Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CrystalBlue 01-02-07, 08:39 AM	We had a game recently where one of my PC's argued two points in the rules that I found ubsurd. But, because I didn't want to prolong the game, I let him have both and kept judging. So now I want to clarify both of these rules and, if possible, get official rulings or rule listings of where these clarifications are. #1: Combat Expertice Can a character with combat expertice activate their ability in the open when not threatening or attacking? Example: A PC with combat expertice is moving towards enemy #1. Enemy #2 is in the air and is making ranged attacks. PC moved 30 feet (their move action) and then says that they combat expertice (their standard action). They then choose Enemy #1 as their dodge target. When asked what they are combat experticing, they say that they are threatening something ubsurd (such as a fly or a blade of grass...or a rock). #2: Spiritual Weapon In a place with concealment, Spiritual Weapon is cast. It attacks. Does it have to make the normal concealment roll? Example: A PC has Spiritual Weapon cast upon them. They are in heavy forest, incuring a 20% miss chance from melee and ranged attacks. Spiritual Weapon attacks. Does it have to make the roll? EDIT: #3: Tumbling In the tumble rules, it says the for each person you tumble around/through, you make another tumble check and increase the DC +2 each time. So, a normal check would be 15, 17, 19, ect. When a PC is surrounded by foes and tumbles away, who gets to choose which tumble check applies to which foe. Example: a PC is surrounded by 4 enemies; one large creature and 3 medium creatures. The PC attacks and tumbles away. He rolls the checks and makes the first two, but fails the third. He designates that he uses one of his successes against the large creature, as they hit harder. Can he do this, or do I choose?
JJeff 01-02-07, 08:55 AM	A1)No, you cannot use Combat Expertise if you are not doing an attack action and declaring an attack on a rock or a fly is absurb and should not be entertained. A2)Yes, The Spiritual Hammer doesn't strike un-erringly, so it cannot ignore concelment unless due to its location, it makes sense to ignore it. (like a person claiming concelment from being behind a 5' wall of smoke, sending the Weapon to the other side of the wall should negate the concelment. but a person sniping from in the trees, the branches and leaves would get in the way no matter what) A3) You should declare which creature you are rolling your tumble against before rolling (I choose the first roll to be against X *roll*, The next one will be against Y *roll*....etc) This simplifies matters and makes sense.
CrystalBlue 01-02-07, 09:09 AM	Thank you for this. I assumed the first one, but the player would not yield. He said it was the only strength of his character and that he'd done it in hundreds of Con's before and it was legal. I told him that it was fine, so long as he told me where I could find a ruling. He rebuttled with "It's not a ruling. It's just one of those things that makes sense to do it this way." O.o;; I don't know how to get a ruling on that, then...but I just let him have the stupid combat expertice then. So, just to clarify on that...in order to get the full effect of Combat expertice one must: A) Be in melee combat with a foe B) Be threatening a foe C) Take a standard action to attack a foe Then, their BAB can be added to their AC for ALL other attacks from any foe, correct?
Herrbard 01-02-07, 09:51 AM	Whoever this player is he's totally trying to snow you. From the SRD: Combat Expertise Prerequisite: Int 13. Benefit: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. So, you must be in melee and make an attack action for Combat Expertise to apply. Your player in question is a) not in melee and B) not making an attack action. He said it was the only strength of his character and that he'd done it in hundreds of Con's before and it was legal. Sounds like he made a one-trick pony character and gets upset when it doesn't work, so he wants to go outside the rules. As for the "hundreds of cons" bit, I would ask for a list! :D And as for it being legal, demand a FAQ entry, LGCS entry, or some other official notation. You won't find one, as this is a blatent attempt to circumnavigate the rules. I love this game. :cool:
CrystalBlue 01-02-07, 09:57 AM	Yeah, trust me. If I told you who this was, you'd know him. Almost everyone knows him. He goes to almost every con from New York to Florida and about half-way across the US. So I believe that part. But I assumed he was just trying to BS me.
catsclaw 01-02-07, 12:52 PM	So, you must be in melee and make an attack action for Combat Expertise to apply. Your player in question is a) not in melee and B) not making an attack action.Note that this is, of course, completely idiotic. You can activate "total defense" as a standard action, and gain a +4 to your AC. If you're standing in an empty room with an archer shooting at you, you can use total defense and get a +4 AC bonus against him. If instead you're standing in a room with a kobold, you can hit the kobold, fighting defensively and using full combat expertise, and get +7 AC against that same archer. In other words, you're significantly harder to hit if you're trying to hit someone else. This is patently moronic.
szwanger 01-02-07, 07:17 PM	So, you must be in melee and make an attack action for Combat Expertise to apply. Your player in question is a) not in melee and B) not making an attack action. You only need to make a melee attack; you don't have to actually be in melee. It is absolutely legal to do, as your standard action, an attack against a rock or leaf or an ally or just a square, and use Combat Expertise as part of the attack. The feat says nothing about requiring you to be threatening or threatened by a foe.
Arvagor 01-02-07, 07:38 PM	You only need to make a melee attack; you don't have to actually be in melee.Um, you might want to read the feat again -- "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee ..." The feat says nothing about requiring you to be threatening or threatened by a foe.The feat says nothing about being threatened, because it doesn't need to. "Melee" is defined in the PHB (page 310) as:Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat.While an adjacent ally could, in some warped way (perhaps when in the Bandit Kingdoms), be considered to be threatening you, I'm pretty sure the rock or the leaf don't. Regardless, none of them are considered opponents, therefore you cannot declare you are expertising just by smacking one of them with your weapon.
clannagh 01-02-07, 08:05 PM	well he could gain expertise by whacking someone next to him on his own team but that might not make them happy :) hitting a rock is simply a rules lawyer attempt to bypass the obvious intent of the rules .. expertise is a trade .. attack bonus in melee for extra AC basically from the moment you attempt to hit something in melee using expertise you gain the extra AC for a full round ... but all your attacks for that round including any attacks of opportunity you make later in the round all take the same penalty as the first attack By the way I have a local player who ALWAYS attempts to bully DM's who cannot make con's by claiming his version of the rule is "how its done at a con" . It's important to rememberthat con GM are in most cases normal guys who are kind enough to volunteer ... they are not necessarily "uber experienced rules experts". In some cases the local guy has tried to pull off some blatantly wrong rulings (like claiming attacks of opportunity occur AFTER you stand up from prone) by saying "everyone at the cons does it".
szwanger 01-02-07, 08:53 PM	Um, you might want to read the feat again -- "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee ..." It's more logical to interpret "in melee" to mean "making a melee attack". The glossary entry is obviously not entirely accurate, otherwise a tiny creature could never be in melee. I hope you're not arguing that two tiny creatures fighting each other can't use Combat Expertise. Or that you can't use Combat Expertise against a swarm. (Granted, it won't help you against the swarm, but there may be other opponents around.) Furthermore, your interpretation runs into other problems. Suppose you're fighting an invisible opponent, but you don't know where he is. Surely you can use Combat Expertise to attack the square you think he's in. (Presumably you have Blindfight or Uncanny Dodge to keep the AC bonus.) What if you suspect there's an invisible opponent, but haven't been attacked yet? What if your wizard friend tells you the square that contains an invisible opponent? What if he tells you, but is lying? So you attack into a square using Combat Expertise -- do you get the AC bonus only if the opponent is actually there? What if he's present, but in a different square? Now opponent #2 (who can't see invisible creatures) attacks you. Why would your AC against opponent #2 depend on the location or existence of opponent #1? From opponent #2's standpoint, each of the above situations looks exactly the same. Yet somehow you're harder to hit in some of those situations? Or what if you see a statue and think it might be a golem, so you go up and attack it using Combat Expertise. Are you asserting that you get the AC bonus if it's a golem and not if it's a statue? That doesn't make any sense -- you've acted exactly the same either way. Otherwise you get, "Aha, my AC didn't increase so I know this is just a statue." It's better to use an interpretation that's: --simple (no need to decide whether the character is fighting an opponent or a non-opponent) --objective (no need to decide whether an attack is "absurd") --internally consistent (see examples above)
clannagh 01-02-07, 09:01 PM	the significant thing is the melee attack action in the end its up to the GM as to what qualifies and its the GM call .. if a player argues too much just call them disruptive and put them out of the game
Arvagor 01-02-07, 09:53 PM	It's more logical to interpret "in melee" to mean "making a melee attack".You may think so, but that is not what the feat says. The glossary entry is obviously not entirely accurate, otherwise a tiny creature could never be in melee. I hope you're not arguing that two tiny creatures fighting each other can't use Combat Expertise. Or that you can't use Combat Expertise against a swarm. (Granted, it won't help you against the swarm, but there may be other opponents around.)I am not arguing either of those. It's a given that space issues break down when dealing with creatures that take up less than 1 square. But to say that Tiny (and smaller) creatures never threaten is a fallacy. They never threaten adjacent squares, but if they have moved into an opponent's space to facilitate an attack, then they certainly threaten that opponent. In the case of "Tiny vs. Tiny" (or Dim. vs. Dim., or Fine vs. Fine), it is also within the DM's purview to subdivide the "normal" 5-foot square into smaller squares as appropriate (in which case, the two smaller creatures can threaten adjacent squares). Or what if you see a statue and think it might be a golem, so you go up and attack it using Combat Expertise. Are you asserting that you get the AC bonus if it's a golem and not if it's a statue? That doesn't make any sense -- you've acted exactly the same either way. Otherwise you get, "Aha, my AC didn't increase so I know this is just a statue."If all you've "attacked" is a statue, then your AC is irrelevant -- it's not going to attack back. And you're meta-gaming by knowing whether or not your AC increased; a character would not know such a thing, anymore than a character knows how many hit points he has or what his BAB is. In such a situation, as a DM, I determine what the PC's AC is, based on what he tells me he's doing (along the same lines of, "it's not the DM's job to tell the player what AC he needs to hit, it's the player's job to tell the DM what AC you did hit").
Jay_Ibero_911 01-02-07, 10:30 PM	You may think so, but that is not what the feat says. I am not arguing either of those. It's a given that space issues break down when dealing with creatures that take up less than 1 square. But to say that Tiny (and smaller) creatures never threaten is a fallacy. They never threaten adjacent squares, but if they have moved into an opponent's space to facilitate an attack, then they certainly threaten that opponent. In the case of "Tiny vs. Tiny" (or Dim. vs. Dim., or Fine vs. Fine), it is also within the DM's purview to subdivide the "normal" 5-foot square into smaller squares as appropriate (in which case, the two smaller creatures can threaten adjacent squares). If all you've "attacked" is a statue, then your AC is irrelevant -- it's not going to attack back. And you're meta-gaming by knowing whether or not your AC increased; a character would not know such a thing, anymore than a character knows how many hit points he has or what his BAB is. In such a situation, as a DM, I determine what the PC's AC is, based on what he tells me he's doing (along the same lines of, "it's not the DM's job to tell the player what AC he needs to hit, it's the player's job to tell the DM what AC you did hit"). Metagaming against statues asside, it's still an important mechanical aspect whether or not you get the AC bonus. The point being, for instance, the absurdatity of a character attacking a square with combat expertise, and his AC then becomes dependent on whether or not there actually is an opponent in that square. Now, if the AC bonus from combat expertise was actually dependant on HITTING an opponent, that would remove many issues, but as is, your AC is suddenly higher if you missed but there was a guy there, than if you missed and there was no one there, yet in either case, your action was identical. So there are 2 possible fixes for combat expertise: 1) Make it so the dodge bonus only applies against opponents you actually attack in a given round. 2) Make it so you only gain the dodge bonus if you actually strike an opponent, but the bonus still applies against all opponents. Not that I have a single character with the Combat Expertise feat, but, rules as written, I support the position that a character CAN benefit from combat expertise in any round they make a melee attack, even against a non-existant opponent.
clannagh 01-02-07, 10:42 PM	two comments here - - anyone sparring with rocks to gain expertise later in the round deserves to be slapped around .. if nothing else tehy will look pretty dumb jabbing at rock while the giant is bearing down on them - from a rules point of view it would take a lot to convince me that a character jabbing at a rock actually counts as "in melee" either way it is pretty clear to me that the "in melee" bit is not just an oversight it appears intended to prevent characters not directly involved in combat from usinng expertise ..... jabbing at rocks seems a smart rules lawyer attempt to bypass the intent of the feat
Jay_Ibero_911 01-02-07, 11:03 PM	two comments here - - anyone sparring with rocks to gain expertise later in the round deserves to be slapped around .. if nothing else tehy will look pretty dumb jabbing at rock while the giant is bearing down on them - from a rules point of view it would take a lot to convince me that a character jabbing at a rock actually counts as "in melee" either way it is pretty clear to me that the "in melee" bit is not just an oversight it appears intended to prevent characters not directly involved in combat from usinng expertise ..... jabbing at rocks seems a smart rules lawyer attempt to bypass the intent of the feat The entire problem here however is that the intent of the feat and the mechanics of the feat seem irreconcilable without a DM having to resort to "It works this way because I say so."
Arvagor 01-02-07, 11:11 PM	The entire problem here however is that the intent of the feat and the mechanics of the feat seem irreconcilable without a DM having to resort to "It works this way because I say so."A perfectly reasonable resolution, as that is part of the DM's job...
CrystalBlue 01-03-07, 08:46 AM	It's idiotic is what it is... Combat expertice is a character's ability to bob, weave, move, and otherwise finesse his way in melee to avoid being hit. Of course, everyone already has this, and this is the definition of 'threatening'. This is also why we don't have facing in the game. However, the major difference, in my eyes, of normal threatening and Combat Expertice is that when using the feat, you're making the others have to dodge your attacks more. To do that, you must be attacking, not passively standing there. That, added to an increased focus on your enemies, can more clearly define what Combat Expertice is. You want to add to your AC from your BAB? Then get into melee. Otherwise, take a full round to go on the defensive.
Arinaad 01-03-07, 10:46 AM	I resolve these "attack the ground" <expletive deleted> by the simple explanation of the added AC is from "bullying around" your opponent and using thier attacks and movement to aid you in manoeuvering around in the fight. I like to use movie combat to illustrate my points. When you watch great swordplay in movies you watch two combatants roll with the blows and as the vast majority of people do not actually take up 25 square feet of space, that leaves a lot of room to roll with in D&D. In most cases the player accepts this argument and the only ones who don't are trying to rules lawyer me and I target them with every tactic that I can muster... but that may just be me being petty. Arinaad
catsclaw 01-03-07, 01:15 PM	basically from the moment you attempt to hit something in melee using expertise you gain the extra AC for a full round ... but all your attacks for that round including any attacks of opportunity you make later in the round all take the same penalty as the first attackIs this true? According to the feat "The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action" which would imply you lose it if you move after attacking, or even if you use a free action. I've never seen it played that way, though.
szwanger 01-03-07, 01:45 PM	It's idiotic is what it is... You want to add to your AC from your BAB? Then get into melee. Otherwise, take a full round to go on the defensive. In a home game, as the DM you are absolutely entitled to play this feat however you like, including making any changes to it that you see fit. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to change it so that you only get the AC bonus if you hit your opponent. In a living campaign such as Living Greyhawk (since we are, after all discussing Living Greyhawk rules), as the judge you don't have those options. You play the feat as written, period. In this situation, it is not permitted to change how the feat works because you think it's "idiotic" or cheesy. Nor is it permitted to say: I resolve these "attack the ground" <expletive deleted> by the simple explanation of the added AC is from "bullying around" your opponent and using thier attacks and movement to aid you in manoeuvering around in the fight. since that is adding rules to the feat that aren't there (however sensible you think it might be). Frankly, aside from Arvagor and me disgareeing about the meaning of "in melee" (and I stand by my position), most of the arguments in this thread have boiled down to "I don't allow that to work because I think it's stupid." Those sorts of arguments don't belong in Living Greyhawk.
jhorred 01-03-07, 02:19 PM	Frankly, aside from Arvagor and me disgareeing about the meaning of "in melee" (and I stand by my position), most of the arguments in this thread have boiled down to "I don't allow that to work because I think it's stupid." Those sorts of arguments don't belong in Living Greyhawk. I wouldn't let it work that way because I think it's stupid. Well, ok, I wouldn't let it work as I don't think it was intended to work that way. I think the attacking a fly argument is silly.....
Samwise 01-03-07, 02:35 PM	In a living campaign such as Living Greyhawk (since we are, after all discussing Living Greyhawk rules), as the judge you don't have those options. You play the feat as written, period. In this situation, it is not permitted to change how the feat works because you think it's "idiotic" or cheesy. That's cool. Neither can a player. To initiate combat expertise you must use the attack or full attack action in melee. A melee attack is specifically defined as using a normal melee weapon against an opponent. You can not combat expertise with a bow even if you are threatened. You must make a melee attack against an opponent. Rocks, bugs, and the air are not opponents. Other PCs are never opponents unless they are dominated or you wish to have your character removed from the campaign. A DM doesn't need to add any rule to shut that down. It is the player who must add a rule allowing him to benefit from the feat by attacking a non-opponent.
copper_wyrmling 01-03-07, 02:47 PM	That's cool. Neither can a player. To initiate combat expertise you must use the attack or full attack action in melee. A melee attack is specifically defined as using a normal melee weapon against an opponent. You can not combat expertise with a bow even if you are threatened. You must make a melee attack against an opponent. Rocks, bugs, and the air are not opponents. Other PCs are never opponents unless they are dominated or you wish to have your character removed from the campaign. A DM doesn't need to add any rule to shut that down. It is the player who must add a rule allowing him to benefit from the feat by attacking a non-opponent. Samwise, how do you feel about a PC attacking an invisible opponent next to him? Does he only get the AC bonus if he picks the right square to attack into? Is it enough to be threatened by the invisible creature? What if the invisible creature is present but unarmed? I don't actually have a firm opinion on this one, and I'm following the discussion with interest. I have a PC with Combat Expertise and have generally assumed the more restrictive interpretation, although I do tend to spell out that assmption for a judge so they can correct me if their interpretation is different (i.e. I'll say something like, "I need to actually attack an opponent to get the expertise bonus, right, I can't just use an attack action where I am? Then I move in along this path, attempting to tumble at full speed to avoid the AoO, and I swing once with full expertise...") I've had at least one judge recently tell me that on her tables, I just needed to expend an attack action (with a melee weapon of course) - but as a general rule, it's a good idea to assume the more restrictive version of the rules when gauging the worth of a feat.
Samwise 01-03-07, 02:52 PM	Samwise, how do you feel about a PC attacking an invisible opponent next to him? Does he only get the AC bonus if he picks the right square to attack into? Is it enough to be threatened by the invisible creature? What if the invisible creature is present but unarmed? Hitting is not required. Attacking an opponent is. When attacking an invisible opponent that you have not pinpointed, you must guess the location of their square. If you guess wrong, you automatically miss. You have still attacked an opponent, even if you had no chance of hitting him, you may use combat expertise.
copper_wyrmling 01-03-07, 03:04 PM	Hitting is not required. Attacking an opponent is. When attacking an invisible opponent that you have not pinpointed, you must guess the location of their square. If you guess wrong, you automatically miss. You have still attacked an opponent, even if you had no chance of hitting him, you may use combat expertise. So by this reasoning... what happens if the opponent is actually 5ft further away than you thought he was (e.g. you got direction and approximate distance with a Listen check, but you guessed his square wrong and stopped 10ft away from him rather than next to him), so you're still trying to hit him but have no chance because you guessed his square wrong, but this time there's 5ft of clear space between him and you (assume no reach weapons)? Again, I'm not really trying to argue a position here, just trying to understand your argument in certain corner cases. I've seen somebody attempt to get the bonus from Combat Expertise by saying, "I suspect there may be an invisible creature near me, so I swing for the square next to me with full expertise". By your ruling, do they only get the bonus if there is in fact an invisible creature within 5ft, or is the criterion something different?
Samwise 01-03-07, 03:15 PM	It depends. Is it actually reasonable for the person to "suspect" there is an invisible creature next to him? Was he the subject of a melee attack before his turn? Guessing wrong is guessing wrong. Trying to parse the rules is cheating.
smerwin29 01-03-07, 03:32 PM	The problem is the feat was not written with what it couldn't do in mind, only what it could do. You give up some of your attack potential to increase your defense. That makes sense in the reality of the fantasy, if you will. But since the wording doesn't take corner cases into account, people can extrapolate more than is there. Bringing up the "what ifs" of invisible attackers doesn't change they way the feat is worded or intented to work. If just goes to show that there are other problems with the rules than this one feat. I know and respect the opinions of people on both sides of this issue. What is going to happen if people try to stretch the boundaries of this feat to far is force a ruling or errata. And when someone with some common sense sits down to write the errata, they are going to be forced to think about it. They may decide it doesn't make any sense to give a PC with the feat an AC bonus against opponents other than the one being attacked, which would solve the problem. Or maybe they will clarify by saying that the feat can be used as part of an attack/full attack action OR REPLACE AN ATTACK/FULL ATTACK action, which will also solve the problem. The game-mechanical issue is that the feat, like other feats or actions of its kind (Power Attack, attack defensively, etc.), ask the player to give up something to gain something. What a broad interpretation of the feat does is break that tradition. You are giving up nothing to get the AC bonus. (OK, you are giving up the attack bonus on any AoOs, but that is nothing compared to the other examples). Shawn (whose main PC has Combat Expertise and won't use it unless truly in melee and attacking)
copper_wyrmling 01-03-07, 03:36 PM	It depends. Is it actually reasonable for the person to "suspect" there is an invisible creature next to him? Was he the subject of a melee attack before his turn? Guessing wrong is guessing wrong. Trying to parse the rules is cheating. I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position - like I said, I'm happy to go along with the GM's ruling on my character with Expertise. (Mind you, I don't really use the feat heavily; he's a power-attacking dervish who needed the feat for PrC qualification.) The argument below illustrates, I think, why some people are ruling it as "sacrifice your attack action, get an AC bonus": Case 1: Invisible Bad Guy (IBG) swings at Combat-Expertising PC (CEPC) and then five-foot-steps away. CEPC picks the right direction, five-foot-steps after him (placing himself next to IBG), and then attacks a square with full expertise. Does he get the AC bonus (a) if he guesses the square right, and (b) if he guesses the square wrong? Case 2: Same as above, except that CEPC doesn't realize that IBG has five-foot-stepped, and attacks from his original position, which is now NOT next to IBG. Obviously, he swings at a square with nobody in it. Does he get the AC bonus? Case 3: Same as Case 2, except that IBG instead moved 30ft away on his turn, so there is now 30ft of empty space between them (but CEPC, having horribly blown his Listen check, still thinks that IBG is next to him). Does he get the AC bonus? If Case 3 is "yes", then what precisely is CEPC doing that he couldn't do in an empty room with no opponents? If Case 3 is "no", then how can the combat-expertising character, and the archer shooting at him (who also can't see IBG), tell any difference between Case 1 and Case 3?
copper_wyrmling 01-03-07, 03:41 PM	The game-mechanical issue is that the feat, like other feats or actions of its kind (Power Attack, attack defensively, etc.), ask the player to give up something to gain something. What a broad interpretation of the feat does is break that tradition. You are giving up nothing to get the AC bonus. (OK, you are giving up the attack bonus on any AoOs, but that is nothing compared to the other examples). Shawn (whose main PC has Combat Expertise and won't use it unless truly in melee and attacking) Um... you give up an attack action. The case where I've mostly seen it used (not by me, but my main cleric PC played with an expertise-using rogue on many occasions during her career) is where someone wants the AC bonus BEFORE they draw an AoO for moving in, so instead of moving in and attacking, they want to use an attack action to boost their AC, and then move in. They give up the opportunity to hit the bad guy on their turn AT ALL, just as if they were using total defence. The feat allows them to get a slightly better bonus fighting defensively with full expertise than using the total defence action (typically +8 vs +6 assuming 5 ranks in tumble and BAB 5 or better). It really doesn't seem that unbalanced to me... am I missing something obvious?
LachlarlanIII 01-03-07, 04:07 PM	I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position - like I said, I'm happy to go along with the GM's ruling on my character with Expertise. (Mind you, I don't really use the feat heavily; he's a power-attacking dervish who needed the feat for PrC qualification.) The argument below illustrates, I think, why some people are ruling it as "sacrifice your attack action, get an AC bonus": Case 1: Invisible Bad Guy (IBG) swings at Combat-Expertising PC (CEPC) and then five-foot-steps away. CEPC picks the right direction, five-foot-steps after him (placing himself next to IBG), and then attacks a square with full expertise. Does he get the AC bonus (a) if he guesses the square right, and (b) if he guesses the square wrong? Case 2: Same as above, except that CEPC doesn't realize that IBG has five-foot-stepped, and attacks from his original position, which is now NOT next to IBG. Obviously, he swings at a square with nobody in it. Does he get the AC bonus? Case 3: Same as Case 2, except that IBG instead moved 30ft away on his turn, so there is now 30ft of empty space between them (but CEPC, having horribly blown his Listen check, still thinks that IBG is next to him). Does he get the AC bonus? If Case 3 is "yes", then what precisely is CEPC doing that he couldn't do in an empty room with no opponents? If Case 3 is "no", then how can the combat-expertising character, and the archer shooting at him (who also can't see IBG), tell any difference between Case 1 and Case 3? Based on what I've read from the SRD, in each case the CEPC could in fact use Combat Expertise against an invisible opponent. The bonus would be lost against said opponent though. Invisible attackers ignore their opponent's Dex, and by extension Dodge bonuses to AC. You can't dodge what you can't see as it were. If the CEPC had Uncanny Dodge or Blind-Fight, that would be another thing altoghether.
LachlarlanIII 01-03-07, 04:16 PM	I've seen somebody attempt to get the bonus from Combat Expertise by saying, "I suspect there may be an invisible creature near me, so I swing for the square next to me with full expertise". By your ruling, do they only get the bonus if there is in fact an invisible creature within 5ft, or is the criterion something different? Believing and knowing are two very different things. If your cleric has true seeing up and says there's an invisible opponent somewhere in the room, it would be reasonable to expect the CEPC move forward (at the direction of the cleric) and CE at the IBG. Just saying you're attacking an invisible opponent that isn't nor has ever been in the room is not reasonable and shouldn't be accepted. I would say, show me proof that you know for a fact there's an IBG in the room before I let you combat expertise. If you can't then I won't let you.
smerwin29 01-03-07, 04:23 PM	[QUOTE=copper_wyrmling;11073780]Um... you give up an attack action./QUOTE] They are only giving up the attack action if you assume that you can use the feat that way. That's my point. With Power Attack, you MUST give up some attack bonus for the damage bonus. With attacking defensively, you MUST give up some attack bonus to get the AC bonus. With full defensive, you MUST give up all attacks to get the AC bonus. With the broad interpretation of CE, you are not necessarily giving up anything to gain something. If you are being attacked with ranged attacks by flying creatures, you are gaining as much as +5 to your armor class by poking a dagger at a blade of grass. If someone can explain that to me reasonably, then I will reconsider. I understand the need to follow the rules as written and think about the spirit of the rules and all that, but this is the problem people are having. Saying something is stupid is not a valid argument, but using the common sense test, even in a fantasy game, has merits. The point about most people using it to gain AC when taking AoOs doesn't support the argument. Giving the main reason that people push their interpretation of the rule doesn't support the argument. It just shows why they want their interpretation to be right, not why it is right. And I didn't say the feat was unbalanced. It's not about that. It's about the use of a feat in a way that the rules may not support. My point about balance was about the intent of the rule creators, as mentioned above. Other feats and actions of the same ilk have a necessary negative to gain the positive. This interpretation does not. One can argue that they expect the feats/actions to work similarly, and that would support the more limited use of the feat. Respectfully submitted, Shawn
solbergb 01-03-07, 04:33 PM	[QUOTE=copper_wyrmling;11073780]Um... you give up an attack action./QUOTE] If you are being attacked with ranged attacks by flying creatures, you are gaining as much as +5 to your armor class by poking a dagger at a blade of grass. No, you're just using a form of full defense that involves your weapon. So you're knocking arrows out of the air with your dagger perhaps, or just moving in an erratic way. You can actually fight defensively with a ranged attack, and you don't even lose the attack. If people want to give up their precious standard action to raise their AC a smidgen over what full defense would give, I got no issue with that. They're specialized in "blocking" attacks with their weapon instead of only their shield. That fits my view of what makes sense in a fantasy universe for somebody with extra training in a party-style maneuver.
LachlarlanIII 01-03-07, 04:41 PM	No, you're just using a form of full defense that involves your weapon. So you're knocking arrows out of the air with your dagger perhaps, or just moving in an erratic way. That's the domain of Deflect Arrows.
smerwin29 01-03-07, 05:05 PM	No, you're just using a form of full defense that involves your weapon. So you're knocking arrows out of the air with your dagger perhaps, or just moving in an erratic way. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. That's the point of the discussion. You can actually fight defensively with a ranged attack, and you don't even lose the attack. Exactly. And you are giving up accuracy on that attack to gain the dodge bonus. If people want to give up their precious standard action to raise their AC a smidgen over what full defense would give, I got no issue with that. They're specialized in "blocking" attacks with their weapon instead of only their shield. That fits my view of what makes sense in a fantasy universe for somebody with extra training in a party-style maneuver. While you are certainly entitled to your interpretation, it doesn't conform to the rule as written. It uses the words "attack action" and "in melee." It's not that I have an issue with people trying to raise their AC a smidgeon, it is about trying to avoid people interpreting rules differently from table to table. My example stands. People are saying that when being attacked by archers 200 feet away, you can attack the air "in melee" to gain the +5 (or less) to AC against the archers. The rule does not support this, and it doesn't make sense within the framework of the feat. It doesn't matter that the advantage they are getting is minimal. It is the issue of what the feat should and can do. Shawn
Alpha_Nerd 01-03-07, 05:32 PM	It's more logical to interpret "in melee" to mean "making a melee attack". :rolleyes: You're wrong. It's more logical to interpret "in melee" to mean "in melee" because, you know, that's what it means? To give you an example of how your twisted logic would affect other parts of combat. Lets say Fighter Bob is standing in a field and Archer Andy is shooting him with a bow. Fighter Bob declares he is expertising the rock next to him increasing his AC by 5! Wow, Fighter Bob is not only increasing his AC by 5, but he decided to put himself into melee because why not he's Fighter Bob and he doesn't use logic. Now, Archer Andy is a silly archer and doesn't have the precise shot feat, making him take a -4 penalty to shooting into melee. Have you figured it out yet? According to your bizarro logic Archer Andy is not only -4 to hit Fighter Bob because he decided to put himself into melee with nothing, but Fighter Bob is expertising for 5, making Archer Andy at a net -9 to hit Fighter Bob's base AC before expertising. Don't try to argue this, it says in the ranged combat section of the PHB that shooting into melee incurs the -4 penalty, thus making "in melee" a valid state of being. So, if you aren't "in melee" by the definiton in the most Core of Core rulebooks, you aren't "in melee" thus you can have none of the bonuses or penalties of being "in melee" such as being able to use the Combat Expertise feat. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but keeping strict to the rules is what keeps a great campaign like LG going.
clannagh 01-03-07, 05:47 PM	Um... you give up an attack action. The case where I've mostly seen it used (not by me, but my main cleric PC played with an expertise-using rogue on many occasions during her career) is where someone wants the AC bonus BEFORE they draw an AoO for moving in, so instead of moving in and attacking, they want to use an attack action to boost their AC, and then move in. They give up the opportunity to hit the bad guy on their turn AT ALL, just as if they were using total defence. The feat allows them to get a slightly better bonus fighting defensively with full expertise than using the total defence action (typically +8 vs +6 assuming 5 ranks in tumble and BAB 5 or better). It really doesn't seem that unbalanced to me... am I missing something obvious? The issue isnt balance its whether its what the rules mean. If the feat said "as a standard action (or as part of an attack) nominate to reduce your attack bonus for the next round by an amount ... " no-one would have an issue. My problem with interpretations that push the limit of a rule and go against its apparent intent actually originate with one particular local player whose main hobby is finding legal loopholes in the rules and exploiting them. Its the main enjoyment he gets from the game. He recently managed to make one two part game take 20 hours with continual breaks for rules arguments and book searching.
szwanger 01-03-07, 08:06 PM	You're wrong. It's more logical to interpret "in melee" to mean "in melee" because, you know, that's what it means? If you insist on rigidly using the glossary definition of "melee" every time the rules refer to "melee", you'll get ridiculous situations such as: An ogre who attacks a human from 10 feet away isn't in melee, because the two of them aren't threatening each other. Therefore the ogre can't use Combat Expertise. Actually, he can't even make a melee attack roll, because he's not "in melee". Nor would it be legal to power attack through a door, because you can only use Power Attack on melee attack rolls and melee damage rolls. Since the door isn't threatening you, you're not in melee. Now, Archer Andy is a silly archer and doesn't have the precise shot feat, making him take a -4 penalty to shooting into melee. Have you figured it out yet? According to your bizarro logic Archer Andy is not only -4 to hit Fighter Bob because he decided to put himself into melee with nothing, Wrong. There's only a -4 penalty if your target is in melee with a friendly character. (PHB, p. 140) Finally, consider the situation of a PC with Combat Expertise being attacked by flying archers. Case 1a: PC can See Invisible and was attacked by an invisible foe standing next to him. PC attacks the invisible foe with Combat Expertise and gains an AC bonus against the archers as well. No one in this discussion seems to have any problems with this. Case 1b: Same as 1a, but PC can't See Invisible. PC attacks the square he thinks the invisible foe is in, using Combat Expertise. PC gains the AC bonus against the archers (and against the invisible foe if he has Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight). I've gathered that most people would allow this as well. Case 1c: Same as 1b, but PC wasn't attacked and only suspects there may be an invisible foe present, so he attacks the square he thinks the invisible foe is in, using Combat Expertise. PC gains the AC bonus against the archers (and against the invisible foe if he has Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight). At least some people who oppose my position would allow this. Case 1d: Same as 1c, but PC has no idea whether there is an invisible foe present. He attacks the square he thinks the invisible foe is in, using Combat Expertise. Whether he gains the AC bonus against the archers is a point of contention. In all four cases, from the archers' point of view, the PC has taken exactly the same actions. In cases b-d, that is also true from the PC's point of view. Therefore, his AC against the archers ought to be the same. Since by this point, most of us have probably made up our minds, we can agree to disagree (although obviously, as a player I will bow to my judge's ruling on this issue, just as I expect players at tables I judge to bow to mine). And for what it's worth, I have no LG characters with Combat Expertise.
Samwise 01-03-07, 10:06 PM	Case 1: Invisible Bad Guy (IBG) swings at Combat-Expertising PC (CEPC) and then five-foot-steps away. CEPC picks the right direction, five-foot-steps after him (placing himself next to IBG), and then attacks a square with full expertise. Does he get the AC bonus (a) if he guesses the square right, and (b) if he guesses the square wrong? I'm not sure I could make it more clear. a) Yes b) Yes Case 2: Same as above, except that CEPC doesn't realize that IBG has five-foot-stepped, and attacks from his original position, which is now NOT next to IBG. Obviously, he swings at a square with nobody in it. Does he get the AC bonus? Yes. Case 3: Same as Case 2, except that IBG instead moved 30ft away on his turn, so there is now 30ft of empty space between them (but CEPC, having horribly blown his Listen check, still thinks that IBG is next to him). Does he get the AC bonus? Assuming he blew that DC 0 Listen check, yes. If Case 3 is "yes", then what precisely is CEPC doing that he couldn't do in an empty room with no opponents? If Case 3 is "no", then how can the combat-expertising character, and the archer shooting at him (who also can't see IBG), tell any difference between Case 1 and Case 3? Making an attack against an opponent he has reason to believe he exists. If you are looking for perfect logic in the rules then you are confused about what the rules are. To use combat expertise you must make a melee attack against an opponent. Invisibility screws that up the degree of creating "presumed opponents" but it doesn't change the text of combat expertise to suddenly apply to blade of grass or wandering gnats. Combat expertise does not say take a standard action to gain a dodge bonus to your AC equal to you BAB with a maximum of +5. If there was a feat that did you you could phrase it as attacking all the blades of grass you wanted as flavor but you'd get the bonus whether you did or not. Combat expertise works differently, and as with dozens of other D&D game rules, logic and the real world are purely incidental concerns. As for whether it is unbalancing to change the feat to allow you to give up an attack action to increase your AC, the question is moot. The feat doesn't work that way. If WotC wants to create a feat that does that, they can. If you want a feat that gives you an AC bonus against AoOs, take Mobility. If you want a feat that gives you an even greater bonus against AoOs, take Skill Focus (tumble) and have a better chance to make a tumble check. Oh, and with Improved Combat Expertise it can be more than raising AC a "smidgen." Worse, when combined with other feats that trigger off a failed AoO, changing Combat Expertise to work that way has a synergistic effect well above avoiding one melee attack to move in.
JamesMaissen 01-03-07, 10:39 PM	The game-mechanical issue is that the feat, like other feats or actions of its kind (Power Attack, attack defensively, etc.), ask the player to give up something to gain something. What a broad interpretation of the feat does is break that tradition. You are giving up nothing to get the AC bonus. (OK, you are giving up the attack bonus on any AoOs, but that is nothing compared to the other examples). Shawn (whose main PC has Combat Expertise and won't use it unless truly in melee and attacking) I don't understand how combat expertiese does this: you are using your standard action are you not? How is that different from fighting defensively when you use a standard action to attack? Now a person can declare his power attack without making any attacks (one of my characters commonly does so that his AOOs will benefit) but one cannot do that with expertiese or fighting defensively. Furthermore one can declare power attack before making a ranged attack and loose nothing without any effect except during AOOs. A person makes a melee attack then they can benefit from combat expertiese. If they move away from their foe or the foe drops the character still has the penalties and bonuses from the expertiese until the start of their turn, do they not? You certainly gain AC against opponents other than those you attack, correct? -James
copper_wyrmling 01-03-07, 10:51 PM	I'm not sure I could make it more clear. Some people in this thread have been arguing that you have to be threatening an opponent and be threatened in melee in order to use the feat. Your opinion seemed a little different; I was just trying to make sure I understood it. You have now made it perfectly clear, thank you :) Assuming he blew that DC 0 Listen check, yes. Hey, I have a character with a Spot modifier of -1 in broad daylight, or -3 if her familiar is busy elsewhere. It can happen :P Making an attack against an opponent he has reason to believe he exists. Okay. I can accept that as a criterion even if I disagree with it. As for whether it is unbalancing to change the feat to allow you to give up an attack action to increase your AC, the question is moot. The feat doesn't work that way. Just to be clear, I was not the one who brought up the balance issue (or I didn't think I was) - it seemed to me that smerwin29 was arguing that using the feat in this way would be unbalanced because you didn't need to sacrifice anything, I was simply rebutting the idea that there was no sacrifice involved. I may have misunderstood his post, based on later reactions. If WotC wants to create a feat that does that, they can. If you want a feat that gives you an AC bonus against AoOs, take Mobility. If you want a feat that gives you an even greater bonus against AoOs, take Skill Focus (tumble) and have a better chance to make a tumble check. My particular PC is one level away from being able to automatically tumble at full speed past a single opponent, and already has Mobility. Like I said... I do not use the feat that way unless the GM actually tells me to do it. To the people using the "archers shooting at us from 200ft away" example, does it make sense that the archers have more trouble shooting you if there's an invisible person next to you and you're doing an expert job of fighting somebody who's entirely undetectable to them, as opposed to you DON'T think there's an invisible person next to you, but you're weaving and parrying with your blade anyway? Or alternatively, the archers have more trouble shooting you if you attacked someone and then moved away from them? I agree that Combat Expertise would make more sense if it only applied against your actual opponent, but that's really not how the rules are written.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-03-07, 10:51 PM	Combat Expertise [General] Prerequisite Int 13. Benefit When you use the attack actionor the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Normal A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class. Special A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats. Definitions from PHB glossary: Melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat. Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. Okay, we can clearly see by the description of Combat Expertise that 2 things are required to benefit from it. 1) That the character make an attack. 2) The attack must be made in melee. I don't think anyone is going to dispute the definition of an attack, but with regards to the definition of melee, one thing is made clear. For a character to be in melee, he must both threaten, and be threatened by an opponent. Therefore, if a character attempts to use combat expertise when he does not threaten or is not threatened by an opponent, he gains no benefit from the feat, but also takes no penalty, as he would not be able to use the feat in the first place. If a player tries to use this as a method of invisible enemy detection, it is the DM's perogative to simply not let the player know whether or not he gets the benefit until he is actually attacked. Ok, now that we have a clear interpretation of how combat expertise works by RAW, here are some examples: 1) Player A has combat expertise and 5ft reach and wields a longsword, and is adjacent to Opponent B who also has 5ft reach and a longsword. Because both characters threaten each other, Player A can make an attack and benefit from Combat Expertise if he so chooses. 2) Player A has combat expertise and wields a glaive now, giving him 10ft reach, and is 10ft away from Opponent B who has 5ft reach and a longsword. Because Opponent B does not threaten Player A, Player A cannot benefit from Combat Expertise. 3) Player A has combat expertise and is now unarmed and does not have improved unarmed strike or any natural attacks, and is adjacent to Opponent B who has 5ft reach and a longsword. Because Player A does not threaten Opponent B, Player A cannot benefit from Combat Expertise. 4) Player A has combat expertise and 5ft reach and wields a longsword, and is now standing in the middle of an empty field. Player A cannot benefit from Combat Expertise because he does not threaten and is not threatened by any opponents, regardless of whether he believes there to be an opponent there or not. 5) Player A has combat expertise, uncanny dodge, and 5ft reach and wields a longsword, and is standing in the same field, but now an invisible Opponent B has snuck up on him with his longsword, ending adjacent to Player A. Feeling jumpy, Player A makes an attack, trying to use Combat Expertise. Regardless of the square Player A targets, he DOES get the benefit of Combat Expertise, because Player A and Opponent B now both threaten each other. 6) After seeing Player A's attack in example 5, Opponent B decides to flee, moving 60 ft. away. Player A has no idea where Opponent B is, but tries his luck attacking the same square, trying Combat Expertise again. This time it fails, because even though Opponent B is present, because niether character threatens the other. From these examples, I think the best way describe the way Combat Expertise works in game, is that it is not so much your own movements that make you harder to hit, but rather, by closing with an opponent you can attack in such a way that causes all your opponents fight more defensively against you, making it harder for them to hit you, but also harder for you to hit them because they are more wary of you. How wary they become is a factor of your own combat ability, as represented by your base attack bonus. Of course, they only remain wary for as long as you continue to make attacks in melee against an opponent. This interpretation of the feat also better justifies the 13 Int requirement, as you must be more clever than average to be able to psyche your opponents into holding back against you. The reason the feat only modifies your own AC and attack bonus is because it is easier than having to modify the AC and attack bonus of all the opponents with respect to each character using Combat Expertise. There. I put quite a lot of thought into that, trying to reconcile the RAW with the spirit of the rules, as well as the possible intended flavor for the mechanic, and the reason for why the mechanics are the way they are. I think my examples and definitions and explanations sufficiently handle all the possible corner cases...
Samwise 01-03-07, 11:06 PM	Some people in this thread have been arguing that you have to be threatening an opponent and be threatened in melee in order to use the feat. Your opinion seemed a little different; I was just trying to make sure I understood it. You have now made it perfectly clear, thank you :) I'm not arguing that. I think the "melee" refers to making a melee attack rather than a ranged attack. Hey, I have a character with a Spot modifier of -1 in broad daylight, or -3 if her familiar is busy elsewhere. It can happen :P A -3 would mean a Wisdom score of 4, or some other penalty I am unaware of. Okay. I can accept that as a criterion even if I disagree with it. Well the only other option is to treat it like flanking and invisible, and you can't use Combat Expertise against invisible opponents at all. Just to be clear, I was not the one who brought up the balance issue (or I didn't think I was) - it seemed to me that smerwin29 was arguing that using the feat in this way would be unbalanced because you didn't need to sacrifice anything, I was simply rebutting the idea that there was no sacrifice involved. I may have misunderstood his post, based on later reactions. It is not whether one is involved, it is whether it is the one specified in the feat. My particular PC is one level away from being able to automatically tumble at full speed past a single opponent, and already has Mobility. Like I said... I do not use the feat that way unless the GM actually tells me to do it. I wouldn't use it that way even then. To the people using the "archers shooting at us from 200ft away" example, does it make sense that the archers have more trouble shooting you if there's an invisible person next to you and you're doing an expert job of fighting somebody who's entirely undetectable to them, as opposed to you DON'T think there's an invisible person next to you, but you're weaving and parrying with your blade anyway? Or alternatively, the archers have more trouble shooting you if you attacked someone and then moved away from them? There is that real world logic. It doesn't make sense to me that you can't trip someone with a quarter staff. I agree that Combat Expertise would make more sense if it only applied against your actual opponent, but that's really not how the rules are written. And so that's the rule we use, without attacking any innocent bugs.
Arvagor 01-03-07, 11:18 PM	... I don't think anyone is going to dispute the definition of an attack, but with regards to the definition of melee, one thing is made clear. For a character to be in melee, he must both threaten, and be threatened by an opponent. ...I would, in fact, disagree with that assessment, or at least the second half of your statement. The glossary entry you quote (the same one I quoted earlier) does not say two opponents have to threaten one another, merely that they threaten one another's spaces -- an important distinction, especially since the definition of "threaten" talks about spaces, not opponents. There are conceivably situations where two combatants in adjacent squares could both take actions that never provoke, yet both combatants will continue to threaten the squares that the other is in. Perhaps we're saying the same thing, but I thought it was fair to point out...
MeinVT 01-03-07, 11:26 PM	Wow. Well I can see how folks could all think the other side of the argument is rules lawyering. The arguments are all quite clever. I think anyone expecting to stamp out table variation is out of luck. FWIW, the first thing I notice is that the Combat Expertise feat description includes the statement that the Normal ability is a character can only "fight defensively". Fight defensively says it stacks with Combat Expertise. So, I'd rule that in any situation either both or neither apply. With that resolved I look at the "Actions in Combat". Total defense is clear that it is not part of an attack and different from the above. So attacking is a pre-requisite to either Combat Expertise or Fight Defensively. The only question left is are you allowed to "attack" some random object within 5' of you to activate either of these abilities. Smashing an object is described as a "sunder special attack". It does involve a roll against an object's AC (PH 165). It is not the same as a standard attack, but is in the same category as bull rush, charge, disarm, feint, trip, two weapon fighting which are all categorized as "special attacks". So, can you use an attack action to attempt to sunder the pebble next to you, thus gaining AC? I'd rule you can. Otherwise you couldn't two weapon fight with combat expertise, and I doubt anyone thinks that is a reasonable ruling. If I wanted to notch up the entertainment factor I would require the player to roll to hit that pebble and notify them whether they sundered it in two or not. A typical fine rock would have an AC of 11 (10+8-5-2), a hardness of 8 and 15 hit points. Bonus points to those who devise a counter-argument based on weapon type .
Arvagor 01-03-07, 11:32 PM	I'd rule you can. Otherwise you couldn't two weapon fight with combat expertise, and I doubt anyone thinks that is a reasonable ruling.:uh-huh: OK, you lost me there... How does not being permitted to sunder a pebble relate to TWF and CE? :confused:
RedKnightofKet 01-03-07, 11:48 PM	Not to throw another wrench into this argument, but here's my take on "balance" and this feat - particularly, what I think we can see as some level of intent by the author(s). It's been mentioned that Combat Expertise (CE) and Fighting Defensively (FD) for the maximum gains you +8 (assuming 5 ranks in tumble), which is "only" two more points than Total Defense (TD)'s +6 (again, assuming 5 tumble ranks). There are a few key differences here that I think need to be stated. TD is a standard action, thereby eliminating any chance to attack that round. You ALSO give up all AOO's for that round. With the CE+FD combo, while you are at a total of -9 to your attacks, you still GET your AOO's. Depending on your attack style (imp disarm, imp trip, etc), this could significantly come into play. FWIW, I think this balance issue further supports the need for the attack to be a melee attack, at a valid target. I would accept it, provided the character has REASONABLE grounds to believe that he is being threatened by an invisible foe. Paranoia, or attacking a rock, would not be acceptable at my tables. If you're attacking a shrubbery, on the other hand..... :D
Iswald 01-04-07, 12:11 AM	If your cleric has true seeing up and says there's an invisible opponent somewhere in the room, it would be reasonable to expect the CEPC move forward (at the direction of the cleric) and CE at the IBG. And if the cleric lies, saying that a second opponent, currently invisible, just entered the room and is next to the CEPC? Although I may be mistaken, in the 3.0 FAQ, wasn't there some kind of ruling that attacking the ground was a valid way to kip-up?
solbergb 01-04-07, 12:22 AM	As stated before, you can fight defensively with a ranged attack. The "normally" portion of combat expertise is kind of interesting if you think about it and to me the "melee" part is to specify that unlike fighting defensively you actually have to use a melee attack to get the bonus. (who really doesn't care how a DM rules on this, but at his table lets you expertise as long as you actually blow the std action and feels he has sufficient rules to back this opinion as a judge vs a sr dm appeal , but insufficient to prevent any other judge from interpreting it to suit his own way when I'm at his table).
Alpha_Nerd 01-04-07, 01:59 AM	Szwanger: page 140 of the PHB which you referred from earlier states "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other" Meaning an ogre can power attack or expertise against a foe 10 ft away. The power attack feat never states you have to be in melee to use it, it simple modifies your melee attacks. Sounds confusing and normally I'm not for people being able to use slight wording differences to make a ruling, but I feel the spirit of the rules is on my side. While you are correct on the -4 penalty for archery not being applicable because it must be with a friendly target, that isn't the real point. That is just an analogy I tried to draw but it didn't work. The big deal here is that it clearly states what is a melee in the Player's Handbook. If you get attacked by an invisible foe you do not threaten him, making you not in melee with him. I'm sorry this one rather rare scenario involving improved or naturally invisible foes and flying archers doesn't rationalize you to combat expertise thin air, but deal with it.
CrystalBlue 01-04-07, 08:33 AM	Wow...look at all the fire I created with my flame war. O.O *roasts a marshmellow* I understand that the rules say one thing, logic says another, and the spirit of the rules are something in between. But for so many people to have such a divided idea of this rule means that there's really no way one could easily rule on this. Hence, I think it's going to have to be up to the DM. I know a lot of you hate that, because you'll start banging your PHB's on the table and telling them the rules state differently...but players need to realise that when there's a long rule arguement at the table, it bogs down the game. So, to simplify things, the DM has ultimate ruling power. Period. It's not fair, no. But that's why we have to trust our DM's to make the right call. If enough players have a problem with this, or enough DM's think this is a bad idea, then they need to petition for an errata or official ruling. Enough said. Until then, the DM's logic will have to do. Now...sorry about this arguement...but keep arguing...I'ma make some smores. O.O *keeps roasting*
LachlarlanIII 01-04-07, 10:04 AM	And if the cleric lies, saying that a second opponent, currently invisible, just entered the room and is next to the CEPC? Although I may be mistaken, in the 3.0 FAQ, wasn't there some kind of ruling that attacking the ground was a valid way to kip-up? In that case, the CEPC gets a Sense Motive check and if he fails, he's perfectly justified because he still knows there's an invisible bad guy in the room even if the cleric was lying. Perception is everything.
katrick 01-04-07, 12:16 PM	Buy four guard dogs 100gp Hp 6 tell them to guard another party member Handle animal DC10 (take 10), attack one of said dogs slaying it with 6 points of damage,(insert cleave if necessary) using Full Improved Combat Expertise aplly all AC except to Invis creatures (Hmm... bag of puppies anyone) Apart from said funny sitcho, i have had explained to me, unsatisfactorily, that casting a spell is not an attack action(hence no CE,FD,etc) is attacking with a melee touch spell an attack action and do i gain Combat Expertise? If you want to be creative give it some thought first! (attacking blades of grass sounds like a druid spell) Also remember in grey areas it's a DM's call (the dragon can fit through the keyhole)if this call results in death expect a whiny character to appeal and have it reversed, but do not blame the DM for doing the best that they can with the knowledge and time they have. Marty
CrystalBlue 01-04-07, 01:07 PM	A melee touch attack is still an attack. The problem you run into is if you are considered threatening with that touch attack. Which is, incidentaly, the whole point of this arguement. ^.^
LGMoses 01-04-07, 02:56 PM	Believing and knowing are two very different things. If your cleric has true seeing up and says there's an invisible opponent somewhere in the room, it would be reasonable to expect the CEPC move forward (at the direction of the cleric) and CE at the IBG. Just saying you're attacking an invisible opponent that isn't nor has ever been in the room is not reasonable and shouldn't be accepted. I would say, show me proof that you know for a fact there's an IBG in the room before I let you combat expertise. If you can't then I won't let you. I would make him attack for being a min/max moron but let him not have his dodge bonuses and tell him so. Combat expertise gives u dodge bonus to AC and u can't use that against creatures u can't see.
CrystalBlue 01-04-07, 03:56 PM	Well, this can continue if people wish, but I know how I'm going to rule on this now. To use Combat Expertice, you must use an attack action (one intended on hitting an opponent) while in melee range with your weapon. You must also be threatening with the opponent and the opponent cannot be helpless or otherwise unable to defend themselves (a rock or blade of grass can not be CE'ed because they do not defend themselves, however an opponent that is not threatening but can still move can me CE'ed). You must also be able to see the enemy that you are attacking in this way at the time of the attack (so blindness and invisability are not CE'able). You can take the attack action at any time during your turn, however the AC bonus is not activated until the action has been made. Using Combat Expertice is considered a hostile action and an attack, so it cannot be used against other PC's or friendly NPC's without punishment. There. That's the way I'm gonna rule this for myself. Don't like it? Don't play at my table. Think I'm not going by the rules? Then force a ruling from the circle or get an errata. That's how it's gonna be.
copper_wyrmling 01-04-07, 05:32 PM	Buy four guard dogs 100gp Hp 6 tell them to guard another party member Handle animal DC10 (take 10), attack one of said dogs slaying it with 6 points of damage,(insert cleave if necessary) using Full Improved Combat Expertise aplly all AC except to Invis creatures (Hmm... bag of puppies anyone) I knew somebody was going to say that... (It's still not a patch on the bag o' rats exploit with Random Deflector ;) ) Also remember in grey areas it's a DM's call (the dragon can fit through the keyhole)if this call results in death expect a whiny character to appeal and have it reversed, but do not blame the DM for doing the best that they can with the knowledge and time they have. Marty Of course. I don't think anyone has said they would dispute a GM ruling on this - well, Samwise said that he would not use CE without a known opponent even if the GM ruled that it was valid, but that's different. I'm arguing one side of this issue, but mostly as a devil's advocate - I tend to assume the more strict interpretation whenever I'm playing my PC with Combat Expertise (it saves time), but these discussions are interesting for hearing all the arguments on both sides. (If the majority was on the other side, I'd be bringing up the arguments for "combat expertise only works when you're actually in melee with an opponent"...) I would make him attack for being a min/max moron but let him not have his dodge bonuses and tell him so. Combat expertise gives u dodge bonus to AC and u can't use that against creatures u can't see. Of course you don't get the AC bonus vs your invisible opponent, but it still works fine against everyone else in the room. If you use combat expertise against a rogue who then feints you, then iirc you lose your dodge bonuses to AC against that attack, but you still have the AC bonus against the rogue's fighter buddy. Like solbergb said, I don't really see the flavor problem with parrying blows and arrows with your sword in the absence of an actual opponent. I respect a GM's right to take the opposite approach on their tables, though - in general, on table variation issues I tend to pick the ruling that favors the PCs unless it seems grossly unbalanced (when I'm GMing), but when playing my own PCs I assume the less favorable ruling. You must also be threatening with the opponent and the opponent cannot be helpless or otherwise unable to defend themselves (a rock or blade of grass can not be CE'ed because they do not defend themselves, however an opponent that is not threatening but can still move can me CE'ed). CrystalBlue, I will accept any ruling from a GM that I believe to be a valid extrapolation of existing rules (and usually I won't argue even a ruling that I know to be directly contradicted by the rules, unless it looks like it'll change the outcome of the combat). Would you explain where you're getting this condition from? I can understand either "must mutually threaten", or "one must threaten the other" (because there are two inconsistent definitions of "melee" in the PHB), but I don't see where there's any rules support for being able to CE a stunned / dazed / blinded foe but not a paralyzed one. You must also be able to see the enemy that you are attacking in this way at the time of the attack (so blindness and invisability are not CE'able). Is there rules support for this, or is that based purely on how you think it should work? There. That's the way I'm gonna rule this for myself. Don't like it? Don't play at my table. Think I'm not going by the rules? Then force a ruling from the circle or get an errata. That's how it's gonna be. You seem almost hostile about this. I really don't see much reason to be. There are plenty of people around who I disagree with on rules interpretations, but I can still have a lot of fun playing at their tables, and they seem to enjoy playing at mine. Some areas are ambiguous, everyone makes their own judgement, and it's really not that big a deal. Mind you, if a judge called me a "min/max moron" for asking if I could use Combat Expertise as an attack action without a visible opponent, I probably would try to avoid playing at their tables in future. Politeness costs nothing and generally makes the game rather more enjoyable for everybody ;) Oh, and I do think we've mostly hashed out the potential issues at this point :)
clannagh 01-04-07, 05:47 PM	. There. That's the way I'm gonna rule this for myself. Don't like it? Don't play at my table. Think I'm not going by the rules? Then force a ruling from the circle or get an errata. That's how it's gonna be. Circle will not comment .. be sure :) You can be pretty certian they will say its a core D&D issue not an LG issue and its up to wizards not them. As for your interpretation .. on my tables I pretty much decided soem time ago to go that way as well ... partly because of my non-rules-based inclination to think that swinging at invisible opponents or blades of grass should make you more not less vulnerable.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-04-07, 07:18 PM	I would, in fact, disagree with that assessment, or at least the second half of your statement. The glossary entry you quote (the same one I quoted earlier) does not say two opponents have to threaten one another, merely that they threaten one another's spaces -- an important distinction, especially since the definition of "threaten" talks about spaces, not opponents. There are conceivably situations where two combatants in adjacent squares could both take actions that never provoke, yet both combatants will continue to threaten the squares that the other is in. Perhaps we're saying the same thing, but I thought it was fair to point out... Well, yes, that's what I meant. This also brings up interesting Combat Expertise possibilities...for instance, any character using the Arrow Mind spell could use combat expertise with a bow, as long as he was attacking an adjacent target, because Arrow Mind causes you to threaten your adjacent squares with a bow. Similarly, a Monk could use combat expertise while throwing shuriken, as long as he is in a threatened square and an opponent is in a square threatened by him. I'm not quite sure about the Monk example actually being useful...but for an archer in a baddy's face, the ability to trade some attack bonus for AC could be invaluable. Of course they could also just fight defensively...but that's a worse trade off...
MeinVT 01-05-07, 01:14 AM	:uh-huh: OK, you lost me there... How does not being permitted to sunder a pebble relate to TWF and CE? :confused: Heh, well it is a bit of reductio ad absurdum of course. Basically: The argument I was making is that CE requires an attack just like fight defensively. I'll admit that the "in melee" might be the key element, but I find that difficult to parse. Either way, sundering an object is an attack, does require a roll vs. the target object's AC and is in the category of "special attack" just as is twf. Therefor I would treat them equivalent for CE. As to the parsing of the "in melee" portion of the sentence there are a few ways to see it. Is it ((standard attack) or (full attack) in melee) or is it ((standard attack) or (full attack in melee)? I'll acknowledge that the first reading as argued makes sense, but could argue the second. In addition the explanation of what the "Normal" behavior for this situation is confusing. It implies that CE could be used in equivalent situations to Fight Defensively, but never exactly says that. In any case, it is clear that you can fight defensively as a standard action at any time, at least based on what I noted above, even if it does include a faux sunder attempt.
paigeoliver 01-05-07, 08:16 AM	Ok, because of this thread I am going to share the secret of the dreaded Donkey Punch maneuver with all of you. Purchase a donkey or mule for 8 GP. The next time you face archers, flying or otherwise drop prone putting the donkey in between you and the archer, then expertise for full, fight defensively and attempt to unarmed strike the donkey, or better yet, pull a wrong sized exotic weapon out and attempt to hit the donkey for subdual. The effective armor class gain can be as much as +20 (+4 ranged attacks versus prone, +4 for cover, +5 for expertise, +3 for fighting defensively, and a possible +4 if the enemy archer doesn't have precise shot). The standard donkey punch is at -13 to hit the donkey for the unarmed strike, but can go as poorly as -26 if you are also power attacking for 5 and attempting to subdue the donkey with a wrong sized weapon that you are not proficient in. What I just described IS legal, now wouldn't you rather just have people sundering rocks. Another solution, draw a weapon as part of your move action, drop it for free, sunder it and combat expertise as your standard action. Also legal, and doesn't require the GM to decide if there are any rocks around. Paige, who has combat expertise and who has only used it once. There were 3 of us doing the Donkey Punch maneuver during that combat.
Arvagor 01-05-07, 08:22 AM	Purchase a donkey or mule for 8 GP. The next time you face archers, flying or otherwise drop prone putting the donkey in between you and the archer, then expertise for full, fight defensively and attempt to unarmed strike the donkey, or better yet, pull a wrong sized exotic weapon out and attempt to hit the donkey for subdual.:ahem: Are all you people playing in the Bandit Kingdoms, that you have nothing better to do than to attack harmless animals? The extents to which people will go to gain certain advantages is actually sickening some times, both in- and out- of character -- and I am only being partly sarcastic when I say that.
paigeoliver 01-05-07, 08:44 AM	Well the Donkey Punch maneuver was invented when we were attacked by Archers who were up on top of a "you have to make balance checks or fall down the hill" hill. Half of us had no way to make the balance checks, no ranged weapons, so we fell prone behind the donkeys. By the next round that had turned into the donkey punch maneuver, which is no more "wrong" than the standard riding trick of using your mount as cover, since it is basically impossible to actually hit the donkey. If you do hit him then it is non-lethal, and maybe he deserved it, after all, he has been a bad donkey!!!
CrystalBlue 01-05-07, 09:11 AM	I would probobly rule the use of a donkey like that illegel. I don't care if it's 'by the book'. It's a blantent exploit of the rules. I would allow you to drop prone behind it and use it for cover...but using combat expertice on the thing, that's just trying to break the rules and it shouldn't be tolerated.
JamesMaissen 01-05-07, 10:40 AM	I would probobly rule the use of a donkey like that illegel. I don't care if it's 'by the book'. It's a blantent exploit of the rules. I would allow you to drop prone behind it and use it for cover...but using combat expertice on the thing, that's just trying to break the rules and it shouldn't be tolerated. Sounds like you should simply disallow combat expertiese entirely. -James
LachlarlanIII 01-05-07, 11:05 AM	:ahem: Are all you people playing in the Bandit Kingdoms, that you have nothing better to do than to attack harmless animals? The extents to which people will go to gain certain advantages is actually sickening some times, both in- and out- of character -- and I am only being partly sarcastic when I say that. I found the description pretty humorous. In the BK you learn to adapt or you become a new paver in the Road of Skulls. However, if I were the DM in that situation, I would have the animals pull/trample their owners why trying to get away from them. I don't care if your Str is 20 and you're holding the reins, it's neigh impossible to exert any force while laying flat on your belly.
solbergb 01-05-07, 11:53 AM	I would probobly rule the use of a donkey like that illegel. I don't care if it's 'by the book'. It's a blantent exploit of the rules. I would allow you to drop prone behind it and use it for cover...but using combat expertice on the thing, that's just trying to break the rules and it shouldn't be tolerated. You don't get people doing such silly things like this unless you hedge a perfectly normal feat with absurd restrictions. When the PC's then activate the feat anyway with your absurd restrictions it is hypocritcal to call foul. You are far better off just saying "please don't do that I really hate it, I don't think you should be able to CE without an opponent" than making up a mechanic that will be used by a peeved player against you. Being polite also tends to get assent. I can accept a judge making a call and defining how the mechanics work. I get annoyed when he then changes his mind on how the mechanics work just because I found a way to do what I wanted within his interpretation. As an aside, there is no "allowing" PC's to drop prone behind a donkey for cover. They get cover if the donkey is in the way, period. There is no grey in that. I think people are splitting hairs on CE's interpretation, but we disagree where the spirit lies (I use the "normally" section as a guide myself). What I find telling though, is just requiring the attack action (and yes, you use attack actions against inanimate objects too) works 100% of the time with no weird side effects or edge conditions - you pay the action, you pay the feat, you pay attack roll penalty (which could still apply for AOO's, or resisting disarm or sunder) and you get the benefit. There's no weaseling out of the cost with this ruling, but there is also no weaseling out (by the DM if he doesn't like the player for any reason) of the benefit. The folks arguing the "other spirit" wind up with all kinds of weird problems with invisible opponents, helpless opponents, people being able to punch a donkey but not a rock, etc. Many times their proposed solutions are circumvented by simple if often metagamy player responses, or get into even worse problems with other abilities (uncanny dodge or blindfight lets you apply that bonus vs invisible melee enemies, for example, even if you are completely unaware of them otherwise) That kind of edge condition complexity is usually to me an indicator that you are just plain WRONG about what was intended. (Given how the FAQ rules sometimes, I think the game designers sometimes fall into the same trap, but there's no reason to do that unless we're forced to)
solbergb 01-05-07, 11:56 AM	I don't care if your Str is 20 and you're holding the reins, it's neigh impossible to exert any force while laying flat on your belly. In D&D, the only penalty is a -4 to hit and no impact on damage. You can assign a circumstance bonus to str checks perhaps (although for some things being prone is helpful if you have something to brace your feet against and the force is in the right direction) Prone is not helpless. You can exert considerable force with your feet when on your back, for example. I don't know how those two-handed weapons get swung, but D&D warriors clearly have some martial arts technique that allows it. Maybe they breakdance, building up momentum :)
CrystalBlue 01-05-07, 11:56 AM	Sounds like you should simply disallow combat expertiese entirely. -James What part of that do you find even remotely smart? It's an obvious way to cheese yourself into more AC, which is the whole reason why we're discussing this blasted thing! >.< I'm sick of people trying to find loop holes or exploits in the rules. And I'm not going to stand for it at my table. If it doesn't make sense, there's no way you should allow it. Period. And if you do allow that kind of stuff, let me know to stay far away from players and DM's like you.
LachlarlanIII 01-05-07, 12:17 PM	In D&D, the only penalty is a -4 to hit and no impact on damage. You can assign a circumstance bonus to str checks perhaps (although for some things being prone is helpful if you have something to brace your feet against and the force is in the right direction) Prone is not helpless. You can exert considerable force with your feet when on your back, for example. I don't know how those two-handed weapons get swung, but D&D warriors clearly have some martial arts technique that allows it. Maybe they breakdance, building up momentum :) I didn't say on one's back. I know one can exert tremendous force with their legs while on their back, but you can't say the same thing about exerting force while on your stomach (unless you're doing push-ups or something) If the player describes his action as laying on his stomach avoiding enemy fire, I'll have the mule pull him further along the cliff irregardless of what his Handle Animal check is. A mule isn't just going to stand there and let itself be shot with arrows while acting as cover.
szwanger 01-05-07, 12:25 PM	Szwanger: page 140 of the PHB which you referred from earlier states "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other" Meaning an ogre can power attack or expertise against a foe 10 ft away. The power attack feat never states you have to be in melee to use it, it simple modifies your melee attacks. A melee attack roll is an attack roll made "during melee combat" (PHB, p. 310). I'll grant you the PHB uses contradictory descriptions of what melee is, but certainly, by your line of argument, neither case includes a PC standing next to a door. but I feel the spirit of the rules is on my side. As do I. More specifically, I feel it is within the spirit of the rules for a PC to be in melee with an inanimate object such as a door. If you get attacked by an invisible foe you do not threaten him, making you not in melee with him. You do threaten him; you just can't take an AOO against him. Similarly, you can threaten someone who has cover against you, yet you can't take an AOO against him.
_m_ 01-07-07, 10:43 PM	the donkey punch seems a little bit like a bag'o'rats fighter form 3.0 doesn't it? while it's quite clearly against the spirit of the rules, there are just so many ways you can break them if you put your mind to it. why dont you just tell said player to stop being a tool and use the rule properly. as for the donkey punch, it at least has some merit: knock the donkey out and then hide behind it. at least that could legitimately stop arrows, unlike the fly that ur expertiseing against :D
JamesMaissen 01-09-07, 02:26 PM	What part of that do you find even remotely smart? It's an obvious way to cheese yourself into more AC, which is the whole reason why we're discussing this blasted thing! >.< I'm sick of people trying to find loop holes or exploits in the rules. And I'm not going to stand for it at my table. If it doesn't make sense, there's no way you should allow it. Period. And if you do allow that kind of stuff, let me know to stay far away from players and DM's like you. Great, fire breathing dragons don't make sense, nor do magical spells. Don't get me started on the cleave feat or turn based initiative.... As to in-game sense, let's really think it through: either your idea of what the feat enables is correct or it is not correct. From what you've said your view of the feat should only apply WHILE the feat user is fighting the person that they attacked. They somehow gain some benefit from having a live opponent there, right? They should then NOT be able to attack using combat expertiese then move away and still retain the benefit. Likewise they should not retain that benefit after that opponent otherwise is not there (leaves, is dropped, etc), yet they clearly do. In my mind that is a strong indication that your interpretation is lacking consistancy. As to the name slinging and the rest, you are fully entitled to stay far away from players and DM's like me. Please realize that contorting rules can occur on both sides of the DM's screen. That while in a home campaign a DM can make calls on how things work, that is not the case in an MMRPG where one is but the judge for a module. Where a player in the first situation can adjust planned builds and tactics to a DM's random interpretations, one in the later cannot do so and should not be penalized for it. Further the bile you seem to associate with what I see as a very reasonable use of the feat I find disheartening. Best wishes, James
JamesMaissen 01-09-07, 03:04 PM	Not to throw another wrench into this argument, but here's my take on "balance" and this feat - particularly, what I think we can see as some level of intent by the author(s). It's been mentioned that Combat Expertise (CE) and Fighting Defensively (FD) for the maximum gains you +8 (assuming 5 ranks in tumble), which is "only" two more points than Total Defense (TD)'s +6 (again, assuming 5 tumble ranks). There are a few key differences here that I think need to be stated. TD is a standard action, thereby eliminating any chance to attack that round. You ALSO give up all AOO's for that round. With the CE+FD combo, while you are at a total of -9 to your attacks, you still GET your AOO's. Depending on your attack style (imp disarm, imp trip, etc), this could significantly come into play. Yes Total defense differs from Fighting Defensively and using Expertiese. First, one spends a feat on combat expertiese. And to do that one must have a sufficient INT score (not really a prime requisite for melee fighters). So I see this as a sufficient investment to get a return. Consider how the feat Combat Reflexes gives a return in the realm of AOOs.. it should make one superior to those without the feat. (And the +2 more AC also requires a sufficient BAB to achieve) Second, while total defense has extra restrictions so does fighting defensively using expertiese. These are not merely the linear relations that you ascribe. While it's true that you do continue to threaten squares, you do take such a penalty on all attacks unlike Total Defense. There are tradeoffs to each and times where one might take the Total Defense action over the other, even though one may have invested a feat and requirements for the option. FWIW, I think this balance issue further supports the need for the attack to be a melee attack, at a valid target. I would accept it, provided the character has REASONABLE grounds to believe that he is being threatened by an invisible foe. Paranoia, or attacking a rock, would not be acceptable at my tables. If you're attacking a shrubbery, on the other hand..... :D I don't see where you are going with this. Wouldn't this have been an arguement for why one should not be able to combine fighting defensively and combat expertiese balancewise? Likewise this 'reasonable' grounds?? This seems like quite an amount of contortions does it not? Deciding who is valid for 'attacks' and the like seems like you are trying to fit it into a mold that it just doesn't fit into. It seems much more reasonable that it is simply a prohibition against using combat expertiese with ranged attacks (unlike fighting defensively which can do so) than some unwritten requirement that a 'credible' opponent be found. The character takes the attack action and that's that... they paid for the bonus in actions, feats and stats. If the problem exists it's not the 'in melee' part it's the feat itself (or one's view of it) I would imagine. -James
clannagh 01-09-07, 05:40 PM	I am afraid in my games player immersion is primary and this is a blatant case of doing something totally unrealistic to obtain a rules based edge using a very dubious series of rules interpretation. If A FAQ or errata forced me to allow this contrived situation I would have to wear it .. but otherwise no.
_m_ 01-09-07, 05:49 PM	I am afraid in my games player immersion is primary and this is a blatant case of doing something totally unrealistic to obtain a rules based edge using a very dubious series of rules interpretation. If A FAQ or errata forced me to allow this contrived situation I would have to wear it .. but otherwise no. yeah seriously, i can just seem most dm's (at least untill theres an official faq 1 way or the other) saying 'stop being stupid, you cant do that'. and i'd agree with them.
solbergb 01-10-07, 12:18 AM	I am afraid in my games player immersion is primary and this is a blatant case of doing something totally unrealistic to obtain a rules based edge using a very dubious series of rules interpretation. If A FAQ or errata forced me to allow this contrived situation I would have to wear it .. but otherwise no. You are better off just saying this as a Judge than trying to make up restrictions. If you do it politely you'll get the result you want (player will stop trying to make it work) instead of something that breaks immersion further (player will find a way to make it work given your restrictions, and it will be even less realistic than letting him do it the normal way). We all have to suck up rules that we dislike because of the FAQ, there is no Judge in LG that agrees with everything in there (or in LGCS either). There is a bit of grey in this one that lets a judge rule his conscience and where there is grey, the Judge's opinion of what is right wins. I'm firmly in the other camp - I find that NOT allowing combat expertise vs, say, inanimate objects etc leads to a host of edge conditions that make less sense than just assuming it is more of a kind of melee-only-total-defense that allows AOO's at a hefty penalty. But we can agree to disagree unless the Sage sticks his nose into it. Just don't get all excited about a player who assumes "normal" is different from you. My approach in this situation to end arguments quickly and move on with the game is: "This rule has some grey in it and there is more than one opinion. My opinion is XXX and as I am the judge, I would ask you to respect my opinion just as I'd respect your opinion as a player at your table." If asked where the grey is "The feat description says "melee" and people disagree on exactly what that means. I take it to mean you have to be in melee with an animate opponent. I've thought through the edge conditions and I'll be consistent". I find that this approach means I have very few rules discussions and no arguments that I can remember at my table. I also use a few other rules of thumb that lead to trust which allows this. 1. If I don't know the rule, I just trust the player. I look it up later. 2. If #1 isn't practical or it is really important (PC death on the line) I'll have a player whose turn is NOT coming up soon look it up and go with the first reasonable ruling supported by the rules. 3. No matter how I rule, PC's and NPC's play by exactly the same rules. I'm 100% consistent at any given table (and try to be consistent period between games unless I've been convinced of a different ruling by new evidence). 4. I prep enough to have looked up and formed an opinion on any weird abilites my NPC's might have, so I'm at least prepared for HALF the rules issues that might come up. 5. If I really, really hate an interpretation but can't articulate an argument against it, or it causes my brain to explode trying to figure out how to rule I'll usually say "Look, please don't make me rule on this. Can you pick another action?" I will, however, generally allow the action if the player insists, and rule as best I can. I don't do this very often. 6. I will always come down on allowing a PC to use abilities he paid for vs taking abilities away if I don't have strong evidence ot the contrary. Likewise I lean toward interpretations that lead to a more "action movie" or "high fantasy" style game. We're playing something more like Xena or Buffy the Vampire Slayer than anything "realistic". Characters in the world experience it more like they do in those TV shows. (indeed if you watch Gabrielle in season 1 you'd swear she's a low level D&D social bard - useless except when her mouth is moving to befuddle enemies with diplomacy or bluff. Keep in mind that this was years BEFORE 3.0 came out...I think the influences are there in the mechanics. Xena also did the progression from farm girl to god-killer - a rare instance in the media that mimics the incredible power surge D&D characters get by adventuring).
Millefune 01-22-07, 07:08 PM	What bugs me about this, is that you get a better DODGE BONUS (which means you are dodging and whatnot) against ranged attacks when you're in melee fighting and being distracted, then when you're not in melee and able to completely focus on the person making a ranged attack. It doesn't make sense! If they allowed you to ether use the bonus to AC while also not in melee, OR made it so that the bonus was only against melee attacks and no dodge bonus against ranged, it would make much more sense. I'm sorry, but if someone shoots at me while I'm fighting someone, I'm not going to have an easier time actively dodging the shot than if I was able to focus my attention on him (this has nothing to do with the -4 for firing into melee, that is not a "dodge bonus" to MY AC).
RedKnightofKet 01-22-07, 07:11 PM	Actually, if you are focussing on people making ranged attacks, that would be Total Defense - standard action, and it gives you +4 dodge bonus (+6 with the Tumble synergy) What bugs me about this, is that you get a better DODGE BONUS (which means you are dodging and whatnot) against ranged attacks when you're in melee fighting and being distracted, then when you're not in melee and able to completely focus on the person making a ranged attack. It doesn't make sense! If they allowed you to ether use the bonus to AC while also not in melee, OR made it so that the bonus was only against melee attacks and no dodge bonus against ranged, it would make much more sense. I'm sorry, but if someone shoots at me while I'm fighting someone, I'm not going to have an easier time dodging the shot than if I was able to focus my attention on him (this has nothing to do with the -4 for firing into melee, that is not a "dodge bonus" to MY AC).
Millefune 01-22-07, 07:26 PM	Okay, but why does being distracted and in melee, make me a better dodger of ranged attacks then when I'm not distracted by being in melee?
_m_ 01-22-07, 07:29 PM	Okay, but why does being distracted and in melee, make be a better dodger of ranged attacks then when I'm not distracted by being in melee? because there are 100% more people in the fight, so the archer has to try not to hit his friend.
Japangirl 01-22-07, 07:29 PM	Okay, but why does being distracted and in melee, make be a better dodger of ranged attacks then when I'm not distracted by being in melee? You are using your weapons and shield and opponent in such a way as to increase your overall defense by decreasing the effectiveness of your hits (well, you chance to hit anyways). Without an opponent in melee to take advantage of this specialized training, you cannot gain the extra dodginess against arrows, as fighting a rock or a fly just isn't the same. That's the flavor I give Combat Expertise, anyways.
_m_ 01-22-07, 07:49 PM	since this is a combat questions thread: if you have ride by attack, can you: horse ride by attacks (using all of its actions) PA using your lance 2 handed (standard action) pull out a shield at the end of your turn (move action) put away your shield at the start of your next turn (move action) horse ride by attackis (all of its actions) you attack 2 handed with lance (standard action) in other words, can you buff ur ac by putting a shield on at the end of a ride by attack.
Samwise 01-23-07, 12:01 AM	No, you can't. Ride By Attack is a Charge action, which is a Full Round Action. The horse using it's full movement is irrelevant. Your attack is part of a Full Round Charge, it is not an Attack as a Standard Action during the horse's movement.
SYB 01-23-07, 12:48 PM	Be careful how much you rules lawyer. Combat Expertise says: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty... <rest snipped> <emphasis mine> Now, I challenge anyone to find a rule that defines "in melee". There is a rule that defines "engaged in melee" and there the glossary describes the word "melee". Glossary definition of melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat. So, if you want to rules lawyer to the extreme, since the feat does not use the words "engaged in melee", that definition is useless. If you choose to interpret "in melee" with the glossary definition, a person is not in melee until "physical blows have been exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space". This means that each opponent must have made an attack roll and creatures with reach are never in melee unless in their opponent's reach. That is following the letter of the rules. That is also clearly against the spirit of the rule. Also, according to the letter of the rule for Combat Expertise, you can gain the benefit of the feat when making a ranged attack, as long as you are "in melee". The feat, as written, only requires an attack action or full attack action. You can qualify for the "in melee" by wielding a dagger in your off hand (or being part monk) and thus threatening your opponent (actually technically, you don't have to threaten, just be "close enough to threaten"), while throwing weapons or shooting arrows at someone else. Clearly, the letter of the rules does not follow the intent. I'm not going to try to claim I know the intent, but I agree with one poster who said that a player who spends a resource on something (a feat, in this example), should be given the benefit of the doubt on the use of it. -SYB
Alpha_Nerd 01-23-07, 01:19 PM	Read the definition of melee on page 140 I think of the PHB under the ranged section. I've heard you always pick book-text over glossary summaries.
SYB 01-23-07, 01:28 PM	Read the definition of melee on page 140 I think of the PHB under the ranged section. I've heard you always pick book-text over glossary summaries. You are referring to the "engaged in melee" definition as given in the "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee" heading on page 140. I have read it. You will note the feat does not use the phrase "engaged in melee" and the definition from pg. 140 clearly uses that phrase multiple times. If that definition was supposed to apply to the feat, then the feat would use the phrase "engaged in melee". Again, I am trying to point out discrepencies when you follow the letter of the rules as written and suggest that when interpreting this feat the intent should be followed, not the letter. -SYB
Alpha_Nerd 01-23-07, 01:40 PM	I personally view "engaged in melee" and "in melee" to be completely identical. We can argue over the semantics of the word "engaged" and the word "in", but I'd really rather not.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-23-07, 04:13 PM	Um, you might want to read the feat again -- "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee ..." The feat says nothing about being threatened, because it doesn't need to. "Melee" is defined in the PHB (page 310) as:While an adjacent ally could, in some warped way (perhaps when in the Bandit Kingdoms), be considered to be threatening you, I'm pretty sure the rock or the leaf don't. Regardless, none of them are considered opponents, therefore you cannot declare you are expertising just by smacking one of them with your weapon. Bull. The rules say that you can attack an adjacent 5' square whether or not you "know" there is an opponent there, taking a 50% miss chance (or 100% if there's nobody there obviously). This is used all over the place; have a critter with Scent find the Greater Invisible enemy, and everyone swing at wherever the critter just attacked. It's perfectly legal for him to make an "attack" into an adjacent square, taking his Combat Expertise penalty. Keep in mind that once he's done this, any Attack of Opportunity also takes the Combat Expertise penalty until his action comes up again.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-23-07, 04:16 PM	Based on what I've read from the SRD, in each case the CEPC could in fact use Combat Expertise against an invisible opponent. The bonus would be lost against said opponent though. Invisible attackers ignore their opponent's Dex, and by extension Dodge bonuses to AC. You can't dodge what you can't see as it were. The Dexterity bonus to AC is not a Dodge bonus. Comment removed as against CoC
Bob_the_Theurge 01-23-07, 04:24 PM	I would make him attack for being a min/max moron but let him not have his dodge bonuses and tell him so. Combat expertise gives u dodge bonus to AC and u can't use that against creatures u can't see. Bull. Show me where it says that. Being invisible gives you a +2 to hit enemies that can't see you, and makes them flat-footed to you (denying you your dex bonus, if any). It says NOTHING about losing Dodge bonuses. Nowhere in the PHB or DMG will you find anything to the contrary.
Alpha_Nerd 01-23-07, 04:25 PM	play nice Bull. Show me where it says that. Being invisible gives you a +2 to hit enemies that can't see you, and makes them flat-footed to you (denying you your dex bonus, if any). It says NOTHING about losing Dodge bonuses. Nowhere in the PHB or DMG will you find anything to the contrary. Quote taken from the Dodge feat. "A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. Also, dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most other types of bonuses." You are wrong. Please do not give out false rulings then be very rude in how you dispense it.
SYB 01-23-07, 06:07 PM	I support Alpha Nerd on the dodge discussion. According to pg. 307 of the PHB (glossary definition of dodge bonus): Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have (for instance, you lose any dodge bonuses to AC when you're flat-footed). Keep in mind, though. If you attack an invisible enemy with Combat Expertise, even though you will not gain your dodge bonus to AC against that enemy, you will gain your dodge bonus to AC against any visible enemies that might also happen to attack you that round. And, thus the root of the conundrum. Do you get a dodge bonus to AC from Combat Expertise when attack non-existent "invisible" enemies? I swear, this feat probably leads to some of the most ridiculously corner case examples I have ever seen in this game (assuming you don't allow someone to use Combat Expertise when they are not in melee). -SYB
Alpha_Nerd 01-23-07, 08:14 PM	If you are standing next to a invisble foe, and his ally is trying to shoot you with a bow, does the archer get -4 to hit? If he has see invisibility up does it change?
SYB 01-26-07, 02:31 PM	Another nugget of information to add to the pot. According to the 3.0 D&D FAQ (yes, 3.0, but bear with me): Q: Do I have to make an attack to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class? A: No, you do not have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the Armor Class bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. Now, admittedly there are differences between 3.0 and 3.5, but Expertise and Combat Expertise have almost precisely the same descriptions. The main differences are editorial, not mechanical (for example, 3.0 uses a separate sentence to mention it is a dodge bonus, while 3.5 use a subordinate clause). Furthermore, the first clause of the first sentence is identical in both editions: "When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee,..." And this clause was the main cause of the argument in the first place. I think this evidence strongly supports the claim that Combat Expertise can be used even when there isn't a melee opponent to attack. -SYB
LachlarlanIII 01-29-07, 01:45 PM	If you are standing next to a invisble foe, and his ally is trying to shoot you with a bow, does the archer get -4 to hit? If he has see invisibility up does it change? I would rule that he would get the -4 shooting through cover penalty but not the -4 shooting into melee penalty. Although the archer can't see his ally, that doesn't change the fact that there is a physical obstruction between him and his target. If he could see the ally, then he would take the -4 shooting into melee penalty because he's once again trying to optimize his shot (aka not shoot his friend).
LachlarlanIII 01-29-07, 01:47 PM	Bull. Show me where it says that. Being invisible gives you a +2 to hit enemies that can't see you, and makes them flat-footed to you (denying you your dex bonus, if any). It says NOTHING about losing Dodge bonuses. Nowhere in the PHB or DMG will you find anything to the contrary. When you're flat-footed your lose your Dex to AC, when you lose your Dex to AC you lose all Dodge bonuses as well. From the SRD: Conditions: Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. Feats: COMBAT EXPERTISE [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Int 13. Benefit: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as –5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Normal: A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class. Special: A fighter may select Combat Expertise as one of his fighter bonus feats. Combat Basics: Dodge Bonuses: Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
rockondon 01-30-07, 01:54 PM	I have a question, not about the invis/cover stuff tho. If I have an animated shield providing me with a +3 shield bonus, a buckler on one arm with enchantment A (such as light fortification), a buckler on my other arm with enchantment B, will I have a +3 shield bonus as well as enchantments A and B? and another question, slightly on topic. I was in a con where waves of baddies were hitting the party. Sometimes they teleported there, other times we saw them coming from rounds before from hundreds of feet away. The GM declared that we were flat-footed at the beginning of each wave. Is that true? If you're poised and ready for combat are you still flat-footed? Even when you see the monsters coming from a long way off?
Japangirl 01-30-07, 02:15 PM	A) I think so. However, you'd take some penalties to melee combat doing that (-1 to each hit). B) If you see them coming, I don't think you should be flat footed when they hit. You did, after all, know they were coming. You just delayed until they got close enough to actually do something, if you had finished fighting off the previous wave already. The ones teleporting in, I'd argue their surprise round was teleporting in. Thus, you are no longer flat-footed to them by the time they get to act the next round, but that one is a lot stickier and subject to DM discretion IMO.
JamesMaissen 01-30-07, 05:51 PM	I have a question, not about the invis/cover stuff tho. If I have an animated shield providing me with a +3 shield bonus, a buckler on one arm with enchantment A (such as light fortification), a buckler on my other arm with enchantment B, will I have a +3 shield bonus as well as enchantments A and B? and another question, slightly on topic. I was in a con where waves of baddies were hitting the party. Sometimes they teleported there, other times we saw them coming from rounds before from hundreds of feet away. The GM declared that we were flat-footed at the beginning of each wave. Is that true? If you're poised and ready for combat are you still flat-footed? Even when you see the monsters coming from a long way off? A> As long as a shield is considered worn it gives it's other abilities to the wearer. Like the other poster said you would suffer tohit penalties for attacking with a buckler on your arm. B> They seem to be separate combats so indeed you would be flatfooted until your initiative came up in first round of the combat. Now in the case of spotting them 100s of feet away combat could have and should have started then as you were aware of them (and at some point they of you). You could have started firing upon them or the like. -James
bitznarf 01-30-07, 05:54 PM	A> As long as a shield is considered worn it gives it's other abilities to the wearer. Like the other poster said you would suffer tohit penalties for attacking with a buckler on your arm. You may want to check the ability to have multiple magic items of the same type active, ie. only 2 rings, despite physically being able to wear more then 2, as well as the neck slot (think brooch and pendant) .
clannagh 01-30-07, 08:27 PM	if LG allows the enhancement of bracers (no idea on that I asked Britt but got no reply) you could end up with a silly number of enhancements if that trick worked :)
Britt 01-30-07, 08:31 PM	LG does not allow the addition of other enchantments to bracers without special campaign documentation (I have given out such access myself in an interactive).
clannagh 01-30-07, 08:33 PM	LG does not allow the addition of other enchantments to bracers without special campaign documentation (I have given out such access myself in an interactive). thanks for the quick response Britt :)
Arvagor 01-30-07, 08:34 PM	You may want to check the ability to have multiple magic items of the same type active, ie. only 2 rings, despite physically being able to wear more then 2, as well as the neck slot (think brooch and pendant) . There's no rule against having multiple magic items active, only limitations on the body slots they take up. Shields do not take up any of the designated body slots -- they are, in effect, slotless -- which is why the trick theoretically works. I say "theoretically", because I believe the tactic massively violates the spirit of the rules, but I acknowledge that there is nothing that prevents a player from doing it (TMK).
clannagh 01-30-07, 08:41 PM	There's no rule against having multiple magic items active, only limitations on the body slots they take up. Shields do not take up any of the designated body slots -- they are, in effect, slotless -- which is why the trick theoretically works. I say "theoretically", because I believe the tactic massively violates the spirit of the rules, but I acknowledge that there is nothing that prevents a player from doing it (TMK). well technically, given the money, it seems to me you could have 6 or 7 animated shields .. the shield bonuses would not stack but any other enhancements probably would
Arvagor 01-30-07, 08:48 PM	well technically, given the money, it seems to me you could have 6 or 7 animated shields .. the shield bonuses would not stack but any other enhancements probably wouldAh, now that is not permitted -- explicitly so by the description of animated: "Only one shield can protect a character at a time."
clannagh 01-30-07, 08:57 PM	Ah, now that is not permitted -- explicitly so by the description of animated: "Only one shield can protect a character at a time." only "one shield" or one "animated shield" ???? if it says "one shield" by RAW that would exclude an animated and normal shield being functional at the same time the best you could do is have both and choose which is "equipped" and hence which enhancement is active