| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of considered Combat Expertise nothing more than a feat tax, and never gave it a second look. I guess I did not realize how much support there is for this feat. And I did not give it nearly enough credit for its place in a game where action economy wins the day.
Combat Expertise is a non-action. Full stop.
In a game where every choice you make is paid for by consuming one of your precious few actions available each round, a non-action choice is huge... especially when this aforementioned non-action choice interacts with other abilities that key off of fighting defensively OR when using Combat Expertise. Where fighting defensively only provides fixed benefits/penalties...
Combat Expertise gives you half the AC bonus, but only taxes you a -1 to attack instead of the -4 associated with fighting defensively. As it scales with BAB, you get the same AC bonus for half the attack penalty. We surpass the AC bonus provided by fighting defensively with only 3/4 the penalty to attack. And we are at double the AC bonus with Combat Expertise by the time we match fighting defensively's penalty to attack.
A trait, a freaking trait, reduces the Combat Expertise penalty to attack by a flat 1, with no minimum. On a 3/4 BAB chassis, you're using Combat Expertise without penalty until level 6... from a trait. There's a common shield that reduces the penalty by 1, with a minimum of -1... that same shield also reduces the penalty for fighting defensively by 2 (which is pretty legit). Swordplay Style straight up allows you to ignore the penalty on your first attack. So does Order of the Eastern Star's Pierce the Guard ability... that Order actually offers scaling DR/- that keys off Combat Expertise, too. Stalwart offers DR/- in place of your dodge bonus, and it would stack with Order of the Eastern Star's Guarded ability, which is neat.
There's more, lots more... and it's kind of funny that all this cool $#!+ was sitting right in front of my face the whole freaking time.
Does anyone actually use Combat Expertise, and/or any of the above listed things like a Madu or Swordplay Style?
I have used Order of the Eastern Star to jack up dodge bonuses on a Daring Champion Cavalier, and I have seen Order of the Eastern Star used by others to similar effect by VMC'ing Cavalier.
That's all fine if you want to build a tank, but a tank without offensive punch can be ignored and isn't that much fun to play. So by the time you've sunk 3 feats and a trait into it, you're starting to miss out on the fun.
In the NPC thread I gather that your characters are going to be quite high level so maybe they can soak that feat tax and still have enough options to spare, but at lower levels people need the basics like Power Attack and Combat Reflexes more than Combat Expertise. And if you are going for a CE build you're probably going to want the feats like Improved Trip that come from it.
I really wish that there were ways to mitigate Combat Expertise’s penalties—which really are steep—that weren’t so niche.
For example, the madu is terrific, but I wish the game made concessions to mainstream reality more so than outright game balance—e.g., tying that kind of benefit to bucklers, dueling daggers, or a feat related to either, rather than an item specific to a particular realm so as to be rare. And yes, there will also be GMs who will make the point about your character not actually being from Cheliax.
I’ve shared Mudfoot’s concerns re: the lack of damage from a Combat Expertise build for some time. And so, I looked at alternate types of offensive output that would allow me to maximize the benefits of Combat Expertise. I think Greater Called Shot, paired with an 18-20 crit range weapon, could do that, as long as you’re mitigating the attack penalty (to reliably target the intermediate difficulty locations) and running a build that nets you 40+ points of damage per single attack. Without Power Attack, though, for most conventional/mainstream builds that damage output probably comes rather late in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's many reasons why CE has (historically) had a bad rep.
It's not much better than Fighting Defensively, which you get for free.
Three ranks in acrobatics and with just the CRB you're sitting on -4/+3. So compared to the scaling of CE you're behind with -1 to Attack. If it was a choice between the two you're better off just taking Weapon Focus and Fighting Defensively since WF will always be active.
If accuracy is important to you then Combat Expertise is less valuable than Dodge.
Disregarding any support, you'll realize that you're actually paying a feat to "break even" in the Att/AC tradeoff. If +1 to Attack is worth one feat (Weapon Focus) and +1 to AC is worth a feat (Dodge) then Combat Expertise is worth... 0 feats.
It has anti-synergy with the feats it is a prerequisite for.
If we say that the most common feats that CE has been a feat tax for is maneuver feats like Improved Trip, then using it actively hurts your chances of success for the feat you actually wanted.
But personally the dislike is that the bonus is keyed to BAB. Most of the support available for Combat Expertise is also available for Fighting Defensively which means that while you're waiting 4 BAB for another +1 bonus, the Fighting Defensively build has +8 to AC before level 6. And the whole point of these builds is to get a fat bonus to AC.
I'll however concede that there's a lot of support available and that there are times when you'll want to simply bunker up and use both CE and Fighting Defensively.
Regarding the madu I have no idea where you got that you have to be from Cheliax to have one.
I was referencing the trait Voodist Monk linked to, Threatening Defender.
That thing is pretty much available where ever given its in Ultimate Equipment and Adventurer's Armory. You may be thinking about the Klar (similar not quite the same), but that too is available everywhere. The only reason why a madu would not be available is because the GM doesn't want it in their game.
Alternately, a GM might simply want to stick with what’s culturally prevalent for a given region. One of the consequences of the Archives of Nethys and Ultimate Equipment incorporating the equipment, feats, spells, and traits from the various Companion entries is that a lot of the cultural context behind them is either ignored or outright lost. In this case, one GM might be fine with a character shopping for a Katapeshian shield from eastern Garund while in a village in the River Kingdoms of northeastern Avistan. Another might not. The latter isn’t simply exercising GM fiat to deny their players something.
In either case, the designers didn’t put a regional lock to Threatening Defender for no reason at all. Nor did they randomly assign the madu’s benefits to it, as opposed to a regionally non-specific piece of equipment. If this doesn’t get in the way of what your group likes to do, that’s perfectly fine. Speaking for myself, though, I do wish that such restrictions—overt or implied—weren’t in place for something that mitigates a universal feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to thank VoodistMonk for an excellent original post. Most posters don't quote or provide links to relevant rules, but VM did. Well done, it makes it much easier to know what you are posting about and respond.
As to why it isn't more popular;
- 13 int vs more dex/str/con
- uses a feat vs defensive fighting (free)
- decrease in accuracy, it is better to take foes down faster than to use in combat healing hit less often
- needs investment (traits, equipment, feats,...) to be really useful.
I have seen it used in certain situations, when you really, really, REALLY don't want to get hit. But unless you are making a dedicated Combat Expertise build...generally there are better options.
You know what's even funnier about the whole situation? Combat Expertise is literally free AC for casters who mostly just target saves and touch AC.
No, it isn't, "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."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat expertise can only be used when you are making a melee attack, including touch attacks. That makes it less valuable to casters than Temperans thinks. If you are casting a spell that does not require a melee attack roll you cannot use combat expertise. So, it does not apply when casting spells like ray or enfeeblement or fireball. Arcane caster are probably not going to get a lot of benefit from it, but it is actually pretty good for some clerics.
Combat expertise on a DEX based build is actually fairly decent. But you need to have some other source of damage for it to work. The best choice would be a swashbuckler that is not taking power attack. It also allows you to pick up improved disarm and latter disarming strike. Precise Strike, Swashbucklers Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization allow you to keep your damage relevant without needing Power Attack. Other classes that give damage boost could also do this.
A trait, a freaking trait, reduces the Combat Expertise penalty to attack by a flat 1, with no minimum. On a 3/4 BAB chassis, you're using Combat Expertise without penalty until level 6... from a trait.
Which means until 6th level, you're a trait behind someone who took Dodge instead of CE.
There's a common shield that reduces the penalty by 1, with a minimum of -1...that same shield also reduces the penalty for fighting defensively by 2 (which is pretty legit).
- For a -2/+3 (with 3 acrobatics), so same as CE at BAB+8, only without the feat cost. If we include the trait, since we could use the saved feat on Dodge, if we take -1attack/+1AC to be a desirable tradeoff, using a madu, Combat Expertise is objectively worse than fighting defensively until BAB+16 (and even then I'd argue a mere -1/+1 over FD isn't worth the trait cost).
If accuracy is important to you then Combat Expertise is less valuable than Dodge.
Disregarding any support, you'll realize that you're actually paying a feat to "break even" in the Att/AC tradeoff. If +1 to Attack is worth one feat (Weapon Focus) and +1 to AC is worth a feat (Dodge) then Combat Expertise is worth... 0 feats.
Well, the same could be said about Power Attack (at 2:1 ratio). Both feats draw their value from an attack roll bonus being worth less than a bonus to damage rolls or AC.
That said, while attack:damage often has a ratio of 1:1.5 more in favor of damage, the attack:AC ratio is much closer. I actually once did the math on this, see here, and CE (without alterations) was just barely worth using in a straight up 1on1 slugfest, and totally not worth the feat cost.
Regarding the madu I have no idea where you got that you have to be from Cheliax to have one.I was referencing the trait Voodist Monk linked to, Threatening Defender.
"These traits are available to all characters, Chelish or otherwise." (Cheliax, Empire of Devils, pg. 18)
You can use combat expertise when making a melee touch attack given that they count as weapons. Armed natural attacks to be more precise.
That you "count as being armed" does not equal your touch attack counting as a weapon.
The “Armed” Unarmed Attack section is pure explanatory text that literally changes nothing anyway, but even if we take it at face value, only the rule "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity." (CRB pg. 180) is overridden.
See also this FAQ, which talks about "weapon" often being shorthand for "manufactured weapon". And this FAQ, which would be false if holding a touch spell charge would count as a weapon.
Good catch on Threatening Defender, Derklord!
By that logic power attack is also worth -1/2 feat or 0 feats.
/.../
So yeah, I don't buy that logic, the purpose of power attack and combat expertise is offering the trade.
I think you've got your math mixed up here. Power attack with a 1-handed weapon would be 0 feats. A 2-handed weapon would be gaining the worth of Weapon Specialization at lv 4, 12, and 20 which is definitely worthwhile. But yes, I stand by that logic. Power Attack for a 1-handed build is actually effectively worth 0 feats.
The difference between CE and PA is that PA is needed because damage is needed. There are very few ways to add damage through feats and Power Attack is baked into the system's math.
Would you take a feat that gave you -2 to will saves but +2 to Fortitude saves? No?
Well that's what both Combat Expertise and Power Attack are doing on a larger scale. And it's not like Power Attack isn't a feat tax. You don't take it because it's "broken", everyone takes it because it's needed.
Well, the same could be said about Power Attack (at 2:1 ratio). Both feats draw their value from an attack roll bonus being worth less than a bonus to damage rolls or AC.
That said, while attack:damage often has a ratio of 1:1.5 more in favor of damage, the attack:AC ratio is much closer. I actually once did the math on this, see here, and CE (without alterations) was just barely worth using in a straight up 1on1 slugfest, and totally not worth the feat cost.
Oh hey, that's me one post above saying the exact same thing I'm saying now.
One of the few builds I could see sensibly using a Madu is a Slayer. They get shield proficiency, and they get access to Ranger Combat Style feats to support using it. The DC's of their class abilities (like Assassinate) key off Intelligence, and Combat Expertise will not compete with Studied Target's action economy.
Slayer Talents and Rogue Talents and Ninja Tricks can be used to pick up various other feats, like Combat Expertise, itself, and/or something like Swordplay Style... could even pick up the Weapon Focus prerequisite with a Rogue Talent... or Elven Battle Style, if you are of Elvish heritage. Crane Style could be used with a Madu for penalty-free defensive fighting, but Crane Wing requires a free hand... either we are only armed with a shield, or we need a different Style to sensibly use the Madu. I don't see any free hand requirements in either Elven Battle Style or Swordplay Style, so a Madu could probably be made to work with either of those.
An Elf, or Half-Elf, Slayer could have a Madu whilst using a Rapier or Thornblade with Dex to attack, and adding Intelligence to damage by level 4. Combat Expertise would be online at 5, and would be -0/+2 with the Madu and the trait... making it immediately better than Dodge. You don't actually see a penalty to attack until 8, where Combat Expertise becomes -1/+3. And by the time you see -2/+4, you have Elven Battle Torret up and running giving you an AoO every time someone misses you with an attack... so who cares, because it's obviously worth it to have Combat Expertise activated.
Although, I definitely see the argument against it... as fighting defensively does not require a feat. Using a Madu, and fighting defensively is a -2/+4... which Combat Expertise will not surpass until BAB +16.
That same Elf/Half-Elf Slayer could just as easily be using a Branched Spear (and a Madu if they had Shield Brace). Reach builds have a way of dealing damage out of turn, which [perhaps] makes up for not dealing massive damages on their own turn. The bonus to AoO provoked by movement provided by the Branched Spear also helps to negate penalties associated with both Combat Expertise and/or fighting defensively.
It's not perfect, by any means, but it's not terrible, either. And it's just kind of the first thing that popped into my mind, honestly. You could even use Vandgaurd Slayer VMC Cavalier for Order of the Eastern Star shenanigans... doubling up on Tactician for Vandguard and VMC. I could also see Combat Expertise being of use to an Alchemist, Fighter, Investigator, Magus, or Rogue just as easily as a Slayer, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I've recently started using Combat Expertise and realised how good it is. It's not good on Every character, but it's certainly a good feat on the right PC, and nearly not as bad as people think.
The thing I missed when I first looked at it was that you can use Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively at the same time.
At +1 BAB you end up with -5/+3.
- At +4 BAB you end up with -6/+5 .
- At +8 BAB you end up with -7/+6.
- At +12 BAB you end up with -8/+7.
- At +16 BAB you end up with -9/+8.
- At +20 BAB you end up with -10/+9.
This means that by +8 BAB you're getting a better AC bonus than you would with a Full Defence action, but you can still make attacks and AoOs, albeit at a penalty.
Now there are 2 ways to deal with that penalty:
- Have a good enough bonus to hit that you can soak the penalty.
- Use tactics in a way that means you don't need to be the main damage dealer for a round.
I'm playing a Bloodrager in a party with a Bard, so between my own ridiculous attack bonuses and the bonuses I get from the Bard I can absolutely soak a -8 penalty to attack.
But before my attack bonuses got that high I was able to make excellent use of this by forcing all the enemies to attack me, and then upping my defences to the stratosphere. In the beginning I was able to force attacks against me by finding a choke point and holding position to prevent enemies attacking my allies. Later on I was able to use positioning, reach and the threat of high damage to make attacking me a more attractive option than moving past and risking an AoO .
The other thing to realise is that action economy isn't really about getting the most hits, or even the most actions. It's about getting the most actions Compared to your opponents. Reducing enemy actions is the same as adding actions to your own team. Knowing this, some rounds you don't need to be the one dealing damage. This could be because you're intentionally tanking like I was, or it could be an emergency button for a fragile character who might occasionally need to survive for a round or 2.
If I can negate 90% of the enemy attacks for a round that does a lot for the action economy balance between my party and the enemy. MY attack bonus may not be able to contribute to the action economy of the party, but the other 3 party members are still able to fight at full capacity, meaning we're still functioning at 75%-90% capacity while reducing the enemy party's action economy considerably. Then the following round when the enemy have been softened up a bit I can revert to a more offensive posture and bring the pain, negating more actions by ending lives than I would by increasing AC and taking more attacks.
Crane Style could be used with a Madu for penalty-free defensive fighting, but Crane Wing requires a free hand...
Unfortunately both the Madu and Crane Style set the penalty to -2, rather than reducing the amount by 2. As the Madu is incompatible with Crane Style it seems less worthwhile for a build going full into Fighting Defensively, but a good choice for anyone combining it with CE.
I guess that another reason why I personally have beef with CE is that I usually don't breach the lv 10 ceiling. So CE will for the majority of my characters' career provide a low +1/+2 bonus to AC in return for an attack penalty, which is awful compared to other feats.
|
While it has been mentioned already in this thread, folks largely seem to be ignoring the most basic issue with this feat: Source
PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 119
Prerequisites: Int 13.
...
That's the killer: Most characters in melee combat just aren't going to have a 13+ Intelligence, so this feat (and any feat chains it might lead to) just aren't even worth looking at.
I believe there are one or two ways to get around this prereq (being a Brawler, etc), but even these options are somewhat limited.
I can only assume that most of the 'this feat is great' folks are either playing with the 'Elephant in the Room' house-rules* or are referring to very specific builds.
On a side note, I'm not certain this feat actually works with melee spells: Unless you are 'holding the charge' from a previous round, making a melee touch attack as part of a spellcast doesn't seem to fit the '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' restriction on this feat (remember the 'attack action' is a distinct standard action that is not the same as attacking as part of another action, as brought up in every Vital Strike debate).
*My biggest issue with house-rules in general is when you forget they are actually house-rules and not the way everyone plays...
That's the killer: Most characters in melee combat just aren't going to have a 13+ Intelligence, so this feat (and any feat chains it might lead to) just aren't even worth looking at.
I believe there are one or two ways to get around this prereq (being a Brawler, etc), but even these options are somewhat limited.
There is another way. Don't max out your main combat stat and actually invest the 3 points needed to get INT 13. Don't go for that 18, settle for 17, and bump it to 18 at level 4. (15+racial bonus). Sure, you can't have as high of a DEX or CON as you might want...
But, who I am to tell you how to play the game?
Whether most melee characters dump their Intelligence score or not, Combat Expertise presupposes (a couple of exceptions like Brawler aside) that you’re going for a style of play that prioritizes something other than damage output. On that basis, prioritizing Intelligence over another ability score is just a matter of course, not a deal-breaker.
The other thing to consider is that while point buys are popular, they aren’t a given. A 20-point buy will force you into certain decisions and builds. Some tables roll for ability scores, though. The element of luck can make the Int 13 requirement a moot point altogether.
You can't really control for difference of tables when it comes to ability score generation. We can only find a standard method (point buy) and go from there. Personally, I base all my builds on a 20point buy because that is the PFS standard, though I remember that 15 point buy is the general standard for adventure paths released (some exception might exist).
Sure, and if the topic was about rough averages versus other rough averages (such as DPR questions or spell DCs versus saving throws by CR), I’d nod in agreement. I don’t think Combat Expertise designed with a need to control for ability generation in mind, though. Likewise, Paizo might publish Adventure Paths with a certain point buy in mind, but it’s not nearly as much an issue unless you’re playing PFS—which is actually focused on ensuring parity and conforming power levels to the modules… hence the banned feats, nerfed archetypes, etc..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who feel they cannot afford a 13 Intelligence. None. Because you can afford it, you can very easily afford it... but you don't want to, for "reasons". Well, I think those reasons are garbage and that sort of garbage reasoning will lead to a garbage character being built. Murderhobos make me laugh... at murderhobos.
And I will help those that request it, or look like they are struggling... but I will also let you build a big, strong idiot if you insist... and I will punish you for your shortcomings. I will make you regret dumping stats. I will throw skill check after skill check towards your idiot character until you are literally tired of telling me your pathetic little numbers for your pathetic little rolls and you pathetic amount of skill ranks. I will embarass you with enemies you cannot hit no matter how many stats you dumped to pump up the other. Murderhobos are so easy to pick on, it's really not even fair. "This is like if Tyson fought an infant." -Grandma's Boy.
But it is fair, because everyone sees those same skill checks, everyone sees the same enemies, everyone sees the same terrain... you simply built a garbage character that is ill-prepared for everyday life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Careful how you approach such things, VoodistMonk. You will very quickly find people not willing to play with you if you go out of your way to 'embarrass' them or their characters. I fully support making the world react to them in a dynamic and fluid manner, but let's not be hyperbolic about it.
Anyway, I use this Benchmarking resource to judge the mechanical nature of the characters I make. I always aim for GREEN, even with using 15 point buy. Even then, you are never going to meet all the numbers perfectly or at all times.
I put together a quick level 4 fighter with combat expertise and 15 point buy (17+1, 12, 14, 14, 8, 8) for ability scores. Human (two traits, additional traits, Iron will, Power attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec) that uses heavy armor, buckler, a long sword and composite longbow. It was more than adequate to meet the benchmarks, had 6 skill points to throw around each level, and a decent will save thanks to feat/trait/magic item investment. Perception and Use magic Device are two of the skills to help with versatility (and are class skills thanks to traits). The character is a fairly dangerous threat to whatever it fights of equal CR to itself, able to switch back and forth between hitting HARD when two handing the sword, hitting slightly less hard and being more defensive with buckler + combat expertise, and completely turtling up by adding fighting defensively.
You start adding anything magical to the character aside from their weapon and a cape of free will, and the danger starts to mount rapidly. You let them use 20 point buy or 25 and you quickly see the numbers climb as their Wisdom no longer has a penalty (meaning they can dump the iron will feat), their CON jump to 16, and (with 25 point buy) they kick their dex up and start looking at possible options for shield bashing and two weapon fighting with the feats they no longer need getting dumped.
|
|
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who feel they cannot afford a 13 Intelligence. None. Because you can afford it, you can very easily afford it... but you don't want to, for "reasons". Well, I think those reasons are garbage and that sort of garbage reasoning will lead to a garbage character being built. Murderhobos make me laugh... at murderhobos.
And I will help those that request it, or look like they are struggling... but I will also let you build a big, strong idiot if you insist... and I will punish you for your shortcomings. I will make you regret dumping stats. I will throw skill check after skill check towards your idiot character until you are literally tired of telling me your pathetic little numbers for your pathetic little rolls and you pathetic amount of skill ranks. I will embarass you with enemies you cannot hit no matter how many stats you dumped to pump up the other. Murderhobos are so easy to pick on, it's really not even fair. "This is like if Tyson fought an infant." -Grandma's Boy.
But it is fair, because everyone sees those same skill checks, everyone sees the same enemies, everyone sees the same terrain... you simply built a garbage character that is ill-prepared for everyday life.
Just a reminder that Intelligence 10 is average intelligence: You are not a genius, but you're not a moron either. You are plenty smart to get through the day, regardless of whether or not that day involves fights to the death.
Not having a 13 Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean you dumped the stat: It just means you didn't invest a decent chunk of your point-buy into it.
That's just it, though... I don't even have to go out of my way to punish poorly built characters... I would actually have to go out of my way to not.
The skill challenges are already in place. Those skill checks exist whether or not you have that particular skill as a class skill, or ranks in that skill. The enemies you face, and the terrain you face those enemies in, are already set in place... and you will fight those particular enemies in that particular terrain regardless of how you built your character.
I'm not taking extra time to make life hard on anyone... I have already put in the time to make it hard for everyone. If your character happens to find this especially difficult, then maybe you built your character wrong. I design my challenges for well-rounded characters, and have absolutely no remorse for characters that can't keep up. It's not hard to build a character that pulls their own weight. It's not a hidden formula or a secret... it's common freaking sense.
Let this be a lesson to the ill-prepared, a brutal reminder of why we get paid the big bucks, and everyone else is in the background. Earn your place at the table, or beg for scraps with the dogs... it's your choice. Either way, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I didn't do this to you... YOU did this to yourself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a hidden formula or a secret... it's common freaking sense.
Not to be overly elitist or full of myself, but ... have you even met most people? Common sense is practically a superpower these days, almost as rare as seeing someone invest those 3 skill points into intelligence when they don't "need" it.
Swashbucklers can use CHA instead of INT to qualify for combat expertise. They also have a very good reason to invest in CHA.
How hard it is to qualify for that depends on the point buy. On a 15pt buy that is equal to 20% of your points. Officially a 15pt buy is considered standard for a PC. I don’t know too many people who actually use a 15pt buy, but that is the standard. If you are playing a melee combatant that needs another mental stat coming up with those 3 points can be difficult. If I am running a paladin I would rather have a 14 CHA than drop it to 12 so I can afford a 13 INT. Same goes for ranger or bloodrager. With a fighter or slayer it is easier to afford the 13 INT. Slayers probably benefit from a higher INT more than any other full BAB class. Affording a 13 INT on something like a cleric is even more difficult. The magus is about the only melee focused class with any real incentive to invest in INT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The magus is about the only melee focused class with any real incentive to invest in INT.
Just to add for completeness sake: Living Grimoire Inquisitors and Eldritch Scoundrel Rogues
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The magus is about the only melee focused class with any real incentive to invest in INT.Just to add for completeness sake: Living Grimoire Inquisitors and Eldritch Scoundrel Rogues
I have seen melee focused Alchemists, Investigators, and Slayers... all having a real incentive to invest in INT. It's not like classes that rely on Intelligence are poor choices for melee... there are lots of choices when it comes to using Intelligence in melee combat. And there's even options for using other stats in place of Intelligence.
It's almost as if there are no excuses left for those that say they cannot afford it. Lol. You can simply not want to use Combat Expertise, and that is fine. But to say that it is out of reach is simply not true.
The thing I missed when I first looked at it was that you can use Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively at the same time.
Which is just about the only time I see CE worth the cost. It also pretty much requires a full BAB class, a build-in attack roll bonus, and strong support from the party.
Sure, you can't have as high of a DEX or CON as you might want...
You realize those two ability scores improve defense, right? Which means reducing them to be able to take CE reduces the effect of that feat. For example, if you lower your dex modifier by 1, that means CE de facto grants -1/+0, -2/+1, -3/+2, and so on.
You can literally go for an 11 and grab a +2 int headband.
Assuming you aren't playing a Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Shaman, Bard, Summoner, Inquisitor, Hunter, Skald, Warpriest, Mesmerist, Spiritualist, Paladin, Ranger, Antipaladin, Bloodrager, Medium, Monk, Ninja, or Shifter.
one of the biggest complaint about martials is not having enough skills?
No, the complaint is not being able to contribute enough out of combat. Skill ranks per level is just a very small part of that.
Swashbucklers can use CHA instead of INT to qualify for combat expertise. They also have a very good reason to invest in CHA.
They also have a good reason to not want to use Combat Expertise, as the feat actually makes Opportune Parry & Riposte worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost as if there are no excuses left for those that say they cannot afford it. Lol. You can simply not want to use Combat Expertise, and that is fine. But to say that it is out of reach is simply not true.
Not out of reach, just not worth the price you pay. I posted using this alias because she is a fighter (mostly) with a 12, not 13, but a 12 intelligence. As a fighter, starved for skill points, that bonus skill point is nice. The 13 wouldn’t help with that. Furthermore, spending the buy point on intelligence would have hurt badly in other areas. What can you afford to give up? Not strength. Not dexterity. Not constitution. Not wisdom. So that leaves charisma. It’s a personal thing, but I choose not to dump that one either. It’s nice to be able to have a speaking role in the game. You know, a reasonable shot at an “aid other” diplomacy roll.
On a funny side note, I’ve had my “aid other” diplomat end up being the party “face” due to the “face” player dropping out of the game. More than once.Anyway…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that Combat Expertise is something that shoud be on every character, or that every character should have a 13 Intelligence.
Originally, I was simply stating my own surprise that Combat Expertise doesn't actually suck as much as I might have once thought.
Then... there is often a "then" when dealing with me... I was sidetracked by what I saw as BS, and took up arms defending a cause nobody cares about, against attacks that weren't actually happening. Lol. I have a habit of distracting myself and ranting about unrelated nonsense. I'm sure more than one of you have noticed this, and probably more than just once. It's part of who I am, and probably will continue to be until I find the right medication... which is an adventure, all its own.
So, I apologize if I came off as abrasive or accusing. I actually don't care how people choose to build their characters... I promise. I may have opinions [or, rather, ALWAYS have opinions], but judgement is not there. What I consider a well-rounded or well-built character should have absolutely no bearing or influence on what others enjoy. I'm sorry if I make it sound as though you must defend why you built any character any particular way.
And I do actually enjoy diversity in the party, so not everyone has to be able to do everything... it makes for awesome in-game dialogue and roleplaying figuring out who can do what.
Swordplay Style is actually responsible for both this thread, and my NPC thread. I was rewriting some old NPC's/making new ones, and came across Swordplay Style's elimination of the Combat Expertise penalty on the first attack... first attack? That's, like, your average NPC's entire life. And a Human Warrior 3 happens to have it online as soon as it can be online. It's not like the Warrior NPC class has any other use for its swift actions, so they might as well die in Style.
I already use the Power Attack/Furious Focus combination for pretty much the same purpose... no penalty on what is very likely to be the only attack you make. It's especially great for Human NPC's that have one level of Warrior to start... you can have so many of them. Lol.
Great on certain 3/4ths. Like I know that having a melee weapon isn't the best option for my alchemist. But it is a lot of fun. and I'm a fan of the "measured strike" over "flurry of attacks" aesthetics
I find myself torn between the "measured strike" and "flurry of attacks" aesthetics, honestly. I know that I have never been a fan of depending on quantity over quality. So, generally, I am a "measured strike" guy.
However, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night's inverted castle had these ghosts in the library, called Schmoo's, that dropped a sword, called the Crissagrim. This sword could be swung whilst walking, and each hit of the button gave you at least half a dozen swings of the sword in front of you. It was a 2D side-scrolling game, and this flurry of blades travelling in front of you literally changed the game, forever. I was young and impressionable, in the days of the original Playstation. This blew my MF'ing mind, man. And this is something that fuels my creativity engine for building characters, to this day.
In other media, like anime and whatnot, I still do really like that single slice... it doesn't have to end in a slow-motion sliding body or whatever... but just that one really clean cut. Pow. Done. The intro to the old school Ninja Gaiden where the two ninjas dash and jump at each other. A single splash of blood in the moonlight. Anything that involves a sword being used immediately as it is drawn is freaking classic to me... like a Samurai chopping someone's head off with the same motion they draw their sword.
Nothing, though, absolutely nothing, does it for me quite like what PF1's Dimensional Savant feat chain does...that repeating teleport attack is just awesome in any media it shows up in. Any videogame, or this game, or movie, or anime, or graphic novel, or fanart that has that sort of Bladed Dash in it is something that I immediately appreciate. Whether it's weaving from target to target, or slicing a pentagram through a single target with five separate attacks... just freaking cool, to me.
Not that my preference between the two has any relevance to this Combat Expertise thread, though. Lol.
Something that I forgot about earlier on, that I think is worth remembering when considering the potential value of Combat Expertise:
Paizo subsequently published the Dirty Fighting feat, which gives your character:
1. Access to combat maneuver feats, same as Combat Expertise
2. Double the flanking bonus when using a combat maneuver feat
3. Improved Unarmed Strike, which in turn grants access to Style Feats
That's nothing to laugh at, but Paizo thought it was equivalent to something a lot of us (myself included) tend to dismiss as a feat tax, and as a generally poor trade off (at least as far as conventional wisdom is concerned).
I think I didn't make my point clear enough.
I'm not trying to argue that Combat Expertise and Dirty Fighting are similar feats. Clearly they are different feats for different styles. Nor am I trying to argue that Dirty Fighting is better than Outflank, etc. What I'm trying to say here is that clearly Paizo didn't think of Combat Expertise purely as a feat tax, as they handed all that--and then some--to another feat.
I think I didn't make my point clear enough.
I'm not trying to argue that Combat Expertise and Dirty Fighting are similar feats. Clearly they are different feats for different styles. Nor am I trying to argue that Dirty Fighting is better than Outflank, etc. What I'm trying to say here is that clearly Paizo didn't think of Combat Expertise purely as a feat tax, as they handed all that--and then some--to another feat.
The reason dirty fighting does what it does, is because they realized the feat tax for improved combat maneuver feats was too high and required things that most combat maneuver users would have absolutely no actual use for. Its “worth more” as a feat, because its sole purpose is to reduce a feat tax & still provide a useful benefit for the feats it reduced the tax on.
Chell, I think if it was as simple as that Paizo would have also amended Combat Expertise. As it stands, I think they feel both feats are good for what they do--which, combat maneuver feat access aside--is different things. In Combat Expertise's case, it's "different" not just relative to Dirty Fighting, but the mainstream approach to melee combat as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can't have as high of a DEX or CON as you might want...You realize those two ability scores improve defense, right? Which means reducing them to be able to take CE reduces the effect of that feat. For example, if you lower your dex modifier by 1, that means CE de facto grants -1/+0, -2/+1, -3/+2, and so on.
Sure, I realize that. It is self-evident and I wouldn't actually expect someone to not notice that and then not take other steps to mitigate that issue. In the end, attack bonuses are cheap, you will likely be hitting just about anything with your first attack, and the AC you buy yourself might make the difference between a really bad full attack from a monster or just one/two hard hits from it.
Personally, I find the -1 Initiative, -1 AC, -1 Reflex Save, and -1 to various Dex based skills to be worth the potential bonus to AC you will get from combat reflexes and the 20+ more skill points you will have available to you as you level.
Is the feat for everyone? No. I generally would not think about taking it because my play style generally gravitates towards other choices. If I were going that route, I'd consider feats like : Swordplay Style paired with the Vital Strike chain of feats for when full attacks are not an option (including Improved Feinting and Swordplay Upset), Swordplay Deflection for denial of hits and bonus armor class, picking up Diehard and Endurance (easily down depending on archetypes or dips) for Stalwart so you can trade the dodge AC for damage reduction when you know you are going to get hit anyway, Divert Harm if you are a light armor user with Evasion so you can really screw with the enemy (yes, really, hit me with the fireball, wizard!), etc, etc, etc.
Combat Expertise is truly a feat that gate keeps a lot of fun stuff in Pathfinder. It is worth the loss of a few points of dexterity or constitution.