Please rate Expert Tactician

[Caliban]

I do not allow this feat in my game because I think it is far too good, far too powerful. Even with the extra prereqs of the errata'd version I still think it is horrific.

Maybe not in itself, just reading it as it stands, but in combination with other feats. After all, just look at the number of times it crops up in the Sultans of Smack thread!

For rogues it can potentially double the effectiveness of bluffing in order to get sneak attacks against an opponent, giving you two attacks instead of just one... but it is even better because *anyone* can cause them to lose their Dex bonus, giving you an extra attack, so it is arguably better than a feat which allowed you to feint (bluff) as a free action. It would also come into effect almost every time you surprised someone, giving one or two extra attacks against them.

Too powerful, too open to abuse to my mind.

I dislike like this feat mainly because most people interpret it far to liberally.

It does not allow two sneak attacks with a successful bluff, as many people seem to think. It also does not allow you to bluff and then immediately get an extra attack.

It allows one sneak attack and one normal attack when combined with a successful bluff. You bluff them, then on your next action you attack them, they lose their Dex bonus agains that attack, so it's a sneak attack and triggers the Expert Tactician, and then they get their Dex bonus back, and then you get the extra attack from Expert Tactician.

 

[kreynolds]

I banned this feat, along with the 5-foot step. The 5-foot step is way too overpowering.

I don't have a problem with this feat at all. In fact, I think it's one of the more original that I've seen in the splat books. Well, OK, the Spellfire feat is pretty original too. Anyways, I agree with Caliban that the only real problem with the feat tends to be how others interpret it.

 

[Corwin]

Agreed. If you start banning every feat that is "useful", you are going to have a long list. There are a lot of "Chicken Little" DMs ourt there it seems.

What's the point of taking this feat if you can't put it to good use?

I can see it now. The first time a DM like this sees a cleave attack, he'll probably drop dead on the spot. Aneurism or some such caused by the ultimate shock that a feat did something cool.

 

[Archer]

Making combat reflexes a requirement and clarifying that the bonus action could only be used for a melee attack brought this feat into line. People don't lose dex bonuses that often and barbarians and rogues never do.

Sure, its an above average feat but you have to work to make use of it. Fighters definitely do better having cleave. Monks have access to a lot of good feats of which this is only one. Rogues definitely make the most of this feat and they deserve a decent feat. With song and silence they get a few more options that compete.

Since there are 600 some feats, it would go to figure that 300 of them would be above average. Since you only get a handful of feats per character people tend to not waste them on garbage feats. I personally have about 25 feats I would prefer over this one.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I don't really like this feat either. It is a power feat and is not really balanced with other feats. I also don't like the bluff skill used to deny dex bonus. How does having a quick wit and sharp tongue help you fake out an expert swordsman. Give me a break, there are plenty of other benefits to that skill, bluff combat tactics don't really meld. Power gamers came up with this combo.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't really like this feat either. It is a power feat and is not really balanced with other feats. I also don't like the bluff skill used to deny dex bonus. How does having a quick wit and sharp tongue help you fake out an expert swordsman. Give me a break, there are plenty of other benefits to that skill, bluff combat tactics don't really meld. Power gamers came up with this combo.

Then perhaps you would also be happy dropping that attack action BS. I know it improved my games far more than I thought possible.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

I don't really like this feat either. It is a power feat and is not really balanced with other feats. I also don't like the bluff skill used to deny dex bonus. How does having a quick wit and sharp tongue help you fake out an expert swordsman. Give me a break, there are plenty of other benefits to that skill, bluff combat tactics don't really meld. Power gamers came up with this combo.

Give me a break. There are plenty of powerful combos in the core rules. Fighters getting 8 Whirlwind attacks in a round + Cleave attacks. Dual wielding rogues with Weapon Finess: short swords. Yes its a powerfull feat, so what? There are quite a few powertfull feats out there and unless you are a fighter no class has any 'must take' feats. You just get too few feats to take any in addition to your character concept.

Other benefits to Bluff? Outside of RP what are they? Bluff is easily useless in a more combat orientated game, unless you use the feint rule. How else would you feint anyway? I feel this adds more complexity and tactical thinking to combat, just like movement and AOO's. What do you want, the vague combat system of 2e again?

 

[Plane Sailing]

It allows one sneak attack and one normal attack when combined with a successful bluff. You bluff them, then on your next action you attack them, they lose their Dex bonus agains that attack, so it's a sneak attack and triggers the Expert Tactician, and then they get their Dex bonus back, and then you get the extra attack from Expert Tactician.

Good point about the bluff only removing the dex bonus against one specific attack, rather than a general removal of the dex bonus.

Does it not still allow a rogue who surprises and wins initiative to get two extra free sneak attacks though?

- in response to Apok: My concern is that the inter-relationships between feats sometimes produces really whacky side effects if they are not thought through carefully. The only one that comes to mind from the core rules is the whirlwind/great cleave combination which would allow multiple attacks on one bad guy. For my game I decided that any cleave attack will come at the end of the entire whirlwind sequence. Its a house rule of ours which we are happy with, and others wouldn't be - but thats cool.

Some of the class-books have feats which seemed to me to look OK in principle but make *very* dangerous combinations with other feats or abilities - so much so that it seems unforseen. My initial reaction to the S&F "Expert Tactician" was WWHHHAAATT! I would agree that it is much more reasonable now, and in the light of some of the comments here I will re-evaluate it for my campaign.

Cheers

 

[Caliban]

Good point about the bluff only removing the dex bonus against one specific attack, rather than a general removal of the dex bonus.

Does it not still allow a rogue who surprises and wins initiative to get two extra free sneak attacks though?

Yes it does. There some circumstances where it can be very effective. I've seen an 11th level rogue do over 60 points of damage in the suprise round because of that. It's a strong feat, in my opinion not stupidly strong the way it was originally. I now allow it in my games.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Other benefits to Bluff? Outside of RP what are they? Bluff is easily useless in a more combat orientated game, unless you use the feint rule. How else would you feint anyway?

A skill used for the benefit of roleplay??? Who ever heard of such a thing. Perhaps a points in profession chef shoud get you bonuses with a knife so it is more beneficial in combat. Many skills are designed specifically to aid in non combat play, that is why they are there.

I personally think feints are used in every combat round. What do you think makes a 10th level fighter so good? A skilled fighter tricks his opponents with his movements and takes advantage of every weakness/opening. I believe that is why they get extra attacks, not because they move faster, but because they are better at getting opponents to expose themselves.