Page 1 of 1
[FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:36 pm
by Llaytan
Benefit
You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus.
With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal
A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can’t make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special
The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
A fighter may select Combat Reflexes as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:26 pm
by Skeas
I support this feat- It'd make dex less of a dump stat (for me at least)
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:01 pm
by Zanven
This feat might make relying in light armor in opposition to heavy armor more of an option and also users of heavier armor could benefit of it as well.
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:13 am
by Selveem
Zanven wrote:This feat might make relying in light armor in opposition to heavy armor more of an option and also users of heavier armor could benefit of it as well.
Makes no difference. Goes off of base dex bonus, not dex bonus of your armor.
Still, I agree that this would be a great feat to add.
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:36 pm
by Nylo
I'll add my vote as well - this feat would be very useful for those of us with high dex.
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:42 am
by Tarven
Yeah, I was just reading about some complaints regarding rogues being underpowered. I don't know how true that remains today, but this feat could single handedly change that balance. My only concern would be about possibly it going -too far- in the other direction.
The reason for this concern is because attacks against unarmed foes count as attacks of opportunity (Unless of course that enemy has the improved brawling feat, so maybe that's a counter balance method). Against a fighter with 5th attack, then, you disarm them, and autocombat forces them to take up to 5 attacks against you, which you, with your +6 defense mod, get to smack them around for, giving you potential for up to 8 attacks in a single round (3 for yourself, and their 5).
I am in no way suggesting this feat shouldn't be added. In fact, quite the contrary. I'd love to see it. However, it should be done carefully, and with the caveat of improved brawling in mind. Against a number of NPCs, this wouldn't be as big of an issue. (Just out of curiosity, and because it's related, does casting a spell currently grant an attack of opportunity? Should it, especially if this feat is added?)
Re: [FEAT] Combat Reflexes
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:11 pm
by Athon
I'd like to bring this back up as I think it would be an extremely beneficial addition for FK. A lot of work has been done to make attacks of opportunity as close to source as possible and for good effect. For those that don't know or don't recall, you can typically only have one attack of opportunity per round. Combat reflexes allows you to make an additional amount of attacks of opportunity per round equal to your DEX bonus. These are some of the benefits I see from this:
- Strengthens the (from what I can read, I do not know enough personally) weak rogue class by giving them something that can really utilize their DEX bonus.
- Helps to allow more diverse fighter builds and can give DEX much more importance to fighters (extremely useful to the underused 2-handed fighter builds, for example)
- Makes other feats (improved disarm, improved bash, improved brawling, for example) much more useful
I don't see how this would really overpower anything in FK. You do not receive multiple attacks per opportunity from each provocation (e.g. if you have +4 DEX bonus, you don't get an additional 5 attacks from one attack of opportunity); you only receive the extra attacks if you receive additional attacks of opportunity (e.g. you would need to fight five unarmed NPCs without improved brawling to get all five attacks).