Combat Expertise vs. Total Defence [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat Expertise vs. Total Defence [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Secrets Untold
08-10-07, 09:45 PM Looking over the Combat Expertise and Total defence action rules earlier today, if you have Combat Expertise, (either for the defensive reason, or as a prerequisite for Improved Feint or something) does it make the total defence pointless when you first get a +4 BaB?

Total Defence:
-Causes you to give up an attack
-Gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC

Combat Expertise:
-Causes you to give up some BaB for one round, but allows you to attack
-Gives you that BaB back as an AC bonus (up to +5)
-I'm pretty sure I saw a feat somewhere that gives you twice the BaB you sacrifice as AC (ie -5 to hit = +10 to AC)

Starting when you get a +4 BaB, and especially when you get a +5, Total defence becomes a joke. Instead of giving the chance to attack, you can get the same (or higher) bonus by actually attacking. Sure, it's hard to hit the target, but you only lose 20% of your chance, instead of 100%.

Now, I'm sure that Total Defence is great for people who don't have CE (so, the spellcasters and a fighter or two), but no-one ever uses it. Combat expertise can outshine total defence at fourth or sixth level (unless you have 1/2 BaB, in which case you should probably be grabbing a metamagic feat).

Does it make sense that attacking and then trying to defend yourself is more defensive that completly focusing on blocking blows?
Knightblde
08-10-07, 09:53 PM It makes sense that someone trained can attack and block better than just anyone can block. Part of attacking can be the block an vice versa.

You are correct in your mechanic. You can also stack CE and Fighting Defensivly.

I think the feat is just called, Improved Combat Expertise but I am not sure of the source.
JulesCARV
08-10-07, 10:00 PM Right. In truth, with combat expertise, total defense becomes obsolete at BAB +2, with fighting defensively combines with combat expertise to be equivalent to total defense.

The only reasons to use total defense are:

1) You don't have combat expertise, which most characters don't (even if a sizable minority do).

2) You don't want to attack the target. Even here, you could take another -4 to attack to deal nonlethal damage (if you're fighting defensively, attempting to deal nonlethal damage, and using full combat expertise, that's -8 to hit before factoring in strength modifier, enhancement bonuses, etc), but if for some reason you don't even want to risk dealing nonlethal damage on a natural 20, then total defense is the only way.
rone_leah
08-10-07, 10:46 PM Right. In truth, with combat expertise, total defense becomes obsolete at BAB +2, with fighting defensively combines with combat expertise to be equivalent to total defense.

True except if you have 5 ranks in tumble and get the +6 bonus to ac.

And Improved expertise is in Complete Warrior.
Dazzer
08-10-07, 11:02 PM To use combat expertise you first must use the Attack Action. The same goes for Fighting Defensively.

An Attack action is either one swing of a sword, or one of many swings if you have multiple attacks.

If you do not do this, it is a standard action.

!
TorgSmackie
08-10-07, 11:05 PM The only reasons to use total defense are:

1) You don't have combat expertise, which most characters don't (even if a sizable minority do).

2) You don't want to attack the target.

You forgot 3) You're not in melee yet.

You need to be able to attack something to use Combat Expertise or fighting defensively.
StevenO
08-10-07, 11:23 PM Improved Combat Expertise just removes the +5 cap from the normal Combat Expertise.

Unless it has outrageous (ie only a high level fighter can manage the feats to qualify) prereqs a feat granting +2 AC for each -1 attack would be too good. At least in my opinion.
EjoThims
08-11-07, 04:47 PM You can always make an attack to activate Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively.

You don't need a target.

An attack is an attack, even if it never hits anything.

If you really wanted to justify it, just say you're 'constantly testing the air for invisible attackers.'
EjoThims
08-11-07, 05:06 PM Another favorite is attacking the ground every round.

Just use an unarmed attack with your feet. ;)

Slower going since you can't double move or run, but being so defensive all the time'll do that to ya.
TorgSmackie
08-11-07, 05:32 PM If you really wanted to justify it, just say you're 'constantly testing the air for invisible attackers.'

I wouldn't allow that if I were DMing, and I can't recall ever meeting a DM that would.
kalstrand
08-12-07, 02:37 PM If you are going to waste your time attacking the air just to get an Ac bonus why not instead get out of the combat area or if the problem is ranged attackers find some cover.
EjoThims
08-12-07, 04:11 PM If you are going to waste your time attacking the air just to get an Ac bonus why not instead get out of the combat area or if the problem is ranged attackers find some cover.

The point is that some are paranoid enough to want that AC bonus constantly...

And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to waste a standard action to get it.
TorgSmackie
08-12-07, 04:42 PM And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to waste a standard action to get it.

Because you cannot attack the air (elemental notwithsanding).

The probing for invisible attackers thing doesn't work because you don't get dodge bonuses versus invisible attackers anyway.
kalstrand
08-12-07, 08:55 PM But why waste actions to attack the air. They could use those standard actions to move far enough from the combat area that their AC is irrelevant because they are not being attacked. Doing that also has the benefit that the attacker could just beat the increased AC provided by CE.
EjoThims
08-12-07, 09:41 PM Because you cannot attack the air (elemental notwithsanding).

The probing for invisible attackers thing doesn't work because you don't get dodge bonuses versus invisible attackers anyway.

You can indeed simply attack the air.. Attempting to attack an invisble opponent and attacking a square that is not occupied by one is allowed when you are being threatened by one.

Why should it not be if you only suspect that you are?
JadeSpider9643
08-13-07, 07:16 AM Attacking the air while searching for invisible enemies is perfectly reasonable.

Attacking the air to get CE AC bonuses....(if I'm the DM) leaves you flat footed aganist any non-invisible attackers. Get your character's mind in the here-and-now and out of his day-dreams, or something is gonna kill him good.

If your gonna make legitimate attacks aganist the air, you'll have to focus your attention there, and if there's no legitimate reason to expect invisible attackers, then the character obviously isn't paying any attention to his surroundings. SNEAK ATTACK!
Mr_Teapot
08-13-07, 11:01 AM Does it make sense that attacking and then trying to defend yourself is more defensive that completly focusing on blocking blows?

It makes plenty of sense that someone who spent a feat on defending themselves will be better at it than someone who didn't.

Look at it like this: Total Defense is one of many nonstandard actions anyone can take in combat (like tripping, sundering, bull rushing, etc.). Now, generally these maneuvers have an associated feat that makes the character better at it (e.g., Improved Trip).

The standard for the rules is for this other feat to remove any asociated AoO and/or to give a bonus to the maneuver (typically +4). Neither of those can apply to Total Defense, since you don't have any attacks, it doesn't provoke any AoOs and giving a +4 to AC on top of Total Defense's existing bonus would be crazy.

So instead you get a separate feat that totally replaces Total Defense, and makes you better at it by giving you a chance to attack, and a better AC (possibly). Think of Combat Expertise as "Improved Total Defense" and "Improved Fighting Defensively" rolled into one.
EjoThims
08-13-07, 01:52 PM If your gonna make legitimate attacks aganist the air

So you rule that everyoen is flat footed against all opponents but their target when using CE?

That's pretty harsh.

Of course if you don't, then you're being inconsistent and a bit of a hypocrit.
Knightblde
08-13-07, 04:07 PM Our group plays that you can use CE/FD as long as you can attack, and take up a standard/full action to do so.

It makes no sense, in a lot of ways, I know.

It also makes no sense that I can get the bonus against 7 attackers while I am only attacking 1. This shows me that the important part is taking up my time, not me attacking someone.

If it was a bonus ONLY on the one or even many people that I attacked that round, then I would rule it differently.

I find it odd that RAW it works for senario 1, but not 2

1. You move to attack an enemy, using CE and kill him, a second enemy comes and attacks you at your higher AC.

2. You disengage the above enemy without attacking, move 20 feet to postion yourself in a hall so he cannot pass you. He moves to attack you, you no longer gain the bonus.

The way we play, you can spend you standard action in 2 to set yourself up to defend. I don't think this is to much to ask.
EjoThims
08-13-07, 04:26 PM I find it odd that RAW it works for senario 1, but not 2

Actully, 2 does work by RAW.

By RAW all you have to do is attack.

You don't have to have an opponent or be succesful, you just have to attack.

The wall, the ground, the air, your own face, anything as long as you make an attack.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Secrets Untold 08-10-07, 09:45 PM	Looking over the Combat Expertise and Total defence action rules earlier today, if you have Combat Expertise, (either for the defensive reason, or as a prerequisite for Improved Feint or something) does it make the total defence pointless when you first get a +4 BaB? Total Defence: -Causes you to give up an attack -Gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC Combat Expertise: -Causes you to give up some BaB for one round, but allows you to attack -Gives you that BaB back as an AC bonus (up to +5) -I'm pretty sure I saw a feat somewhere that gives you twice the BaB you sacrifice as AC (ie -5 to hit = +10 to AC) Starting when you get a +4 BaB, and especially when you get a +5, Total defence becomes a joke. Instead of giving the chance to attack, you can get the same (or higher) bonus by actually attacking. Sure, it's hard to hit the target, but you only lose 20% of your chance, instead of 100%. Now, I'm sure that Total Defence is great for people who don't have CE (so, the spellcasters and a fighter or two), but no-one ever uses it. Combat expertise can outshine total defence at fourth or sixth level (unless you have 1/2 BaB, in which case you should probably be grabbing a metamagic feat). Does it make sense that attacking and then trying to defend yourself is more defensive that completly focusing on blocking blows?
Knightblde 08-10-07, 09:53 PM	It makes sense that someone trained can attack and block better than just anyone can block. Part of attacking can be the block an vice versa. You are correct in your mechanic. You can also stack CE and Fighting Defensivly. I think the feat is just called, Improved Combat Expertise but I am not sure of the source.
JulesCARV 08-10-07, 10:00 PM	Right. In truth, with combat expertise, total defense becomes obsolete at BAB +2, with fighting defensively combines with combat expertise to be equivalent to total defense. The only reasons to use total defense are: 1) You don't have combat expertise, which most characters don't (even if a sizable minority do). 2) You don't want to attack the target. Even here, you could take another -4 to attack to deal nonlethal damage (if you're fighting defensively, attempting to deal nonlethal damage, and using full combat expertise, that's -8 to hit before factoring in strength modifier, enhancement bonuses, etc), but if for some reason you don't even want to risk dealing nonlethal damage on a natural 20, then total defense is the only way.
rone_leah 08-10-07, 10:46 PM	Right. In truth, with combat expertise, total defense becomes obsolete at BAB +2, with fighting defensively combines with combat expertise to be equivalent to total defense. True except if you have 5 ranks in tumble and get the +6 bonus to ac. And Improved expertise is in Complete Warrior.
Dazzer 08-10-07, 11:02 PM	To use combat expertise you first must use the Attack Action. The same goes for Fighting Defensively. An Attack action is either one swing of a sword, or one of many swings if you have multiple attacks. If you do not do this, it is a standard action. !
TorgSmackie 08-10-07, 11:05 PM	The only reasons to use total defense are: 1) You don't have combat expertise, which most characters don't (even if a sizable minority do). 2) You don't want to attack the target. You forgot 3) You're not in melee yet. You need to be able to attack something to use Combat Expertise or fighting defensively.
StevenO 08-10-07, 11:23 PM	Improved Combat Expertise just removes the +5 cap from the normal Combat Expertise. Unless it has outrageous (ie only a high level fighter can manage the feats to qualify) prereqs a feat granting +2 AC for each -1 attack would be too good. At least in my opinion.
EjoThims 08-11-07, 04:47 PM	You can always make an attack to activate Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively. You don't need a target. An attack is an attack, even if it never hits anything. If you really wanted to justify it, just say you're 'constantly testing the air for invisible attackers.'
EjoThims 08-11-07, 05:06 PM	Another favorite is attacking the ground every round. Just use an unarmed attack with your feet. ;) Slower going since you can't double move or run, but being so defensive all the time'll do that to ya.
TorgSmackie 08-11-07, 05:32 PM	If you really wanted to justify it, just say you're 'constantly testing the air for invisible attackers.' I wouldn't allow that if I were DMing, and I can't recall ever meeting a DM that would.
kalstrand 08-12-07, 02:37 PM	If you are going to waste your time attacking the air just to get an Ac bonus why not instead get out of the combat area or if the problem is ranged attackers find some cover.
EjoThims 08-12-07, 04:11 PM	If you are going to waste your time attacking the air just to get an Ac bonus why not instead get out of the combat area or if the problem is ranged attackers find some cover. The point is that some are paranoid enough to want that AC bonus constantly... And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to waste a standard action to get it.
TorgSmackie 08-12-07, 04:42 PM	And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to waste a standard action to get it. Because you cannot attack the air (elemental notwithsanding). The probing for invisible attackers thing doesn't work because you don't get dodge bonuses versus invisible attackers anyway.
kalstrand 08-12-07, 08:55 PM	But why waste actions to attack the air. They could use those standard actions to move far enough from the combat area that their AC is irrelevant because they are not being attacked. Doing that also has the benefit that the attacker could just beat the increased AC provided by CE.
EjoThims 08-12-07, 09:41 PM	Because you cannot attack the air (elemental notwithsanding). The probing for invisible attackers thing doesn't work because you don't get dodge bonuses versus invisible attackers anyway. You can indeed simply attack the air.. Attempting to attack an invisble opponent and attacking a square that is not occupied by one is allowed when you are being threatened by one. Why should it not be if you only suspect that you are?
JadeSpider9643 08-13-07, 07:16 AM	Attacking the air while searching for invisible enemies is perfectly reasonable. Attacking the air to get CE AC bonuses....(if I'm the DM) leaves you flat footed aganist any non-invisible attackers. Get your character's mind in the here-and-now and out of his day-dreams, or something is gonna kill him good. If your gonna make legitimate attacks aganist the air, you'll have to focus your attention there, and if there's no legitimate reason to expect invisible attackers, then the character obviously isn't paying any attention to his surroundings. SNEAK ATTACK!
Mr_Teapot 08-13-07, 11:01 AM	Does it make sense that attacking and then trying to defend yourself is more defensive that completly focusing on blocking blows? It makes plenty of sense that someone who spent a feat on defending themselves will be better at it than someone who didn't. Look at it like this: Total Defense is one of many nonstandard actions anyone can take in combat (like tripping, sundering, bull rushing, etc.). Now, generally these maneuvers have an associated feat that makes the character better at it (e.g., Improved Trip). The standard for the rules is for this other feat to remove any asociated AoO and/or to give a bonus to the maneuver (typically +4). Neither of those can apply to Total Defense, since you don't have any attacks, it doesn't provoke any AoOs and giving a +4 to AC on top of Total Defense's existing bonus would be crazy. So instead you get a separate feat that totally replaces Total Defense, and makes you better at it by giving you a chance to attack, and a better AC (possibly). Think of Combat Expertise as "Improved Total Defense" and "Improved Fighting Defensively" rolled into one.
EjoThims 08-13-07, 01:52 PM	If your gonna make legitimate attacks aganist the air So you rule that everyoen is flat footed against all opponents but their target when using CE? That's pretty harsh. Of course if you don't, then you're being inconsistent and a bit of a hypocrit.
Knightblde 08-13-07, 04:07 PM	Our group plays that you can use CE/FD as long as you can attack, and take up a standard/full action to do so. It makes no sense, in a lot of ways, I know. It also makes no sense that I can get the bonus against 7 attackers while I am only attacking 1. This shows me that the important part is taking up my time, not me attacking someone. If it was a bonus ONLY on the one or even many people that I attacked that round, then I would rule it differently. I find it odd that RAW it works for senario 1, but not 2 1. You move to attack an enemy, using CE and kill him, a second enemy comes and attacks you at your higher AC. 2. You disengage the above enemy without attacking, move 20 feet to postion yourself in a hall so he cannot pass you. He moves to attack you, you no longer gain the bonus. The way we play, you can spend you standard action in 2 to set yourself up to defend. I don't think this is to much to ask.
EjoThims 08-13-07, 04:26 PM	I find it odd that RAW it works for senario 1, but not 2 Actully, 2 does work by RAW. By RAW all you have to do is attack. You don't have to have an opponent or be succesful, you just have to attack. The wall, the ground, the air, your own face, anything as long as you make an attack.