What's the conventional wisdom on CV's version of Expert Tactician?

[Feldspar]

I can't believe this is the new Expert Tactician. What the hell has this to do with the original Expert Tactician? It's a completely different feat... why not calling it with a different name? Or is WotC using the same name only to bury the old feat forever?

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. There always seemed to be a lot confusion with the old feat as to how and when to it could be used ... my gut feeling is that they wanted to bury that mechanic.

 

[shilsen]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. There always seemed to be a lot confusion with the old feat as to how and when to it could be used ... my gut feeling is that they wanted to bury that mechanic.

I agree. I think it's a very deliberate move to indicate that the old version shouldn't be used.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree. I think it's a very deliberate move to indicate that the old version shouldn't be used.

Eek, but it's quite a bad way to do that.

First, they could have tried to make the feat be more balanced (well, I think the 3.0 feat was powerful, but not overpowered, but I assume you think it was), for instance they could have put some penalty.

Second, if that hadn't worked, they could have added more prerequisites, making it a high-level powerful feat with a hefty cost.

If they weren't able enough and the feat still seemed unfeasible for the game, then just ditch it, and admit your design was a mistake.

 

[Feldspar]

If you like Enlarge Person, don't take the last level of your PrC

Dang! You're right of course; spell works on humanoids and my type will be dragon Good catch and thank you.

Well, that last level has too many goodies to pass up and it would feel a bit lame to stop on that path for the sake casting that spell ... that's too much power-meta-gaming even for me

What other options do I have to get big? Psionics are banned in our campaign and having the Wizard Polymorph me seems to defeat the whole purpose of taking this PRC (high Str, self contained). Any other ideas?

Its possible when we get to that I might be able to convince the DM to allow the spell to continue to work on me, but not on any of my companions in the party (ie the spell transmutes to some kind of Enlarge Dragon when my type changes).

 

[Rystil Arden]

Dang! You're right of course; spell works on humanoids and my type will be dragon Good catch and thank you.

Well, that last level has too many goodies to pass up and it would feel a bit lame to stop on that path for the sake casting that spell ... that's too much power-meta-gaming even for me

What other options do I have to get big? Psionics are banned in our campaign and having the Wizard Polymorph me seems to defeat the whole purpose of taking this PRC (high Str, self contained). Any other ideas?

Its possible when we get to that I might be able to convince the DM to allow the spell to continue to work on me, but not on any of my companions in the party (ie the spell transmutes to some kind of Enlarge Dragon when my type changes).

Ask the GM if he'll let you switch out Enlarge Person for a personal-only spell that works on you regardless of type. Ask him now so that you will be able to balance off the later benefit by the disadvantage of not being able to enlarge the other party members now. I know if I was the GM, I'd be less likely to okay it if you only brought it up after you had used the old Enlarge and needed a change.

 

[Feldspar]

Eek, but it's quite a bad way to do that.

First, they could have tried to make the feat be more balanced (well, I think the 3.0 feat was powerful, but not overpowered, but I assume you think it was), for instance they could have put some penalty.

Second, if that hadn't worked, they could have added more prerequisites, making it a high-level powerful feat with a hefty cost.

I don't think it was overpowered. Of course, that's based on how I remember being able to use it. Some of the ways people were interpreting it, including even the sage in the FAQ seemed wrong to me in that the feat would trigger more often ...

What if they canned it not over power balance reasons but because they continued to get a lot of custserv and sage questions that indicated that people weren't struggling to figure out in various complicated scenarios whether it could be used?

If they weren't able enough and the feat still seemed unfeasible for the game, then just ditch it, and admit your design was a mistake.

Errr, in my opinion, that's exactly what they did by renaming it. Replacing it with a new feat seems to be a pretty clear admission of "whoops, we screwed that up."

There are feats from the 3.0 splat books that didn't get carried forward - to me its not clear whether those can still be used. Didn't they say or imply when change over occured that 3.0 material was still considered valid unless reprinted? (Probably so that lynch mobs wouldn't burn them, and the now useless 3.0 material, at the stake.)

However, when a feat shows up in 3.5 with the same name but a different mechanic than a 3.0 feat (that's right Improved Shield Bash and Improved Sunder, I'm talking about you!) then you kind of half to consider those feats to be D-E-A-D.

Of course, there's also the flipside when they rename a feat without changing the mechanic like Chink in the Armor becoming Deft Strike. What's that all about?

 

[Feldspar]

Ask the GM if he'll let you switch out Enlarge Person for a personal-only spell that works on you regardless of type. Ask him now so that you will be able to balance off the later benefit by the disadvantage of not being able to enlarge the other party members now. I know if I was the GM, I'd be less likely to okay it if you only brought it up after you had used the old Enlarge and needed a change.

That's a good idea - especially since Dragon Disciple is already starting to give me extra casts per day. During those 9 levels I'd have plenty of extra casts per day so I probably would have been Enlarging some of the party members anytime we had a chance to prep for a battle.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Hmmm, a lot of Huge creatures have comparable Str - I don't want to risk too many 50/50 roll offs so I'll to look around for a few tricks to boost trip roll.

50/50 isn't bad against a larger opponent; use your lower iterative attacks for Trip. They aren't as likely to hit normally (especially if you're Power Attacking), but you only need a touch attack to make the trip attempt.

Ring of Spell Storing with Righteous Might would still enlarge you, wouldn't it? You wouldn't be totally self-contained, but unlike the polymorph approach your ability scores would remain (but adjusted).

Not much that I know of boosts the offensive side of Trip attempts; there's the feat, size, and Str. This is probably a good thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think it was overpowered. Of course, that's based on how I remember being able to use it. Some of the ways people were interpreting it, including even the sage in the FAQ seemed wrong to me in that the feat would trigger more often ...

What if they canned it not over power balance reasons but because they continued to get a lot of custserv and sage questions that indicated that people weren't struggling to figure out in various complicated scenarios whether it could be used?

Well I myself think that they got it quite right with the S&S version. I didn't agree on the requisites at that time, because I thought that ET should have been a higher level feat that what it was, but when compared for example with Rapid Shot it seemed pretty balanced to me:

- Rapid Shot gives an extra ranged attack, but all attacks have -2 penalty
- Expert Tactician gave an extra melee attack, no penalties, but only against a target whose Dex to AC is currently lost

To me it was the lack of penalty which should have implied some more requisites, but otherwise what was wrong with that? Maybe it was stacking with 2WF? Maybe it was too good during a surprise round (but it could have been argued that if you used it for more than 1 attack, you might have needed a FRA anyway)? It didn't seem to me so difficult to interpret...

Now, the first version (S&F)... that was INDEED a mess! An extra partial action is not only truly powerful, but it's a mess because you could used it for something completely unrelated to the one who lost the Dex (unless it was an attack IIRC).

Errr, in my opinion, that's exactly what they did by renaming it. Replacing it with a new feat seems to be a pretty clear admission of "whoops, we screwed that up."
...
Of course, there's also the flipside when they rename a feat without changing the mechanic like Chink in the Armor becoming Deft Strike. What's that all about?

It's an admission but defininely aren't good design practices IMO.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Well, IIRC, the EEE was the only thing that rather neatly made me useless.

Huge, 33Str, Earth Glide ...

I was a Ranger/Fighter/DwarvenDefender, I think. Ranger meant I didn't need Dex for TWF. Between a quick EP, ComReflexes, and Stance I could hold position against anything that didn't, y'know, just walk under me through the floor.

The encounter was too high a CR for us anyway, but that's stuck with me as being a really annoying one. It's why I'm currently playing a big two-hander using barbarian type ... because hitting something for XdY+30 is usually going to do SOMETHING.

--fje