Combat Expertise/Charge Loophole [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat Expertise/Charge Loophole [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TheRealOrion
11-21-06, 01:26 AM Okay, stop me if you've heard this before.

Let's say I make a Charge attack. That means +2 to attack and -2 to AC (+2Att/-2AC). Then, let's say in the same round, I crank up Combat Expertise for -2 to hit and +2 to AC (-2Att/+2AC). Between those two things, I have no penalties and no bonuses, so it's a wash, but I do get to move up to double my movement and attack in the same round, which would seem to be a bit of an advantage in some situations, admittedly those situations would be very rare.

The only objection I can see to this, if we go with the RAW, is that Combat Expertise can be used only "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee" (PHB 92), whereas "Charging is a special full-round action" (PHB 154). One could argue that Charging is neither an attack action nor a full-round action, but instead some other, crazy kind of full-round action, but by the same token we could argue that it is a kind of full-round action.

Obviously, this move would be laughed out of any decent game. The DM would over-rule it on grounds of common sense. You can't run screaming at someone such that you leave yourself open and carefully defend yourself such that you miss opportunities to attack. Still, it's a funny little loophole.
TheCobra
11-21-06, 01:33 AM Technically is probably doesn't work, for the reasons you mentioned, but it's far from game-breaking, especially considering that the character has to have a feat to do it.
theotherdraxen
11-21-06, 01:33 AM I don't know...I'd call it a defensive charge. You're carefully deflecting blows while running at high speed. It's possible.
TheRealOrion
11-21-06, 01:48 AM I suspect it's such a minor loophole that nobody's really worried about it. I just thought it was funny.
Vaelan
11-21-06, 02:16 AM It doesn't work due to the limitations on when you can use Combat Expertise, as you have said.
Subedei
11-21-06, 02:53 AM We'll, I'd certainly allow someone to do this. You say it's not game breaking, I'd say that's an amazing understatement. Combat Expertise allows you to freely (more or less) exchange offense for defense on a 1/1 basis. In this situation I'd say your expertise in combat has allowed you to fine tune your charge a bit more. It's not like there's any net gain from this anyawy. You can take a double move and attack, but you still have to move in a straight line since you're using your momentum to make that attack.

+2/-2 is like a running, jumping sidekick. +0/+0 is like a running, jumping front kick. It's still using your momentum and is performed straight out of the run but it's not really any more powerful than a standing front kick and you're not putting yourself off balance, out of your normal stance or high in the air like you are with the jumping sidekick. On the other hand, the front kick isn't quite as powerful and can't target as many parts of the body successfully compared with the sidekick.

The two kicks have their advantages, but an inexperienced fighter may not be able to use them both strategically to capitalize on those advantages. Thus someone can use both kicks but not to such an effect as someone with Combat Expertise can, because they have a plan, they use them for effect etc.
StevenO
11-21-06, 03:00 PM While I'd certainly allow that use of Charge and Combat Expertise it is not quite a zero balance. In addition to moving double before attacking you would also trigger/allow effect that are based on Charging such as a lance's double damage. I don't think keeping your AC for your charge bonus to attack breaks any of the charge effects but you should be aware of them.
Tony Vargas
11-21-06, 04:04 PM I've actually done this before - used combat expertise to cancel the charge penalty (or other AC penalties, for that matter) - and never had anyone, DM or player, complain or point out the possible technicality.
Phoenixflame
11-21-06, 04:16 PM Hmm IF you allowed this loophole, it CAN lead to balance issues

Picture a someone using Rhino Hide armor, a Valorous* Lance and under the Lions Pounce spell.

Thats triple damage plus 2d6 on the first hit and then regular iterative attacks based on BAB

*(unsure if Valorous was updated in any of the 3.5 books--if not, then its still valid...if it has its prolly like Rhino Hide and adds a flat 1d12 or 2d6)

granted we are talking a minor loophole (a fighter could still do all that i mentioned and have +2 to attack and -2ac), but its something to keep in mind.

Besides as you mentioned i think the wording of Combat Expertise and the definition of Charge prevent it from working.
Subedei
11-21-06, 04:42 PM "Charging can be very powerful, thus charging with less attack and more AC can lead to balance issues"

You see, the problem with this argument is that you've failed to establish that having -2 attack and +2 AC is actually any better than +2 attack and -2 AC.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheRealOrion 11-21-06, 01:26 AM	Okay, stop me if you've heard this before. Let's say I make a Charge attack. That means +2 to attack and -2 to AC (+2Att/-2AC). Then, let's say in the same round, I crank up Combat Expertise for -2 to hit and +2 to AC (-2Att/+2AC). Between those two things, I have no penalties and no bonuses, so it's a wash, but I do get to move up to double my movement and attack in the same round, which would seem to be a bit of an advantage in some situations, admittedly those situations would be very rare. The only objection I can see to this, if we go with the RAW, is that Combat Expertise can be used only "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee" (PHB 92), whereas "Charging is a special full-round action" (PHB 154). One could argue that Charging is neither an attack action nor a full-round action, but instead some other, crazy kind of full-round action, but by the same token we could argue that it is a kind of full-round action. Obviously, this move would be laughed out of any decent game. The DM would over-rule it on grounds of common sense. You can't run screaming at someone such that you leave yourself open and carefully defend yourself such that you miss opportunities to attack. Still, it's a funny little loophole.
TheCobra 11-21-06, 01:33 AM	Technically is probably doesn't work, for the reasons you mentioned, but it's far from game-breaking, especially considering that the character has to have a feat to do it.
theotherdraxen 11-21-06, 01:33 AM	I don't know...I'd call it a defensive charge. You're carefully deflecting blows while running at high speed. It's possible.
TheRealOrion 11-21-06, 01:48 AM	I suspect it's such a minor loophole that nobody's really worried about it. I just thought it was funny.
Vaelan 11-21-06, 02:16 AM	It doesn't work due to the limitations on when you can use Combat Expertise, as you have said.
Subedei 11-21-06, 02:53 AM	We'll, I'd certainly allow someone to do this. You say it's not game breaking, I'd say that's an amazing understatement. Combat Expertise allows you to freely (more or less) exchange offense for defense on a 1/1 basis. In this situation I'd say your expertise in combat has allowed you to fine tune your charge a bit more. It's not like there's any net gain from this anyawy. You can take a double move and attack, but you still have to move in a straight line since you're using your momentum to make that attack. +2/-2 is like a running, jumping sidekick. +0/+0 is like a running, jumping front kick. It's still using your momentum and is performed straight out of the run but it's not really any more powerful than a standing front kick and you're not putting yourself off balance, out of your normal stance or high in the air like you are with the jumping sidekick. On the other hand, the front kick isn't quite as powerful and can't target as many parts of the body successfully compared with the sidekick. The two kicks have their advantages, but an inexperienced fighter may not be able to use them both strategically to capitalize on those advantages. Thus someone can use both kicks but not to such an effect as someone with Combat Expertise can, because they have a plan, they use them for effect etc.
StevenO 11-21-06, 03:00 PM	While I'd certainly allow that use of Charge and Combat Expertise it is not quite a zero balance. In addition to moving double before attacking you would also trigger/allow effect that are based on Charging such as a lance's double damage. I don't think keeping your AC for your charge bonus to attack breaks any of the charge effects but you should be aware of them.
Tony Vargas 11-21-06, 04:04 PM	I've actually done this before - used combat expertise to cancel the charge penalty (or other AC penalties, for that matter) - and never had anyone, DM or player, complain or point out the possible technicality.
Phoenixflame 11-21-06, 04:16 PM	Hmm IF you allowed this loophole, it CAN lead to balance issues Picture a someone using Rhino Hide armor, a Valorous* Lance and under the Lions Pounce spell. Thats triple damage plus 2d6 on the first hit and then regular iterative attacks based on BAB *(unsure if Valorous was updated in any of the 3.5 books--if not, then its still valid...if it has its prolly like Rhino Hide and adds a flat 1d12 or 2d6) granted we are talking a minor loophole (a fighter could still do all that i mentioned and have +2 to attack and -2ac), but its something to keep in mind. Besides as you mentioned i think the wording of Combat Expertise and the definition of Charge prevent it from working.
Subedei 11-21-06, 04:42 PM	"Charging can be very powerful, thus charging with less attack and more AC can lead to balance issues" You see, the problem with this argument is that you've failed to establish that having -2 attack and +2 AC is actually any better than +2 attack and -2 AC.