|
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.
Personally I feel skill points are too low for pretty much everyone it's a design decision I think to force you to focus on one or two areas. However its not one I agree with, personally I'm inclined to give everyone 4 more skill points per level or 2 and use the background skills rule for the same total of 4. Everyone wants perception, if you want to be social you need to invest in diplomacy, sense motive and bluff, if you want to be active athletics, climb and swim, if you want to build things at least one crafting skill e.g. craft bows/arrows. +4 may be too much but I don't think anyone should have 2 + int especially the classes for whom int isn't a primary stat.
Up until very recently, Dirty Fighting was my go-to for Dirty Trick and Trip builds... I had completely forced Combat Expertise out of my mind in relation to those maneuvers, as if Dirty Fighting, itself, was the listed prequisite feat. However, I may have to rethink this approach, and at least try to actually use Combat Expertise next time. Might even go back and rewrite some old builds to trade Dirty Fighting for Combat Expertise.
Some may find that strange, but I feel like I may be missing out on something... an opportunity to learn something, or an opportunity to play something a little different. Dirty Fighting doesn't give you anything else you can do, except gain access to feats that you otherwise do not qualify for. Combat Expertise gives you something you can do on your turn. It gives you a choice you can make. It gives you options, and I like options.
Dirty Fighting certainly has its place, but what prompted me to take another look at Combat Expertise was Style feats... not maneuver feats. And for Style feats, Dirty Fighting does nothing. In the future, I will probably houserule Dirty Fighting to work with both maneuver feats and Style feats... things like Crane Style requiring IUS when I want to use it with a Rapier is just stupid and sad.