarming, Feinting, Dirty Tricks, and more all key off it...
so, yeah - does not just benefit the Wizard.
It would probably result in the reduction of Big Dumb Fighters and a an uptick in Tactician-styled ones. Though i suppose if you want that and are willing to homebrew feats, you may be also willing to homebrew that Combat Expertise is a bonus feat granted whenever you take one of the feats that require it as a prereq...
a fighter is better off just doing damage to the target leave the combat maneuvers to the monks and brawlers. fighters have the best chance of downing 1-5 enemies a round so wasting time on maneuvers unless you can cheese your way into getting free attacks afterwards is a bad move
Sounds like the mentality of the Big Dumb Fighter. I have been in countless encounters where the fighter is the only one that can hit the target the enemy due to super high AC that the 3/4 BAB classes have trouble doing anything to. If the fighter trips the target, its like giving a +4 to hit to all of his melee allies. if he performs a Dirty Trick to blind - it makes the target flatfooted to everyone and gives them a +2 to their attacks on top of that. You will likely still hit with all of your remaining iterative attacks after debuffing the enemy like that.
The Tactician Archetype is looking pretty sweet right now, actually...
a fighter is better off just doing damage to the target leave the combat maneuvers to the monks and brawlers. fighters have the best chance of downing 1-5 enemies a round so wasting time on maneuvers unless you can cheese your way into getting free attacks afterwards is a bad moveSounds like the mentality of the Big Dumb Fighter. I have been in countless encounters where the fighter is the only one that can hit the target the enemy due to super high AC that the 3/4 BAB classes have trouble doing anything to. If the fighter trips the target, its like giving a +4 to hit to all of his melee allies. if he performs a Dirty Trick to blind - it makes the target flatfooted to everyone and gives them a +2 to their attacks on top of that. You will likely still hit with all of your remaining iterative attacks after debuffing the enemy like that.
The Tactician Archetype is looking pretty sweet right now, actually...
I dunno about all that... Performing a Dirty Trick takes a standard action (not an attack action, unless you've taken major steps to make it so), which means you're not doing any damage to it this round. Also, your weapon and weapon feat bonuses don't apply (generally) to a dirty trick, so (depending on the creature's CMD) you could have a greater chance of missing it.
Trip, however, (in my opinion) works pretty well, when it works. If you've sunk enough resources into tripping for it to be a viable strategy, it's frustrating how many creatures are immune to trip or trip-resistant.
And how come so many people are critical of the Big Dumb Fighter, but not the Puny Smelly Wizard (who dumps strength and charisma)?
a fighter is better off just doing damage to the target leave the combat maneuvers to the monks and brawlers. fighters have the best chance of downing 1-5 enemies a round so wasting time on maneuvers unless you can cheese your way into getting free attacks afterwards is a bad moveSounds like the mentality of the Big Dumb Fighter. I have been in countless encounters where the fighter is the only one that can hit the target the enemy due to super high AC that the 3/4 BAB classes have trouble doing anything to. If the fighter trips the target, its like giving a +4 to hit to all of his melee allies. if he performs a Dirty Trick to blind - it makes the target flatfooted to everyone and gives them a +2 to their attacks on top of that. You will likely still hit with all of your remaining iterative attacks after debuffing the enemy like that.
Yeah, I'm not sure that the math really works out on that one.
Trip is... well, basically trip is really situational, because even things that aren't formally immune to trip are often effectively immune to trip because they've got too damn many legs and are too big. (Giant Black Widow spider: CMD 20 [32 vs. trip]. At CR 3.)
The math simply doesn't work out for Dirty Trick. You don't get your weapon bonuses, you don't get your weapon focus bonus, you don't get your weapon training bonuses, and you don't get the assorted minor bonuses that make fighters better. So at that point, you're attacking with your CMB alone, which is honestly no better than the bard or cleric's full attack bonus. Actually, it's probably less, since they get the assorted bonuses that they've been hoarding ("naturally I'm wielding a magic rapier, I'm not an idiot") and you don't.
haha, yes, because the fighter sacrificing their 100 damage is worth hopefully setting up their allies to deal 65 damage :)
This exemplifies my issues with non-damage choices. Unless your thing helps end a fight faster than just doing a full attack would it's not worth going into it.
Sure a grappler can kinda negate 1 person in 1 or 2 rounds by pinning them. Really awesome in 4v1 fights. Not as useful in 4v6 fights.
Sure suffocating them in 6 rounds kills them, but it doesn't help the fighter that will kill them from HP damage in 4.
It's why I love free and swift action options. Tripping for free or as a swift means you don't need to sacrifice damage for the status.
Greater trip is a thing fighters should have if they plan to be tripping things.
Agreed. But the flip side of that is : if you don't have greater trip (and vicious stomp), don't bother tripping.
Trip builds can be situationally effective (remember the giant spiders) if you built for tripping. Even then, you're spending a lot of feats that can be rendered useless by something as simple as a flying monster. By level 10, you will probably want those feats back.... Something that boosts damage, on the other hand, will continue boosting damage all the way up into level 20 and beyond.
|
Greater trip is a thing fighters should have if they plan to be tripping things.Agreed. But the flip side of that is : if you don't have greater trip (and vicious stomp), don't bother tripping.
Trip builds can be situationally effective (remember the giant spiders) if you built for tripping. Even then, you're spending a lot of feats that can be rendered useless by something as simple as a flying monster. By level 10, you will probably want those feats back.... Something that boosts damage, on the other hand, will continue boosting damage all the way up into level 20 and beyond.
While you are right, I also kinda don't agree. 100% optimization isn't always necessary...and, speaking for me personally, just doing standard melee full attack every time is boring. But I'll drop it, otherwise this will turn into another "why do fighters suck" thread.