Combat Expertise

Scripted ALFA systems & related tech discussions (ACR)

Moderators: ALFA Administrators, Staff - Technical

User avatar
Blindhamsterman
Haste Bear
Posts: 2396
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:13 am
Location: GMT

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Blindhamsterman »

so... what happens with classes like bladesinger that require the feat? :P (could drop the requirement i guess, but theyd need their +int to AC to work with armour again to be viable)

fighter mages it makes a lot of sense on, as they're always going to have the intelligence to do it.
Another easily exploitable mode is parry. Not only can you parry ranged attacks, but you can leave parry on all the time. You can parry while casting spells. You can parry while throwing projectiles like acid flask. You can parry while drinking healing potions and if something gets an attack of opportunity on you for using a potion you get to parry that too.
wow... didn't know it was so broken (I even have lots of ranks in parry - just always use CE instead, and turn even that off when casting anyway :/. As parry is so rarely used and not even a D&D rule, wouldnt hurt to just drop the skill and allow points from it to be spent elsewhere really
Standards Member


Current PC: Elenaril Avae'Kerym of the Lynx Lodge
<Heero>: yeah for every pc ronan has killed dming, paazin has killed 2 with his spawns
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by t-ice »

Parry is hardly the powerhouse CE is. Which Blindhamster just in no uncertain terms verifies his own experiment to support ;) So not much to worry about about.

Limiting to fighters makes for an "interesting" case to then multiclass a caster. Perhaps CE as it is should have a requirement of +3 BAB? Then you can't use it to give more AC than BAB is, and it'll be at least harder for casters to get.
User avatar
Blindhamsterman
Haste Bear
Posts: 2396
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:13 am
Location: GMT

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Blindhamsterman »

pretty much a case of:
Parry vs anything with a good AB = you don't parry, they hit you anyway.
CE vs anything with a good AB = they hit you anyway (but you can make it just a bit more difficult)

thats my experience of the two abilities :P Difference is, Parry requires a lot more investment to be worth taking. Essentially Parry is only worth using if your parry skill is double their AB, otherwise all that happens is you don't attack back, pretty much never see a riposte and will inevitably die. For the record, despite me not using Parry, I've got pretty much maxed out ranks and a high dex. So make for a pretty good test subject.

Personally I'd rather see CE and ICE get a fix so that they're scalable, means a pure fighter gets a bigger benefit out of it than a multiclass or a cleric/warlock.
at level 10, a fighter with ICE can get his full BAB as AC if he needs to. a Cleric/Warlock/My toon would get a max of +7
Standards Member


Current PC: Elenaril Avae'Kerym of the Lynx Lodge
<Heero>: yeah for every pc ronan has killed dming, paazin has killed 2 with his spawns
User avatar
Brokenbone
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Brokenbone »

The scalability is a benefit for high levels, and a serious nerf for low levels. Not necessarily an "unfair" nerf, but it means absolutely NO first level PC will ever benefit from an instant +3 AC. High BAB guys like fighters will get a max of +1 at level 1, everyone else is stuck at +0. Yes, it improves... quickly level by level for high BAB classes, moderately or slowly on the other two BAB scales.

Something in exchange for the nerf though might be the "anyone can get it" -4/+2 poor man's version of CE, Fighting Defensively:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/action ... oundAction

Again though, "one step at a time", warn of something nasty, warn that changes may be upcoming, and then try a couple different systems of different levels of potential clunkiness, bugginess, etc.

Overall though, I'm not huge on change for change's sake, unless in respect of a problem where this power "doesn't penalize as you'd think it would" for some forms of attack.
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack

DMA Staff
Zelknolf
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 6139
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Zelknolf »

We should really stop hosting these sorts of discussions in this forum; it is the surest way to kill any actual productivity.
User avatar
Basilica
Orc Champion
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Basilica »

BHM, could you please revise the first post on this thread so that it is mentioning that this is a discussion and not an edict?

This is exactly what is wrong with the threads on invisibility, and it does nobody any favors when they try and figure out what they can and cannot do within the rules.
- Basilica
User avatar
DMyles
Dire Badger
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:20 am

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by DMyles »

I think its pretty clear that if you are turning it on to cast, or you are turning it on and off on purpose during combat so you never take attack penalty, you are exploiting, and frankly you should have known better.
"As the fletcher whittles and makes straight his arrows, so the master directs his straying thoughts."
-The Buddha
User avatar
Blindhamsterman
Haste Bear
Posts: 2396
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:13 am
Location: GMT

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Blindhamsterman »

I think its pretty clear that if you are turning it on to cast, or you are turning it on and off on purpose during combat so you never take attack penalty, you are exploiting, and frankly you should have known better.
This was the point of the original post. Making it clear to those that apparently didn't know they were exploiting, that it is an exploit
BHM, could you please revise the first post on this thread so that it is mentioning that this is a discussion and not an edict?
The ruling of them both being exploits still stands. I spoke with DMA before any of this was posted and he agreed that they were exploits, even so far as if people note someone doing it, let him know.

I'll update the post to note a tech implementation to ensure the exploits cannot be done is being brainstormed, and you guys can discuss in the tech forums? (wouldn't mind being able to post in there, I've got view rights already)
Standards Member


Current PC: Elenaril Avae'Kerym of the Lynx Lodge
<Heero>: yeah for every pc ronan has killed dming, paazin has killed 2 with his spawns
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Ronan »

Fighting defensively will absolutely be added at the same time as any of these changes. It uses the same logic, after all, just different values.
Last edited by Ronan on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
oldgrayrogue
Retired
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:09 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by oldgrayrogue »

Blindhamsterman wrote:
I think its pretty clear that if you are turning it on to cast, or you are turning it on and off on purpose during combat so you never take attack penalty, you are exploiting, and frankly you should have known better.
This was the point of the original post. Making it clear to those that apparently didn't know they were exploiting, that it is an exploit
BHM, could you please revise the first post on this thread so that it is mentioning that this is a discussion and not an edict?
The ruling of them both being exploits still stands. I spoke with DMA before any of this was posted and he agreed that they were exploits, even so far as if people note someone doing it, let him know.

I'll update the post to note a tech implementation to ensure the exploits cannot be done is being brainstormed, and you guys can discuss in the tech forums? (wouldn't mind being able to post in there, I've got view rights already)

Just food for thought, I don't think this is as clear cut as you make it seem. There's exploits and then there are combat tactics. I play a pure fighter with CE. I took CE because i am focusing him on the greatsword a two handed weapon and wanted the option for an AC boost against a tough opponent or when fighting multiple opponents -- since I won't be carrying a shield. As a matter of tactics I will switch my fighter between power attack mode and CE in melee combat with mobs all the time. For example, see the orc, run up and hit him with a power attack mode hack to try to drop him in one blow. Missed? Click to CE mode and fight defensively. Scored a hit in CE but didn't drop the orc? Muscle up for another power attack next round to try to drop him in one round because his buddies are rounding a corner.... the examples are endless. To me this is tactics, not an exploit. I can however, confirm that you can click CE on and off between attacks which does indeed seem like an exploit. I discovered this quite by accident just the other day. Tried it a few times and sure enough it works in the engine. Unless people have played PnP though, and really understand the purpose of the feat they may not even realize its an exploit. Really, is the 2 xp the exploit earns you for killing an extra goblin and that nifty rusty dagger loot drop really game breaking? If someone is found to do this just ask them to stop, explain why, and if they do it again then they are cheating. But please don't place cooldown timers etc on the mode to prevent cheating before it happens. I can think of many ways that this will effect legitimate battle tactics for pure fighters as well as allegations of exploits when no exploit was intended. And if it is a DMA ruling then it should go somewhere ALL players will look for such rulings as Basilica suggested. I found this discussion completely by accident.
User avatar
oldgrayrogue
Retired
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:09 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by oldgrayrogue »

Oh and if there are "cooldown" timers or other tech "fixes" implemented to prevent people who have no intent to cheat from cheating then all players who took the feat should be given the option of a rebuild. CE requires INT 13 I believe as a prereq. People might have gone with 12 INT on their build and used that point elswhere. This is nothing but a big headache. Just post the exploit where people can CLEARLY read the ruling, then warn, then punish if individual players cheat.
User avatar
Brokenbone
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by Brokenbone »

I think the focus would be on "using something in an exploitative way", i.e., there's a line between legit tactics and using a rhythm to get the best of both worlds, essentially "being in CE for as absolutely long as possible as long as it doesn't screw up your next attack roll."

If a DM detects a weird pattern (logs? observing live combat?) I guess the idea is take the person aside and ask about what they were up to. Could be legit tactics, could be abuse. DM smell test I'm afraid, which either ends then and there or becomes a federal case.

(I'm sure I mentioned I've got a PA & CE feated warrior... sounds like I've got similar tactical thinking to the OGR example, using a 2H sword often enough now too)
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack

DMA Staff
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by t-ice »

Unless people have played PnP though, and really understand the purpose of the feat they may not even realize its an exploit. ... If someone is found to do this just ask them to stop, explain why, and if they do it again then they are cheating. But please don't place cooldown timers etc on the mode to prevent cheating before it happens
I don't get it. Why do you have to take people aside and lecture them about this tactic that is completely feasible and just looks like "smart gaming" on the engine for someone who doesn't know DnD, is an exploit. But leave the exploit there in the engine to dangle? Such a conversation is seriously a drag for both people involved, and will likely leave the DM burned out, and the player feeling wtf for his good gaming being stomped on.

You can just have the engine remove the exploit, like blindhamster is proposing to do. Since having the AC from CE means your next attack will be at lower to-hit, a 6 second cooldown for toggling CE is the minimum to do to remove the exploit of dropping CE just long enough for your PC to swing, and then clicking it quickly back up again. Hitting that orc with a greatsword, and then quickly toggling CE up, before he and/or his buddies can hit back is precisely the exploit. To not use the exploit the player would have to keep track himself that if the PC makes an attack (with or without CE), CE will not be toggled on or off for the next 6 seconds. Everything else is the exploit.

There could be a superior implementation compared to cooldown and spellhooks, though. Just make it do what it should in PnP:
Just toggling CE on doesn't give any bonuses/penalties. When attacking in melee with CE on, the attack is done with a reduced AB, and the PC gains +AC for the next, say, 8 seconds. Is it possible technically?

There's no need for spellhooks, since you'd only get CE bonus when actually meleeing. 8 (or 7 or 6.5) seconds as opposed to 6 so that there's some leeway to make sure CE doesn't have split-second gaps. Of course it'd need a check that (I)CE won't stack with itself or each other. And for several attacks per turn, it'd need the -AB to last as long as the +AC, even if CE is toggled off in between attacks. If the melee-only implementation is done, then the amount of AC from (I)CE could be raised to 4(8) or 5(10), I suppose, too, since flexibility is reduced.
User avatar
oldgrayrogue
Retired
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:09 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by oldgrayrogue »

t-ice wrote:
Unless people have played PnP though, and really understand the purpose of the feat they may not even realize its an exploit. ... If someone is found to do this just ask them to stop, explain why, and if they do it again then they are cheating. But please don't place cooldown timers etc on the mode to prevent cheating before it happens
I don't get it. Why do you have to take people aside and lecture them about this tactic that is completely feasible and just looks like "smart gaming" on the engine for someone who doesn't know DnD, is an exploit. But leave the exploit there in the engine to dangle? Such a conversation is seriously a drag for both people involved, and will likely leave the DM burned out, and the player feeling wtf for his good gaming being stomped on.

You can just have the engine remove the exploit, like blindhamster is proposing to do. Since having the AC from CE means your next attack will be at lower to-hit, a 6 second cooldown for toggling CE is the minimum to do to remove the exploit of dropping CE just long enough for your PC to swing, and then clicking it quickly back up again. Hitting that orc with a greatsword, and then quickly toggling CE up, before he and/or his buddies can hit back is precisely the exploit. To not use the exploit the player would have to keep track himself that if the PC makes an attack (with or without CE), CE will not be toggled on or off for the next 6 seconds. Everything else is the exploit.

There could be a superior implementation compared to cooldown and spellhooks, though. Just make it do what it should in PnP:
Just toggling CE on doesn't give any bonuses/penalties. When attacking in melee with CE on, the attack is done with a reduced AB, and the PC gains +AC for the next, say, 8 seconds. Is it possible technically?

There's no need for spellhooks, since you'd only get CE bonus when actually meleeing. 8 (or 7 or 6.5) seconds as opposed to 6 so that there's some leeway to make sure CE doesn't have split-second gaps. Of course it'd need a check that (I)CE won't stack with itself or each other. And for several attacks per turn, it'd need the -AB to last as long as the +AC, even if CE is toggled off in between attacks. If the melee-only implementation is done, then the amount of AC from (I)CE could be raised to 4(8) or 5(10), I suppose, too, since flexibility is reduced.
Seems really complicated to me, as opposed to a clearly stated notice that says "Please don't do this, its an exploit" and a warning from a DM if they see someone doing it. The DM is the master and arbiter of gameplay. IMO part of what the DM does is not only "referree" the game under the rules but help to educate players as to the rules and how to play the game properly within them to maintain balance, challenge etc. Approached in that fashion it need not be unpleasant for either party. My main point -- to answer the I don't get it? question -- is I imagine there are scenarios where the cool down timer will interfere with legitimate battle tactics. For example, your PC comes up on a couple of orcs in a dungeon lets say, with CE toggled on. He switches it off to make a power attack on one which triggers your cool down timer. At the same moment he switches to PA the orc, a large ogre comes around the corner holding a big club. Now the player cannot switch back to CE -- before he makes an attack -- because of the timer to tactically account for the new threat. I am sure there are other examples. It is worth noting that a player who carries around a shield for the AC boost has no such limitation. The engine lets him switch back and forth between shield equipped and two handed which seems exploitative as well.

Just leave it as is and inform players it is an exploit, trust players not to exploit, and address any problems with those who do.

[Edit] In fact why not sticky a forum called "Known Exploits." I have seen these on other PWs
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Combat Expertise

Post by t-ice »

I imagine there are scenarios where the cool down timer will interfere with legitimate battle tactics.

The PnP analogue of that ogre/orc thing would surely be the PC PAing the orc, and then the ogre running from around the corner on his turn, leaving the PC without CE. All the pnp aside, it makes perfect sense in the real-time situation to not being able to immediately switch to defensive fighting in that situation, even if you're only just about to PA and haven't quite yet. You are ambushed, and then at a proper tactical disadvantage.
The engine lets him switch back and forth between shield equipped and two handed which seems exploitative as well.
This is true, and arguably even wider-spread abuse potential. If there'd be a mechanistic way to have the engine force you to stay put for say 3secs whenever something is (un)equipped, it should most definitely be implemented. But the fact that all such abuses can't be fixed immediately and at the same time, doesn't mean it shouldn't start somewhere.

BHM's suggestion almost reads like a no-brainer for improvement. Probably even more so for the spellcasting part (which of course only makes sense if a cooldown is involved, too, otherwise CE is back up split-second after being dropped by casting) It'd be even better if the cooldown would be activated by attacking or casting, not toggling CE. And to have CE give AC bonus only after a melee attack has been made with reduced AB would be even better. Don't know what are the technical possibilities.
Locked