Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pheron 03-26-07, 08:34 PM	My quiestion is simple, can combat expertise be combined with fighting on the defense? In the description of combat expertise if give that nomrally i.e. without the feat a character can fight on the defense and take a minus -4 to attack and gain +2 AC. That seems to imply that combact expertise supersecedes fighting on the defense.
Tichrimo 03-26-07, 08:40 PM	The way it's written, it sounds like Combat Expertise replaces the Fighting Defensively action; I would rule you cannot do both. (Besides, soaking -9 to hit for +7 AC is pretty brutal, unless you're already in a fight where you need 20's to hit anyway.)
Inigo Carmine 03-26-07, 10:45 PM	That seems to imply that combact expertise supersecedes fighting on the defense. Not really. It's just letting you know that even without the feat you can still do something similar. Read the description of fighting defensively in your PHB. It even explicitly states that combat expertise and fighting defensively stacks.
PhaedrusXY 03-26-07, 10:48 PM	Yes, you can use them together, and they stack completely. I am 99% sure this is addressed in the main D&D FAQ.
Lord Nedd 03-27-07, 12:45 PM	Yes, you can use them together, and they stack completely. I am 99% sure this is addressed in the main D&D FAQ. More to the point, It is explicitly expressed in the 3.0 FAQ that they are completely stackable. -LN
StevenO 03-27-07, 07:41 PM	You may Fight Defensively and use Combat Expertise freely. Without the feat you can only Fight Defensively but once you get the feat Combat Expertise becomes a more efficient method but once it is maxed out you can still fight defensively. Think Combat Expertise = "playing" with your opponent by giving up attack for defense but Fighting Defensively as trying to stay alive but still threatening the opponent. NOTE: You may NOT use Combat Expertise with Full (or is it Total) Defense. Giving up your ability to make attacks means you can't trade attack bonus for AC bonus.
Marcus Majarra 03-27-07, 08:59 PM	StevenO is correct on that last note. Interesting to point out is that, as soon as you've got combat expertise and a BAB of at least +2 (or simply 5 ranks in Tumble and BAB +1), you're always better off combining fighting defensively with combat expertise, since you'll get a much better AC bonus that way. Keep in mind that making an attack and total defense both require a standard action. Here's the math anyway: BAB +2 + combat expertise + fighting defensively = -6 to attack for +4 to AC. BAB +1 + combat expertise + fighting defensively + 5 ranks in Tumble = -5 to attack for +4 to AC. Both AC bonuses equate those of a normal character using total defense. You should note, however, that a character with 5 ranks in Tumble will get a much better bonus to AC at this point, but it becomes moot the moment the character can invest BAB +3 into combat expertise (at which point he takes a -7 penalty to hit for a +6 bonus to AC). The real monsters in this scenario are those who get a higher bonus for fighting defensively, like Dervishes (who gain a +4 bonus to AC, optimal result of -9 to hit for +12 AC) or Duelists (who gain a bonus to AC equal to the Duelist level, optimal result of -9 to hit for +18 AC). Kinda makes it interesting to make a combination of the Warchanter's inspire recklessness with the Duelist's or Dervish's elaborate parry.
Mystic Theurge 03-27-07, 09:00 PM	NOTE: You may NOT use Combat Expertise with Full (or is it Total) Defense. Giving up your ability to make attacks means you can't trade attack bonus for AC bonus. It would actually be more efficient for a character to go with full CE and fighting defensively than to go with total defense. You're likely to miss, but there is still a 5% chance you can hit anyway and your AC is improved a great deal as compaired to total defense, especially if a character has 5 or more ranks in tumble. The only time I would do total defense in this case was if there was noone to attack. Edit: looks like Marcus Majarra beat me to it.