Allied Defense: Overpowered?
- Thread starter Ogrork the Mighty
- Start date
I generally consider Forgotten Realms to be the powergaming handbook for casters, and getting all of your fighters in a nice, tight formations is just asking for a single area effect spell to take them out. A group of rogues with the feat would be usefull, but the rogues would also have to spread themselves out a bit to get into flanking positions for sneak attacks, which limits usage a lot.
Generally, I think that one of the places D+D fails is options for characters to take feats that integrate with their allies. There are a number of real world teamwork tactics (phalanx fighting, etc) that are not well supported by the feat system. Feats like this are a good start. +5 per person may seem overpowered, but if it was only +2 it would be too low to justify having each character take the feat.
Bottom line: I think this feat looks powerful on paper, but I have a hunch that playtesting would reveal its less usefull than you think. It would also be much more powerful in the hands of NPC mooks than PCs.
Generally, I think that one of the places D+D fails is options for characters to take feats that integrate with their allies. There are a number of real world teamwork tactics (phalanx fighting, etc) that are not well supported by the feat system. Feats like this are a good start. +5 per person may seem overpowered, but if it was only +2 it would be too low to justify having each character take the feat.
Bottom line: I think this feat looks powerful on paper, but I have a hunch that playtesting would reveal its less usefull than you think. It would also be much more powerful in the hands of NPC mooks than PCs.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I am not sure about how I eventually rule this feat, but a few things to consider:
Combat Expertise requires a Int of 13+. Not all characters have this. Bards, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards are the most likely to take this feat.
From these, the Fighter is probably more interested in "Power Attack, All The Time" then actually using combat expertise.
A Bard or a Rogue doesn't have a lot of feats and also has a medium BAB, so it comes at a great cost to him, and he will mostly become useless in melee combat. Many Rogues and Bards don't have a high Strenth, meaning that trip attempts will fail often. A rogue will probably prefer to fight and sneak attack his enemy, though against Undeads and Constructs he might really enjoy this feat. A Bard is usually better of casting a spell to buff his allies, hinder his foes or start a new bard song. Melee is also dangerous for him, since he doesn't have high HP.
A Wizard will usually avoid melee alltogether, so he would rarely use the feat.
Aside from that: Sometimes I find the usefulness of Combat Expertise itself quite limited - when engaging high level foes, their attack bonus is usually so high that Combat Expertise doesn't help that much, and I'd better concentrate on hitting and dealing the most damage.
Combat Expertise requires a Int of 13+. Not all characters have this. Bards, Fighters, Rogues and Wizards are the most likely to take this feat.
From these, the Fighter is probably more interested in "Power Attack, All The Time" then actually using combat expertise.
A Bard or a Rogue doesn't have a lot of feats and also has a medium BAB, so it comes at a great cost to him, and he will mostly become useless in melee combat. Many Rogues and Bards don't have a high Strenth, meaning that trip attempts will fail often. A rogue will probably prefer to fight and sneak attack his enemy, though against Undeads and Constructs he might really enjoy this feat. A Bard is usually better of casting a spell to buff his allies, hinder his foes or start a new bard song. Melee is also dangerous for him, since he doesn't have high HP.
A Wizard will usually avoid melee alltogether, so he would rarely use the feat.
Aside from that: Sometimes I find the usefulness of Combat Expertise itself quite limited - when engaging high level foes, their attack bonus is usually so high that Combat Expertise doesn't help that much, and I'd better concentrate on hitting and dealing the most damage.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I agree that it is unlikely to be a problem in actual play.
Getting more than 2 PCs working together will require significant effort for most parties. And there are many many good reasons to avoid bunching up so much. Besides the Fireballs, there are a number of creatures with small AoE breath weapons and similar effects who would be catching 2 or 3 or 4 PCs instead of the usual 1.
Getting more than 2 PCs working together will require significant effort for most parties. And there are many many good reasons to avoid bunching up so much. Besides the Fireballs, there are a number of creatures with small AoE breath weapons and similar effects who would be catching 2 or 3 or 4 PCs instead of the usual 1.
Evilhalfling
Adventurer
so you have a bard, with a longspear
attacking to aid another, to provide +7ac to one ally and +5 to others and it helps touch AC
thats just lovely. Add singing and its as good as a cleric ; )
I would play that. (playing a 2nd lvl wiz, I spend a fair amount of time using aid another anyway)
Edit - is it broken/overpowered?
If its a PC - prolly not dedicating your action to defending others seems reasonable, if powerful, if its a henchman then yes.
attacking to aid another, to provide +7ac to one ally and +5 to others and it helps touch AC
thats just lovely. Add singing and its as good as a cleric ; )
I would play that. (playing a 2nd lvl wiz, I spend a fair amount of time using aid another anyway)
Edit - is it broken/overpowered?
If its a PC - prolly not dedicating your action to defending others seems reasonable, if powerful, if its a henchman then yes.
