Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hapycamper 07-16-07, 04:43 PM	Just checking a few things here. I think the rules are fairly clear but I wanted to confirm the following: 1) It only applies (works) when you make a melee attack, and then it lasts (the AC bonus) until your next turn. 2) The AC bonus is not exclusive to one situation, but is good for anything that requires your AC (ranged attacks, etc...) 3) You can't use it when doing attack-like things that aren't actually melee attacks. (ie. you can't use combat expertise when you do a feint action...)
Pentar 07-16-07, 04:49 PM	Just checking a few things here. I think the rules are fairly clear but I wanted to confirm the following: 1) It only applies (works) when you make a melee attack, and then it lasts (the AC bonus) until your next turn. Yes. As an added note, it lasts until the beginning of your next action... So when your next action begins, the dodge benefit goes away (unless you use Combat Expertise again). 2) The AC bonus is not exclusive to one situation, but is good for anything that requires your AC (ranged attacks, etc...) Yes. However, anything that normally takes away your Dodge bonus to AC (i.e. being flat-footed, or held or prone) will also remove the bonus granted by Combat Expertise. 3) You can't use it when doing attack-like things that aren't actually melee attacks. (ie. you can't use combat expertise when you do a feint action...) Correct. You may only use Combat Expertise on an Attack or Full Attack action. Note, attack actions include Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc... But not Feint (which is a skill check).
Nom 07-16-07, 07:51 PM	Note, attack actions include Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc... But not Feint (which is a skill check).It would be more correct to say that Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc are usually triggered with attack actions. There are attacks that aren't attack actions, such as the attack at the end of charge, an AoO, or the free touch or ranged touch attack included with casting many spells. You can't initiate CE in any of these cases, although if you had already initiated it earlier in the turn its benefit would still apply. This would be possible only for AoOs, quickened spells, or if you somehow got an extra standard action.
Inigo Carmine 07-16-07, 08:17 PM	One small nitpick: anything that normally takes away your Dodge bonus to AC (i.e. being flat-footed, or held or prone) will also remove the bonus granted by Combat Expertise. The rule is whenever you are denied your dex bonus to AC, you are also denied any dodge bonuses to AC (of which the AC bonus granted by combat expertise is). Being flat footed doesn't always deny your dex bonus to AC. Uncanny dodge grants rogues this ability, the class that is probably most likely to take this feat after the fighter.
Centauri 07-16-07, 08:30 PM	Being prone does not deny one the use of one's Dexterity bonus.
NeueRegel 07-16-07, 08:49 PM	It would be more correct to say that Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc are usually triggered with attack actions. There are attacks that aren't attack actions, such as the attack at the end of charge, an AoO, or the free touch or ranged touch attack included with casting many spells. You can't initiate CE in any of these cases, although if you had already initiated it earlier in the turn its benefit would still apply. This would be possible only for AoOs, quickened spells, or if you somehow got an extra standard action. I'm not arguing this point; I've never even seen it attempted, much less thought about it any. But, why not? If one can power attack at the end of a charge, why cannot one envoke CE at the attack at the end of a charge? Everybody is always comparing the two feats, for the similar mechanics that you are taking your bab and putting it elsewhere. Like I said, I'm not disputing it, just wondering exactly how you came to this conclusion. Is it some wording of "attack action" or "charge attack" that precludes the other? Or something to do with your penalty to AC on a charge? Just curious. Neue
Bauglir 07-16-07, 10:59 PM	The feat says you have to take an attack action or a full attack action, which a charge isn't. A charge is merely a charge, not a charge attack. That it includes an attack roll is, apparently, a coincidence. The other actions can be done, I suppose, because they can be substituted for normal attacks, while a charge can't. This makes for funny situations where a character whose primary concern is AC has a higher AC when Fighting Defensively rather than using a Full Defensive Action, since you can still apply Combat Expertise (it is an attack, and the feat merely implies, rather weakly, that you cannot do this; it does not state it). It seems like a reasonable houserule that you can apply Combat Expertise on a charge, though. I can picture somebody rushing up to me while still wielding their weapon with the skill required to fend off any blows I might try to make.
Pentar 07-16-07, 11:08 PM	One small nitpick: The rule is whenever you are denied your dex bonus to AC, you are also denied any dodge bonuses to AC (of which the AC bonus granted by combat expertise is). Being flat footed doesn't always deny your dex bonus to AC. Uncanny dodge grants rogues this ability, the class that is probably most likely to take this feat after the fighter. True - forgot about Uncanny Dodge :) Being prone does not deny one the use of one's Dexterity bonus. Whoops! :embarrass My bad... Meant Helpless :) Like I said, I'm not disputing it, just wondering exactly how you came to this conclusion. Is it some wording of "attack action" or "charge attack" that precludes the other? Or something to do with your penalty to AC on a charge? Just reinforcing what Bauglir said already; Charge is a special full-round action that is neither an attack action, nor a full-attack action, so CE doesn't apply to it. Even as a house rule, I wouldn't allow this type of action, simply because it's against the theme and flavour (I feel), of a charge. People would start using CE + Charge to simply close on a target without suffering the AC penalty... In fact, they could get a bonus AC if they sacrifice enough attack bonus! So it basically lets them "defensively close" into their opponent at double-speed. Sort of cheesy if you ask me.
Nathreet 07-16-07, 11:20 PM	Uncanny dodge grants rogues this ability, the class that is probably most likely to take this feat after the fighter. I hope not. I ran some numbers a while back and combat expertise is by far best for characters with a high AC and high AB. It takes that advantage and magnifies it greatly. If you have a low AC and low AB (compared to your enemy), it takes that disadvantage and magnifies it. I wouldn't take it as a rogue unless I simply wanted to stay alive in combat even without hurting anything. IMO C.E. is one of the best feats for a front line fighter. Perhaps not for a tank, though, unless he can stop enemies from running past him.
Centauri 07-16-07, 11:53 PM	Perhaps not for a tank, though, unless he can stop enemies from running past him. Say, with Improved Trip?
WolfHati 07-17-07, 12:54 AM	Just reinforcing what Bauglir said already; Charge is a special full-round action that is neither an attack action, nor a full-attack action, so CE doesn't apply to it. But the attack you get at the end of it is most certainly an attack action. Be kinda stupid to charge if you didn't get to attack.
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 02:24 AM	Everything I've seen thus far indeed seems to be a "boardrule" (Yes, I just made up the word, as likened to "houserule".) I've yet to see any definitive proof that it's core rules. Or even quoted from some "Rules of the Game" article or faq or anything else. I've read over all of the relevant passages. The charge rule, the movement rule, the attack rule, the full attack rule, the full round action rule. The standard action attack. The feat itself, inclusive. I see nothing that says or implies that any or the other are mutually exclusive. I'm still only playing the devil's advocate here, since I don't care, none of my players would either. You charge for the +2 bonus to hit, knowing you are giving up AC for that chance, because you think you need it. That's the point, aside from the mounted lance triple, of course. But I still don't see proof of why you can't do it all, at a silly mess of plusses and minuses, if you wanted to. I guess I'll have to wait for mvincent, tarkin, or nobodyremembersthis to notice this thread, to write the "proof". Neue
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 02:34 AM	You know what? What if one were to look at this from the other side? If you have indeed spent the feat for "expertise in combat"... What if that means you can choose to "keep your +2 to hit and your -2 to AC at what would be "normal" (+0/+0) during a charge, because you are so level headed? And perforce, adjust it by 5 either way, just like normal, but during a double move? It cost you a feat, afterall, to choose how it goes, instead of the "barbarian" like ability of a "rage" (a "wild charge) to decide just how much finesse and expertise you have of yourself and the control of the fight, right? Just the other side of the coin... Neue
DinwathSereglin 07-17-07, 02:35 AM	People would start using CE + Charge to simply close on a target without suffering the AC penalty... In fact, they could get a bonus AC if they sacrifice enough attack bonus! So it basically lets them "defensively close" into their opponent at double-speed. Sort of cheesy if you ask me. Mobility grants you a +4 against AoO. You could use normal moves to get in close without taking an AC penalty for a charge. Or just make a new feat that would allow you to use CE during a charge, with Mobility and a +6 AB as prerequisites.
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 02:40 AM	Everybody keeps using "AB". What the heck is "AB"?
Nom 07-17-07, 02:47 AM	But the attack you get at the end of it is most certainly an attack action. Be kinda stupid to charge if you didn't get to attack.No, it's an attack, not an attack action. You can charge and grapple, trip or disarm, because these all substitute for attacks (which is also why you can do them on AoOs). You can charge and bull rush, because it specifically says "you can bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge"; notice the explicit distinction between the attack action and charge action. You can't charge and CE because CE modifies an attack or full attack action, not merely an attack. Similarly you can't fight defensively while charging because FD modifies the attack or full attack action, not any attack. This applies to AoOs, touch attacks from spells, and anything else that grants an attack as part of another action that is not itself an attack (or ful attack) action. For Spring Attack you're good, because it still (explicitly) uses the attack action. It merely modifies how the attack and move actions interact with each other and opponents. Similarly, you can CE with whirlwhind, because it explicitly uses the full attack action (albeit completely reconfiguring it). For completion, I note that you can Fight Defensively when using Rapid Shot, because RS augments a full attack action. You can't Fight Defensively when using Multishot, because multishot is its own standard action (ie not "attack"). Whether you can CE while Rapid Shotting depends on whether you consider 'in melee' to be 'using a melee attack/full attack action' or 'threatened by an adjacent opponent' (as per 'shooting into melee').
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 02:58 AM	Nom, whilst you still failed to quote the SRD so we could see exactly where it says all the sentences you typed, I trust you typed them verbatim, and you are definitely winning the debate. (Not all of us have it so memorized that we can go look to see where you mean). I'm satisfied enough. I mean, I really am satisfied, for all of my trying to see which way it could be "played". I still have just a seed of doubt, since I can't see a ruling yet, just a common interpretation, but that's good enough for me. It's very unlikely that this will ever ever ever even come up in a game of mine. We are the total under-optimization players of all time. *wink* Neue
Leilond 07-17-07, 03:38 AM	No, it's an attack, not an attack action. You can charge and grapple, trip or disarm, because these all substitute for attacks (which is also why you can do them on AoOs). You can charge and bull rush, because it specifically says "you can bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge"; notice the explicit distinction between the attack action and charge action. You can't charge and CE because CE modifies an attack or full attack action, not merely an attack. Are you saying that I cannot disarm, trip (etc) at the end of a charge?
WolfHati 07-17-07, 04:34 AM	Now that I look over it a very strict reading of the rules indicates that you cannot in fact use combat expertise on anything other than a full attack action. However, the strict definition of the rules also means you cannot talk (a free action) while using combat expertise or else it ends the effect (which lasts until your next action). Furthermore, as written, it promotes tactics like moving forward and attacking the ground to gain the combat expertise bonus. This, is quite frankly, totally silly, especially when the power attack feat offers a similar mechanic with a much much simpler method of resolution. Therefore regardless of what the rules technically say, it seems most reasonable to act like the behave in a similar way to power attack.
Nom 07-17-07, 06:43 AM	Are you saying that I cannot disarm, trip (etc) at the end of a charge?Of course not. Charge grants an "attack", and each of these can substitute for an attack. Normally, bull rush is a separate standard action (and thus ineligible), but there is a special exception allowing it to be used with a charge. However, the strict definition of the rules also means you cannot talk (a free action) while using combat expertise or else it ends the effect (which lasts until your next action).There's a well-known flaw in the rules where the rules use "action" as a synonym for "turn". It occurs in the delay / ready rules, in CE, and in a few other places. However, if we are going to argue that because there are errors in the rulebook we can can't assume that any rule means what it says then we may as well just throw the whole rulebook away. The fact is that the rules are picky about such terms (when they get it right). Witness the FAQ answers about Many Shot and Rapid Shot. Furthermore, as written, it promotes tactics like moving forward and attacking the ground to gain the combat expertise bonus.As I noted, it depends what "in melee" means. I use the fairly common interpretation that it means "using a melee attack or full attack action". Nothing actually requires you to attack when using an attack action; you just have to spend an action to gain the right to do so. Thus, yes, you could spend a standard action to use CE even if no foes were about. If you want to use the definition from "shooting into melee" then you'd need to convince your DM that the ground counts as "an opponent". If your DM is patient enough to put up with such silliness, good for you. Now, there obviously are flaws in the CE rules (ie "in melee" ambiguity, "next action"). However, unless you have evidence that the rules don't mean "attack action or full attack action" when that's what they plainly say, we have little option but to accept it as far as understanding the actual rules. "Evidence" would be a pattern of using "attack action" to mean "attack", a designers note, or some examples from WotC rulebooks or official commentary which plainly break the rule.
Leilond 07-17-07, 06:49 AM	ROTG helped us on that Every time, during your turn, you have to make an "attack roll" you can claim the Combat Expertise use if you declare it before starting to roll any hit roll. The article SUGGEST to use the "waste a standard action" to claim for the Combat expertise use. It's not "official", but no one can forbit you to roll to hit the ground; ground has his AC and thus you can hit or miss
Pentar 07-17-07, 12:11 PM	If you want to use the definition from "shooting into melee" then you'd need to convince your DM that the ground counts as "an opponent". If your DM is patient enough to put up with such silliness, good for you. I recall discussing this with someone else a while back, where the use of Combat Expertise would allow someone to identify if they were threatening an invisible foe, or by allowing a caster to gain a big benefit to AC each round by fighting defensively while casting spells. We went into a big circular discussion about it, because then we had the problem of allowing someone to use CE against illusions, or mirror images, or something... Anyway, it was a big mess. There are obviously a lot of potential abuses. I can't see any reason why someone couldn't say, "I attack the ground with Combat Expertise" to gain a benefit to AC... I think the DM would have been incredibly silly to allow such an obvious exploitation of the rules. I don't believe RAI ever intended for you to gain an AC benefit off of fighting non-threatening objects (like the ground, or say... an ottoman).
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 02:57 PM	It's exactly that line of thinking that allowed them to come along and establish the Ottoman Empire!
malignor 07-17-07, 04:22 PM	So, I guess to even learn or practice combat expertise you need a partner to attack? Can't use it on targets, wooden dummies, etc. etc. I mean, combat expertise lets you defend (AC boost) against even archers or rays. So to practice blocking arrows via CmbExp you need - a person to try and hit - an archer to shoot non-damaging arrows at you Sounds like something a Martian Arts master would invent. Yes, I said Martian arts, as in wayyyyyy out there. How unbalancing is it to allow use of CExp without a melee opponent to attack? By the rules, you can attack the ground, or some square within reach ("I attack the imaginary invisible turtle in the square above me"). By the rules. If the DM's gonna override the rules, it should be for sensible reasons. Not Martian Arts.
Pentar 07-17-07, 04:52 PM	So, I guess to even learn or practice combat expertise you need a partner to attack? Can't use it on targets, wooden dummies, etc. etc. Yes. You're sacrificing attack to gain defense. I submit to you then that you need to spar and practice with something capable of attacking you in order to learn how to deliver and attack while simultaneously defending yourself against one.
malignor 07-17-07, 05:31 PM	I've trained in 3 martial arts over 12 years. The only thing that requires a partner to learn would qualify as grappling in D20. Anything involving strikes doesn't need a living partner. What if you're facing an invisible opponent in melee, and end up attacking the wrong square? Does CExp apply then? If not, what about missing a displacer beast or not hitting an incorporeal opponent? See where this is going?I submit to you then that you need to spar and practice with something capable of attacking you in order to learn how to deliver and attack while simultaneously defending yourself against one.You have it wrong. You're proposing that you need to practice and spar with an attacker in order to learn to deliver an attack while simultaneously defending yourself against ALL forms of direct attacks from ALL directions and from ALL distances at the same time. So I need to attack Fred to better defend myself against Joe the sniper, or the spear trap?
Hapycamper 07-17-07, 06:11 PM	Now that I look over it a very strict reading of the rules indicates that you cannot in fact use combat expertise on anything other than a full attack action. However, the strict definition of the rules also means you cannot talk (a free action) while using combat expertise or else it ends the effect (which lasts until your next action). Furthermore, as written, it promotes tactics like moving forward and attacking the ground to gain the combat expertise bonus. This, is quite frankly, totally silly, especially when the power attack feat offers a similar mechanic with a much much simpler method of resolution. Therefore regardless of what the rules technically say, it seems most reasonable to act like the behave in a similar way to power attack. That's not what it looks like in the SRD: 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. That's pretty clear that you don't need a full attack action, you can just use a standard attack action and still use combat expertise.
zelf_gale 07-17-07, 06:11 PM	I have a character whose opening actions are almost always, name my Dodge target, move action to draw my weapon, standard action to Fight defensively and use Combat expertise.
NeueRegel 07-17-07, 07:42 PM	I know I've seen this thread here, many years ago, but I thought that fighting defensively and combat expertise were mutually exclusive, in that the feat supercedes the norm. Neue
Irving 07-17-07, 07:47 PM	I've seen the use of Combat Expertise referred to as a "standard action", as opposed to simply an attack action. This eliminates the use of combat expertise in a full attack, which isn't great, but does eliminate an important exploit. If you're hasted or otherwise have a bonus attack action, you could apply Combat Expertise on the last attack action and gain all the benefits of Expertise with none of the disadvantages. I'm not positive this is broken, but it does bear examination. It might be worthwhile to say that Combat Expertise can be used as a standard or full attack option if you feel this is abusive.
Nom 07-17-07, 10:19 PM	If you're hasted or otherwise have a bonus attack action, you could apply Combat Expertise on the last attack action and gain all the benefits of Expertise with none of the disadvantages. I'm not positive this is broken, but it does bear examination.Can you find something in the 3.5 rules that gives you a bonus attack action, as opposed to a bonus attack? Haste quite explicitly does not (3.0 did), nor do most similar effects. The following come to mind: * shapechange into choker. Though if all you do with your bonus standard action is use CE then you really are a wally. * There's a cleric spell in PH2 that grants an extra standard action but dazes you for a round. If you think getting CE and then being dazed and losing an action is worth it, go for it. If you just get your terminology correct, there is no CE exploit.
Pentar 07-18-07, 01:29 AM	I've trained in 3 martial arts over 12 years. The only thing that requires a partner to learn would qualify as grappling in D20. Anything involving strikes doesn't need a living partner. And I've wrestled an elephant to the ground with nothing but my left hand and a mildly salted pretzel. Your point is...? People learn in different ways. Stating that you've learned how to strike and defend while fighting a ferocious wooden target dummy doesn't necessarily mean all people successfully learn from the same. Your life experiences, interesting though they may be, are irrelevant to the discussion of rules regarding abstract combat. What if you're facing an invisible opponent in melee, and end up attacking the wrong square? Does CExp apply then? If not, what about missing a displacer beast or not hitting an incorporeal opponent? See where this is going?You have it wrong. You're proposing that you need to practice and spar with an attacker in order to learn to deliver an attack while simultaneously defending yourself against ALL forms of direct attacks from ALL directions and from ALL distances at the same time. Perhaps you're late to this conversation or you just haven't been thorough in your reading. I said that I had had this discussion a while back and it ended being somewhat circuitous. We did conclude that you could use CE to attack chairs, tables, lamp-posts and mayflies in order to get the bonus. But I said that as a DM I would not allow it because I felt it was an exploitation of the rules, and I still feel that way. The number of martial arts you have trained in over however many decades with however many grandmasters of Northern Fist Wushu is irrelevant to this conversation, because real life does not apply to D&D. Welcome to a game of abstract combat.
Irving 07-18-07, 01:34 PM	Can you find something in the 3.5 rules that gives you a bonus attack action, as opposed to a bonus attack? Haste quite explicitly does not (3.0 did), nor do most similar effects... ...If you just get your terminology correct, there is no CE exploit. Oh, my. You're right. But unfortunately, the third-party setting I'm in didn't get the terminology right. Here's the ability I'm using: Burst of Speed: The quickened can activate a burst of speed as a free action the listed number of times per day. While using burst of speed, the quickened may make one extra attack or move action each round; either before or after his regular actions. He may move his base speed before or after making a full attack, superseding the normal rule that a character cannot move farther than 5 feet in the same round he performs a full-round action. A burst of speed last for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the quickened's Con modifier. At the end of this period, the character is considered fatigued for the duration of the encounter (-2 penalty to Str and Dex, cannot run or charge). ...which seems to make this exploit legal. Here's abig question: Even though this exploit may be legal under the rules I'm playing in... is it ethical for me to use it?
malignor 07-18-07, 01:41 PM	Deleted, as the issue was already addressed
mrpopstar 07-31-07, 03:56 PM	This is a very interesting discussion. I've never found COMBAT EXPERTISE to be so ambiguous. As has been stated by Hapycamper, COMBAT EXPERTISE reads as such in the SRD:COMBAT EXPERTISEBenefit: 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.The SRD glossary defines 'Melee'.MeleeMelee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat.I find it difficult to see how one might garner the benefit from COMBAT EXPERTISE by attacking an inanimate object (the ground, chairs, lamps, a fly, an ottoman, etc.), considering the inanimate object is incapable of threatening a character's space and/or exchanging blows (thusly incapable of being in Melee; as per RAW).
Sigfried Trent 07-31-07, 04:43 PM	I let people use CE when not engaged so long as they take a standard action (much like the full defense rules) which substitutes for their attack. Conceptuaily to me CE involves some extra parying and dodging from what you might normaly do. Basicaly the same as fighting defensively. It takes a certain ammount of your time to accomplish this even if you arn't activley attacking anyone. Rules wise I see it like this. If I can swing at invisible targets that may or not be there, I would be able to use CE even if ther happened not to be a valid target in the square I am attacking. I suppose you can argue that doesn't work, but to me it makes no sense. Wheter or not there is an invisible target means little to how I attempty to attack them or what kind of combat stance I am taking. To me what matters here is that you can't be doing something that is essentialy not fighting while using CE. But if you are just sitting there guarding yourself, that should be fine so long as it costs you some effort.
mrpopstar 07-31-07, 05:35 PM	Having taken COMBAT EXPERTISE is indicative of having expertise in combat. By engaging in combat you become present to the situation; alert and active. Your expertise affords you a more knowledgable/tactical presence.* If you are not engaged in combat, you are denied such presence. Thusly you are simply Fighting Defensively, or taking Full Defense. :) * This insight is fleeting as the combat, along with its implications, is quickly and constantly changing. Understandably the benefit of the feat only lasts until your next action.
Pentar 07-31-07, 05:44 PM	Having taken COMBAT EXPERTISE is indicative of having expertise in combat. By engaging in combat you become present to the situation; alert and active. Your expertise affords you a more knowledgable/tactical presence.* If you are not engaged in combat, you are denied such presence. Thusly you are simply Fighting Defensively, or taking Full Defense. :) * This insight is fleeting as the combat, along with its implications, is quickly and constantly changing. Understandably the benefit of the feat only lasts until your next action. The problem, as others have noted, with this interpretation is that you can now use CE as a form of "Invisibility detector". While it's not really a big deal, it is sort of stupid. Basically, you're saying that unless you're engaged in melee combat, you cannot use CE to gain the benefits of AC. I agree with you, for the most part. But what if someone declares he is using CE to check to see if he is in melee combat with someone. Remember, he could be in melee range with an Invisible/hidden opponent and be unaware of it. So if he gains the CE benefit, then he knows there is someone invisible within melee range of him. If he does not, then he knows there is no one invisible. It's really stupid, I know. But that's how you have to consider these things sometimes. I'd make it a case-by-case basis. Someone blatantly trying to exploit the rules by 'attacking a chair' to get the AC benefit - no can do. But someone who is aware that there is an invisible attacker near them and wants to better protect themselves, I would allow it (although I think the point is moot, because don't you lose your DEX benefit to AC when being struck by an invisible attacker anyway?)
Hapycamper 07-31-07, 07:23 PM	The problem, as others have noted, with this interpretation is that you can now use CE as a form of "Invisibility detector". While it's not really a big deal, it is sort of stupid. Basically, you're saying that unless you're engaged in melee combat, you cannot use CE to gain the benefits of AC. I agree with you, for the most part. But what if someone declares he is using CE to check to see if he is in melee combat with someone. Remember, he could be in melee range with an Invisible/hidden opponent and be unaware of it. So if he gains the CE benefit, then he knows there is someone invisible within melee range of him. If he does not, then he knows there is no one invisible. The simple solution is to let players attempt to use CE whenever they want. As the DM is the one to declare if a player hits something and if the player is hit by someone, the DM can let the CE kick in when appropriate and ignore it when not. In this case I suppose the DM would also have to rule whether the to-hit penalty kicks in, even if the AC bonus doesn't. I'd lean towards the harsh side and declare the character loses the attack bonus but fails to gain the AC bonus... but I'm just harsh that way. Now, this doesn't cover the situation where a PC is trying to use CE against another invisible PC, but really how often is that going to happen? (and that sounds like a good time to "wing it" as a DM)
malignor 07-31-07, 07:45 PM	I love the absurd scenarios this ruling creates. # # # # # # # PC1: *jumps back from room* Whew! There's no way to get through that room full of scorching ray traps. They're just too accurate! PC2: Yes there is. *draws sap* PC1: Oh yeah! *draws sap* PC1 closes his eyes and spars with PC2, fighting defensively against with full CE on. He gets +8 to touch AC (tumble 5 ranks, CE), -9 to hit and 50% miss chance with his sap against PC2, effectively never hitting him. PC2 does the same. They take turns closing their eyes, attacking, opening eyes, and moving. Round by round, they evade the scorching rays. # # # # # # # PC1: Egads! Archers! And alot of em. DM: Something swings at you and hits. Free spot check. PC1: 27. DM: There's an invisible opponent somewhere around here. PC1: Nice! Full CE and fighting defensively until the archers stop firing! I roll a 7. Do I miss? DM: Yes. :( PC1: Yay! Another round of high AC. Arch away, losers!
mrpopstar 08-01-07, 12:11 AM	Pentar: But what if someone declares he is using CE to check to see if he is in melee combat with someone. Remember, he could be in melee range with an Invisible/hidden opponent and be unaware of it. So if he gains the CE benefit, then he knows there is someone invisible within melee range of him. If he does not, then he knows there is no one invisible. It's really stupid, I know. But that's how you have to consider these things sometimes.It seems counterintuitive to let someone "check to see if he is in melee combat with someone". The RAW does not support such an action. If initiative has not been rolled then you are not in melee with an invisible attacker. If initiative has been rolled then you are in melee with an invisible attacker and the benefit of COMBAT EXPERTISE may be freely enjoyed. :) I'd make it a case-by-case basis. Someone blatantly trying to exploit the rules by 'attacking a chair' to get the AC benefit - no can do. But someone who is aware that there is an invisible attacker near them and wants to better protect themselves, I would allow it (although I think the point is moot, because don't you lose your DEX benefit to AC when being struck by an invisible attacker anyway?)You do in fact lose your DEX modifier to AC when being struck by an invisible attacker. :)
zorgling25 08-01-07, 12:21 AM	I think its worth noting that the text of Combat Expertise says you can use it when you take THE attack action or THE full-attack action. It doesn't use the word "a". This means that it can only be used with the actions called "attack" and "full-attack". Since charging is not one of these, you can't use Combat Expertise with a charge.
zorgling25 08-01-07, 12:23 AM	But what if someone declares he is using CE to check to see if he is in melee combat with someone. Remember, he could be in melee range with an Invisible/hidden opponent and be unaware of it. So if he gains the CE benefit, then he knows there is someone invisible within melee range of him. If he does not, then he knows there is no one invisible. The easy way is for the DM to hide whether he got the benefit or not. Just as the DM can hide search rolls, so the PCs don't know that they screwed up when they roll low.
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 12:47 PM	I think its worth noting that the text of Combat Expertise says you can use it when you take THE attack action or THE full-attack action. It doesn't use the word "a". This means that it can only be used with the actions called "attack" and "full-attack". Since charging is not one of these, you can't use Combat Expertise with a charge. I think you are reading a lot more into "the" than is appropriate.
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 12:53 PM	[indent]Having taken COMBAT EXPERTISE is indicative of having expertise in combat. By engaging in combat you become present to the situation; alert and active. Your expertise affords you a more knowledgable/tactical presence.* If you are not engaged in combat, you are denied such presence. Thusly you are simply Fighting Defensively, or taking Full Defense. :) Unfortunately the mechanics don't really support this conjecture very well. CE works when you make melee attacks, and it works for the entire round. It works agaisnt anyone attacking you whether they are melee ranged or what have you. If you attack and then move... CE applies while you are moving around not just while attacking. So CE could easily let you engage, then run away and get the benefit while not engaged in melee any longer. And you can get it agaisnt an opponent you weren't previously aware of etc... The only concept that makes sense here is that CE is a "stance" you take which involves using a melee weapon to block and increase your defenses. This fits in well with the dodge bonus it applies. It is reactive, because you can apply it to anny opponent you can see or are aware of not just the one you happen to be attacking. All this points at a manuever that could easily be applied while not actualy striking someone but where you must put a certain amount of effort into it. the rules don't support that, I agree. The rules for it are fairly clear, just somewhat non-sensical. Rules wise CE would have made more sense as a modification of the Fighting Defensively / Full defense rules since it seems so similar in function and effect.
mrpopstar 08-01-07, 01:45 PM	Sigfried Trent: Unfortunately the mechanics don't really support this conjecture very well. CE works when you make melee attacks, and it works for the entire round. It works agaisnt anyone attacking you whether they are melee ranged or what have you. If you attack and then move... CE applies while you are moving around not just while attacking. So CE could easily let you engage, then run away and get the benefit while not engaged in melee any longer. And you can get it agaisnt an opponent you weren't previously aware of etc...In what way do the mechanics fail to support my conjecture?"Having taken COMBAT EXPERTISE is indicative of having expertise in combat. By engaging in combat you become present to the situation; alert and active. Your expertise affords you a more knowledgable/tactical presence. If you are not engaged in combat, you are denied such presence. Thusly you are simply Fighting Defensively, or taking Full Defense."I never made a statement in regard to the duration of the effect. You engage in melee, you gain benefit of the feat. Considering the implications of time within a round, it seems obvious that an attack and then move assumes you still engaged since your movement is not completed instantaneously (it takes place during the course of the round). In regard to awareness, COMBAT EXPERTISE is applicable given that you fulfilled the stipulations in order to gain the benefit. I did not contest this. If an attacker you were previously unaware of makes an attack against you, following your fulfillment of COMBAT EXPERTISE's criteria, you enjoy the benefit. I only made the statement that you could not be in melee, exchange physical blows with an opponent, sans awareness of your opponent. :) The only concept that makes sense here is that CE is a "stance" you take which involves using a melee weapon to block and increase your defenses. This fits in well with the dodge bonus it applies. It is reactive, because you can apply it to anny opponent you can see or are aware of not just the one you happen to be attacking. All this points at a manuever that could easily be applied while not actualy striking someone but where you must put a certain amount of effort into it. the rules don't support that, I agree. The rules for it are fairly clear, just somewhat non-sensical.The rules make perfect sense for COMBAT EXPERTISE as is. The adjudication becomes non-sensical when you try to do non-sensical things, such as discern whether or not you are embroiled in melee with an invisible attacker. The benefit gained from COMBAT EXPERTISE is moot when facing an invisible opponent, therefore why would you sacrifice your attack effectiveness in order to gain a benefit you could not enjoy? COMBAT EXPERTISE is simply not applicable in this scenario. :) Rules wise CE would have made more sense as a modification of the Fighting Defensively / Full defense rules since it seems so similar in function and effect.I don't agree. I enjoy this feat as is. :) zorgling25: I think its worth noting that the text of Combat Expertise says you can use it when you take THE attack action or THE full-attack action. It doesn't use the word "a". This means that it can only be used with the actions called "attack" and "full-attack". Since charging is not one of these, you can't use Combat Expertise with a charge.I second this! :)
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 05:54 PM	In regard to awareness, COMBAT EXPERTISE is applicable given that you fulfilled the stipulations in order to gain the benefit. I did not contest this. If an attacker you were previously unaware of makes an attack against you, following your fulfillment of COMBAT EXPERTISE's criteria, you enjoy the benefit. I only made the statement that you could not be in melee, exchange physical blows with an opponent, sans awareness of your opponent. :) The rules make perfect sense for COMBAT EXPERTISE as is. The adjudication becomes non-sensical when you try to do non-sensical things, According to the rules... I can kill a kobold with an attack action while choosing to use combat expertice. Later that round, an orc comes from around a corner and stoots me with a crossbow and I get the dodge bonus from Combat Expertice agaisnt the crossbow shot. 1. How does the act of killing a kobold help me defend agaisnt the crossbow bolt? 2. How is it I could not do the same thing (whatever it is I'm doing that makes the crossbow less likely to hit me) without killing/attacking the kobold? I don't think both questions can be answered consistantly without just waving the rules wand and saying "because it says thats how it is". I don't complain when we play CE by the rules, but I don't think the idea of it was fully thought through. Mostly they wanted you to not do something non-combat while taking advantage of this abbility and thus cheezely casting spells with CE active etc.. (although this is possible with a quickened spell or the like).
mrpopstar 08-01-07, 07:52 PM	Sigfried Trent: According to the rules... I can kill a kobold with an attack action while choosing to use combat expertice. Later that round, an orc comes from around a corner and stoots me with a crossbow and I get the dodge bonus from Combat Expertice agaisnt the crossbow shot. Later that round does not exist within the game. The orc barreling around the corner to shoot with a crossbow takes place in the same instance as the attack, COMBAT EXPERTISE benefit, and movement of the character in question. No time has elapsed, they are actions taking place within the same six seconds. 1. How does the act of killing a kobold help me defend agaisnt the crossbow bolt? 2. How is it I could not do the same thing (whatever it is I'm doing that makes the crossbow less likely to hit me) without killing/attacking the kobold? It doesn't. Your lessened focus on offense afforded your defense a momentary loan of greater effectiveness. It would behoove you to heed your own advice. As you offered zorgling25, I believe you are seeking much too deep. COMBAT EXPERTISE is very straightforward; meet this criteria, gain this benefit. It's realistic enough to suspend disbelief. The how's and the why's do nothing but discredit your fantasy. I don't think both questions can be answered consistantly without just waving the rules wand and saying "because it says thats how it is". I don't complain when we play CE by the rules, but I don't think the idea of it was fully thought through. Mostly they wanted you to not do something non-combat while taking advantage of this abbility and thus cheezely casting spells with CE active etc.. (although this is possible with a quickened spell or the like).Considering this is a game, the 'rules wand' is the final word in all matters. I view COMBAT EXPERTISE as a 'fighter cookie'. It's an incentive type of feat. If you're acting as meatshield, and you're up in there being the meatshield, you get a cookie.* It doesn't warrant any more explanation for myself. * This is also why I believe it is a Dodge Bonus; Dodge bonuses are fighter-type friendly since they cannot be granted by spells or magic items, wearing armor is of no ill-effect, Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC (even other dodge bonuses), and Dodge bonuses even apply against touch attacks (normal weakness for armored-types).
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 09:09 PM	Nice debate btw.. :) Sigfried Trent: Later that round does not exist within the game. The orc barreling around the corner to shoot with a crossbow takes place in the same instance as the attack, COMBAT EXPERTISE benefit, and movement of the character in question. No time has elapsed, they are actions taking place within the same six seconds. That is irrational. There is a sequence of events in combat and almost all the rules support that idea. If I cast a one action spell and you "afterwards" hit me, then I don't make a concentration roll. WHy? Because I already cast it. If I cast a 1 round spell and you hit me that round... I make a concentration roll because you hit me before I finished casting. I can't attack an opponent in melee 30 away and then move up to them.. there is a sequence which is temporal. I realize D&D is not a blow by blow simulation, but that mostly just applies to the idea that one attack is not one single stab or swing. Beyond that, it is quite simulational and very sequence oriented. This happens, then that happens, it is not a single continum. What you envision would require us to all declare our actions and then play them out. But in D&D the orc gets to make his decisions AFTER I resolve my attack on the Kobold. Attacks of opportunity also directly refute this silmutaneous vision. If I kill sommeone in an AOO I do it BEFORE whatever action provoked it. It would behoove you to heed your own advice. As you offered zorgling25, I believe you are seeking much too deep. COMBAT EXPERTISE is very straightforward; meet this criteria, gain this benefit. It's realistic enough to suspend disbelief. The how's and the why's do nothing but discredit your fantasy. I make and edit feats.. lots of them. It is a process of coming up with an idea, then creating a mechanic that best represents it. Every rule in D&D has some basis in an imaginary and somewhat realistic world. Often abstracted but always seeking to represetn something as best is reasonable without over complication. I'm not arguing that the way you rule it is wrong, only that it isn't very reasonable. It serves neither a balance purpose nor a simulation purpose. It is just a rule for a rules sake. Considering this is a game, the 'rules wand' is the final word in all matters. In RPG games the GM is the final word of course. I view COMBAT EXPERTISE as a 'fighter cookie'. It's an incentive type of feat. If you're acting as meatshield, and you're up in there being the meatshield, you get a cookie.* It doesn't warrant any more explanation for myself. Except anyone can take it of course... Fighters don't simply get bonus AC becasue they are fighters. That would be a cookie. What about trying to kill one person gives you extra defense agaisnt someone else? The defense / full defense actions make logical senes. If you are fighting you can do so defensively, if you are just defening it eats up more time but works even better since you are totaly dedicated. * This is also why I believe it is a Dodge Bonus; Dodge bonuses are fighter-type friendly since they cannot be granted by spells or magic items, wearing armor is of no ill-effect, Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC (even other dodge bonuses), and Dodge bonuses even apply against touch attacks (normal weakness for armored-types). [/list] I think its a dodge bonus because everything you do while using your body and skills to avoid getting hit is a dodge bonus. It aint deflection, it isn't using a shield, it isn't insigjht, it isn't morale, etc... you are dodging (and presumably parying) but all parying simulation feats also generaly grant dodge bonuses.
mrpopstar 08-01-07, 10:27 PM	Sigfried Trent: Nice debate btw.. :D That is irrational. There is a sequence of events in combat and almost all the rules support that idea. If I cast a one action spell and you "afterwards" hit me, then I don't make a concentration roll. WHy? Because I already cast it. If I cast a 1 round spell and you hit me that round... I make a concentration roll because you hit me before I finished casting. I can't attack an opponent in melee 30 away and then move up to them.. there is a sequence which is temporal. I realize D&D is not a blow by blow simulation, but that mostly just applies to the idea that one attack is not one single stab or swing. Beyond that, it is quite simulational and very sequence oriented. This happens, then that happens, it is not a single continum. What you envision would require us to all declare our actions and then play them out. But in D&D the orc gets to make his decisions AFTER I resolve my attack on the Kobold. Attacks of opportunity also directly refute this silmutaneous vision. If I kill sommeone in an AOO I do it BEFORE whatever action provoked it.A Round is a 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. The rules for combat assist us in managing what takes place within the round. We require the specifics for adjudication, which requires sequential factoring, but the characters live within a continuum. The idea that D&D is not blow-by-blow does not only account for the visual that one attack is not one single stab or swing, it goes beyond that to account for the visual that all is taking place simultaneously. We are resolving outcome of action sequentially because that is how the game mechanic works. I make and edit feats.. lots of them. It is a process of coming up with an idea, then creating a mechanic that best represents it. Every rule in D&D has some basis in an imaginary and somewhat realistic world. Often abstracted but always seeking to represetn something as best is reasonable without over complication.D&D is often abstracted, by your own admission. Why the resistance to allowing COMBAT EXPERTISE catagorize as an abstract? COMBAT EXPERTISE reasonably represents a capability without over-complication. Adding even a single modifier would mechanically complicate it. I'm not arguing that the way you rule it is wrong, only that it isn't very reasonable. It serves neither a balance purpose nor a simulation purpose. It is just a rule for a rules sake.Combat is not simulated in D&D, it is resolved. Feats do not serve as purpose for simulation, my imagination paints the picture. Feats serve as modifiers to the mechanic in which combat is resolved. COMBAT EXPERTISE is reasonable in that it demands sacrifice for an equal gain. In RPG games the GM is the final word of course.We're not playing an RPG game, we're discussing its rules. Logic dictates that the rules would then be final. Except anyone can take it of course... Fighters don't simply get bonus AC becasue they are fighters. That would be a cookie. What about trying to kill one person gives you extra defense agaisnt someone else?I simply stated that I personally refer to COMBAT EXPERTISE as a "fighter cookie". I never stated that COMBAT EXPERTISE was only available to the fighter, nor did I infer. I was purposefully broad by stating "when acting as meatshield." Nothing about trying to kill one person gives you extra defense against someone else. COMBAT EXPERTISE gives a combat expert embroiled in melee a momentary bonus for a reciprocal cost.
zorgling25 08-01-07, 10:47 PM	I think you are reading a lot more into "the" than is appropriate. How so? Wizards has clearly used the term "attack actions" in its books before, and there are two actions known respectively as "attack" and "full attack". If you could use Combat Expertise with any other actions, then they would have said that you could use it with "attack actions", as it encompasses both attack and full attack and is more concise. The only reason they could have differentiated the two and provided the "the" would be if they were trying to make it clear that only these two actions can apply Combat Expertise. While this may not work flavor-wise in your mind, everyone has their own interpretation of flavor. As such, the ONLY point of argument that would make any headway on this forum is Rules As Written, and as written, they clearly refer to these two actions alone.
Sigfried Trent 08-02-07, 12:26 PM	Nothing about trying to kill one person gives you extra defense against someone else. COMBAT EXPERTISE gives a combat expert embroiled in melee a momentary bonus for a reciprocal cost.[/list][/indent] Let us set aside simulationism vs gamism for the moment. The "truth" lies with each player to some extetn but I would propose that most imagine a sequence and a continum when picturing a combat round. Lets look at this cost vs benefit... Case #1: I use CE while attacking an opponent. I get to make an attack against a foe and gain an AC benefit. My attack is at a penatly and thus has a greater chance of missing. Case #2: I use CE, not making a real attack, but taking a standard action to sumulate the defensive combat techniques so that my AC goes up agaisnt other opponents. I have 0 chance of hurting my opponents during my actions. I don't see how case #2 in any way puts me at an advantage over case #1?
Pentar 08-02-07, 02:22 PM	Let us set aside simulationism vs gamism for the moment. The "truth" lies with each player to some extetn but I would propose that most imagine a sequence and a continum when picturing a combat round. Lets look at this cost vs benefit... Case #1: I use CE while attacking an opponent. I get to make an attack against a foe and gain an AC benefit. My attack is at a penatly and thus has a greater chance of missing. Case #2: I use CE, not making a real attack, but taking a standard action to sumulate the defensive combat techniques so that my AC goes up agaisnt other opponents. I have 0 chance of hurting my opponents during my actions. I don't see how case #2 in any way puts me at an advantage over case #1? In terms of game balance, if a player is willing to make a "Fake" attack (that is, not attack anyone at all but just sacrificed unused attack bonus to get AC) vs. actually having a chance of hitting someone and gaining the same benefit, the two are, from a very simplistic perspective, balanced. However, what you are doing is opening the door for very cheesy moves and exploitations. For example, a character is outside of the range of combat and wants to close in. He declares the use of Combat Expertise, dumps as many attack bonus points into it as possible to gain a big dodge bonus to AC. Then he moves closer to engage the enemy next round. For this round, he's basically transferred his BAB into Dodge AC for anyone who may move to engage him, or be shooting at him. This works against all attacks - ranged, melee, touch, etc. Remember, even in the description of Fighting Defensively, it says specifically that you take a standard action when attacking, so technically you couldn't even do that move to pull this off - only with CE (as it being debated here). Now I don't know about you, but I think that's cheesy and thematically stupid. Effectively, all he's doing is moving and gaining a big AC benefit as a result of it.
Sigfried Trent 08-02-07, 02:28 PM	How so? Wizards has clearly used the term "attack actions" in its books before, and there are two actions known respectively as "attack" and "full attack". If you could use Combat Expertise with any other actions, then they would have said that you could use it with "attack actions", as it encompasses both attack and full attack and is more concise. The only reason they could have differentiated the two and provided the "the" would be if they were trying to make it clear that only these two actions can apply Combat Expertise. Ok, here we go... There is no "the attack" or "the full attack". Attack and full attack are "types of actions". They are cattegories. They do not specify what is bieng attacked, with what it is being attaked, or the result of that attack. There are types of attacks, melee attacks, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and in some cases there are sub-types of those as well. Indeed even "an attack" is a type of action. It is a standard action. A full attack is simply an option letting you take multiple attack actions. It doesn't designate what they are or how they are performed. The "the" in CE is clearly (to me) a bit of improper/imprecise wording. It is like saying "the standard action". There is no "the standard action" it encompases a great veriety of actions. There is no "the move action". And there is no "the attack action".
Sigfried Trent 08-02-07, 02:39 PM	For this round, he's basically transferred his BAB into Dodge AC for anyone who may move to engage him, or be shooting at him. This works against all attacks - ranged, melee, touch, etc. Remember, even in the description of Fighting Defensively, it says specifically that you take a standard action when attacking, so technically you couldn't even do that move to pull this off - only with CE (as it being debated here). Now I don't know about you, but I think that's cheesy and thematically stupid. Effectively, all he's doing is moving and gaining a big AC benefit as a result of it. Yes and no. Now if the guy wanted to use fighting defensively or CE I'd require them to make their "attack" even if there isn't one in order to get the defensive bonus, and that means they could not move as far since the phantom attack is eating up a standard action leaving them only a move action remaining. There is still a cost to using it without an opponent, in many ways a harsher cost than if they did it while attacking (since they would be getting an actual attack in). As it stands, you can still use full defense to do what you were describing (and indeed I often do exactly that.. I use full defense when entering a dangerous place until I can make an attack and am essentialy moving at a slow (one move per round) pace doing so. The only reason you might use CE instead is it allows attacks of opprotunity and it might be a slightly larger bonus. So the upshot of my house rule is, I am getting the chance of an AOO (at a reduced attack bonus) at the cost of a feat. Not especialy amazing as far as feat use goes.
Pentar 08-02-07, 03:39 PM	Yes and no. Now if the guy wanted to use fighting defensively or CE I'd require them to make their "attack" even if there isn't one in order to get the defensive bonus, and that means they could not move as far since the phantom attack is eating up a standard action leaving them only a move action remaining. There is still a cost to using it without an opponent, in many ways a harsher cost than if they did it while attacking (since they would be getting an actual attack in). My overall problem is that they are technically sacrificing next to nothing. They move their 30' and basically transfer their BAB to dodge AC. My primary argument for not being able to do it is that the feat says "in melee" in the description. If you are not "in melee", that is, actively engaged with a threatening and threatened opponent, then you can't use CE. I recall there was a "problem" with this method, something to the effect that it would allow someone to track invisible targets... but a simple ruling that states you need to be aware that you are threatened in order to use CE also works, thereby preventing people from using CE as an invisibility radar.
mrpopstar 08-02-07, 07:53 PM	Sigfried Trent: Let us set aside simulationism vs gamism for the moment. The "truth" lies with each player to some extetn but I would propose that most imagine a sequence and a continum when picturing a combat round.A thorough re-read of the combat mechanic would support my own proposal that combat is a continuum that we resolve sequentially. Sequence, as you present it, is inapplicable to the cinematic product the game mechanic produces. Lets look at this cost vs benefit... Case #1: I use CE while attacking an opponent. I get to make an attack against a foe and gain an AC benefit. My attack is at a penatly and thus has a greater chance of missing. Case #2: I use CE, not making a real attack, but taking a standard action to sumulate the defensive combat techniques so that my AC goes up agaisnt other opponents. I have 0 chance of hurting my opponents during my actions. I don't see how case #2 in any way puts me at an advantage over case #1?You are still reaching beyond the suspension of disbelief. You are arguing the comparable intricacies of a reasonable, balanced game mechanic to the implications of real-world physics. The way I see it, Case #1 considers you an active member of the foray whereas Case #2 considers you a meta-gamer. Yes and no. Now if the guy wanted to use fighting defensively or CE I'd require them to make their "attack" even if there isn't one in order to get the defensive bonus, and that means they could not move as far since the phantom attack is eating up a standard action leaving them only a move action remaining. There is still a cost to using it without an opponent, in many ways a harsher cost than if they did it while attacking (since they would be getting an actual attack in).This is meta-game thinking. Doing things like this leads to abuse of the mechanic. Just Fight Defensively or go Full Defense. You yourself have made the corellation between them; simply choose the appropriate legal action. Pentar: I agree with most of your points, with the exception of your proposal of a simple ruling that states you need to be aware that you are threatened in order to use CE as an attempt at preventing people from using CE as an invisibility radar. I believe I have already discredited the use of CE as an invisibility radar in my earlier posts.
zorgling25 08-02-07, 07:59 PM	There is no "the attack" or "the full attack". Attack and full attack are "types of actions". They are cattegories. They do not specify what is bieng attacked, with what it is being attaked, or the result of that attack. There are types of attacks, melee attacks, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and in some cases there are sub-types of those as well. Indeed even "an attack" is a type of action. It is a standard action. A full attack is simply an option letting you take multiple attack actions. It doesn't designate what they are or how they are performed. The "the" in CE is clearly (to me) a bit of improper/imprecise wording. It is like saying "the standard action". There is no "the standard action" it encompases a great veriety of actions. There is no "the move action". And there is no "the attack action". The action referring to moving your speed is called "normal movement". This was cleared up in a Rules of the Game article. So in a sense, there is "the move action". Go over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), and take a look under standard actions. Now, aren't all of those VERY specific actions? Isn't an action called "attack" one of them? If Combat Expertise triggered on "the Activating a Magic Item action", wouldn't you agree that the action listed here is the only one that would qualify? By the same token, the ONLY action "the attack action" refers to is listed right here. If it was ambiguous, then it could refer to others, but the fact that there is a standard action called "the attack action" means that there is no ambiguity and there is one way to read it.
Pentar 08-02-07, 08:20 PM	Pentar: I agree with most of your points, with the exception of your proposal of a simple ruling that states you need to be aware that you are threatened in order to use CE as an attempt at preventing people from using CE as an invisibility radar. I believe I have already discredited the use of CE as an invisibility radar in my earlier posts. Well, your argument about initiative being rolled and not being in combat, therefore not being in melee works only in specific conditions. That is, if combat hasn't begun yet, and there's an invisible opponent, you're absolutely right, the player could not constantly declare they are using "CE" to gain an AC benefit. And it's already been pointed out that an invisible attacker by-passes any benefit to Dodge AC anyway. However, once initiative has been rolled, your point becomes disqualified. See, an invisible attacker could be anywhere on the board. They need not be adjacent to, or threatening the player with CE. The point was that utilizing CE under the condition of "being in melee" would, technically, mean that the player could determine that he was in fact being threatened which would indicate there was an invisible person adjacent to him. This invisible attacker could have moved up to him in the previous round, could have just been summoned or teleported in... etc. The player doesn't need to know that. ONe round they are not threatened by anyone and suddenly, they are... hence "invisibility detector". That's why I indicate that the player has to be aware of the threat. Thus, they cannot use CE if they do not know for certain that there is an invisible person on them. Even if they did, they wouldn't gain the benefit anyway, so mostly, the point is moot. It just prevents the player from saying, "OK, I attack the invisible opponent to gain an AC benefit against the threat I am aware of."
Nom 08-02-07, 11:31 PM	However, what you are doing is opening the door for very cheesy moves and exploitations. For example, a character is outside of the range of combat and wants to close in. He declares the use of Combat Expertise, dumps as many attack bonus points into it as possible to gain a big dodge bonus to AC. Then he moves closer to engage the enemy next round. For this round, he's basically transferred his BAB into Dodge AC for anyone who may move to engage him, or be shooting at him. This works against all attacks - ranged, melee, touch, etc.I don't see the exploit. CE takes a standard action (the attack action, as it happens). In other words, said target is a move action away. The guy using CE is thus perfectly able to move and attack while still using CE. The only difference in this scenario is that he has forfeited his attack. Or, if he used CE before moving, forfeited his attack to gain dodge bonus (max +5) against AoOs and readied actions while moving. Remember, even in the description of Fighting Defensively, it says specifically that you take a standard action when attacking, so technically you couldn't even do that move to pull this off - only with CE (as it being debated here).Well, "when attacking" could just mean "using the attack action", which is meaningless but not specifically illegal when not in range of a target. Moreover, you can fight defensively while still making a ranged attack (or attacks, with a full-attack), something which is not possible with most interpretations of how CE works. Now I don't know about you, but I think that's cheesy and thematically stupid. Effectively, all he's doing is moving and gaining a big AC benefit as a result of it.Yeah! Why should spending the better part of the round in parrying rather than attacking give you a defensive bonus? What a stupid idea! Remember, CE is not free, nor even cheap. It takes at least a standard action. A character using CE can only single (not double) move, nor can he run. And he cannot cast a spell, use an item, or do anything else requiring a standard action. That's a lot to give up for +5 AC.
Pentar 08-03-07, 02:35 AM	CE takes a standard action (the attack action, as it happens). In other words, said target is a move action away. The guy using CE is thus perfectly able to move and attack while still using CE. The only difference in this scenario is that he has forfeited his attack. Or, if he used CE before moving, forfeited his attack to gain dodge bonus (max +5) against AoOs and readied actions while moving. Ok, here's a question for you: A guy declares he is using CE to make an attack. He elects to attempt a disarm, without the Improved Disarm feat and draws an AoO. His opponent elects to Trip him with the AoO and succeeds. Does the original attacker (the guy making the disarm attempt) get the benefit of the AC from attempting to us CE? Well, "when attacking" could just mean "using the attack action", which is meaningless but not specifically illegal when not in range of a target. Or... it could just mean "when attacking", sort of like what the words explicitly say. You have to attack something. And since... 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. ... it states rather explicitly that you have to be in melee combat, does it not stand to reason that you have to attack something in melee to gain the benefits of CE? Yeah! Why should spending the better part of the round in parrying rather than attacking give you a defensive bonus? What a stupid idea! Parrying what? A chair? A rock lobster? An Avril Lavigne CD? The crux of this debate is whether or not someone can use CE without actually being in melee combat. Sure, you may look really fancy parrying the air, but I don't think it's actually going to help you defend yourself. Remember, CE is not free, nor even cheap. It takes at least a standard action. A character using CE can only single (not double) move, nor can he run. And he cannot cast a spell, use an item, or do anything else requiring a standard action. That's a lot to give up for +5 AC. It's not a big a sacrifice as you imagine, especially since it is Dodge AC, it applies to almost all situations - touch, ranged touch, standard attacks, etc. The only thing that foils it is being flat-footed or invisible attackers. Besides, the movement restrictions are easily overcome by a 1st level spell, or a fairly cheap set of magical items. Here's another question for you: A character with CE is not in melee combat. He has multiple iterative attacks and is wielding a dagger. He declares a Full Attack action and is using CE. He then attacks a pebble (woe be to you, foul pebble!). With his iternative attack(s) he throws his dagger at his ranged opponents. What happens? CE only works in melee combat - of this, the wording is fairly explicit. Does this mean, if he uses his weapon for a ranged attack, he suffers the CE penalties? Or because he's not longer attacking in melee, he loses the CE penalties but still gains the AC benefit since he did technically make an attack in melee, took a negative to hit that loathsome pebble, and thus has gains his dodge AC until his next round? Silly, right?
mrpopstar 08-03-07, 01:25 PM	Pentar: However, once initiative has been rolled, your point becomes disqualified. See, an invisible attacker could be anywhere on the board. They need not be adjacent to, or threatening the player with CE. The point was that utilizing CE under the condition of "being in melee" would, technically, mean that the player could determine that he was in fact being threatened which would indicate there was an invisible person adjacent to him. This invisible attacker could have moved up to him in the previous round, could have just been summoned or teleported in... etc. The player doesn't need to know that. ONe round they are not threatened by anyone and suddenly, they are... hence "invisibility detector".You would have me believe that COMBAT EXPERTISE is inherently flawed since the implications of its application reveal information to players that their characters could then use to their benefit. This is called meta-gaming, and it is against the rules. The DMG educates DM's on how to address such an obvious exploit. That's why I indicate that the player has to be aware of the threat. Thus, they cannot use CE if they do not know for certain that there is an invisible person on them. Even if they did, they wouldn't gain the benefit anyway, so mostly, the point is moot. It just prevents the player from saying, "OK, I attack the invisible opponent to gain an AC benefit against the threat I am aware of."Again, you are faulting COMBAT EXPERTISE when you should be penalizing your meta-gaming player. Ok, here's a question for you: A guy declares he is using CE to make an attack. He elects to attempt a disarm, without the Improved Disarm feat and draws an AoO. His opponent elects to Trip him with the AoO and succeeds. Does the original attacker (the guy making the disarm attempt) get the benefit of the AC from attempting to us CE?Yes.DISARM As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.A Disarm attempt is considered a melee attack, therefore it is applicable to gaining the benefit of COMBAT EXPERTISE. The crux of this debate is whether or not someone can use CE without actually being in melee combat. Sure, you may look really fancy parrying the air, but I don't think it's actually going to help you defend yourself.Arguably the crux of this debate is how far the semantics of COMBAT EXPERTISE's benefit description may be twisted by number-cruncher types before we consider it broken. Nom: CE takes a standard action (the attack action, as it happens). In other words, said target is a move action away. The guy using CE is thus perfectly able to move and attack while still using CE. The only difference in this scenario is that he has forfeited his attack. Or, if he used CE before moving, forfeited his attack to gain dodge bonus (max +5) against AoOs and readied actions while moving.COMBAT EXPERTISE does not require simply a "standard action". COMBAT EXPERTISE dictates that the benefit is available strictly when "you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee." This truth discredits the idea that anyone could gain the benefits of COMBAT EXPERTISE in any circumstance save one where he is within the threatened space of someone he is attacking with a melee attack. Well, "when attacking" could just mean "using the attack action", which is meaningless but not specifically illegal when not in range of a target.Using the attack action solely to gain a numerical benefit from the game mechanic is meta-gaming, which is specifically illegal.
moriarty13 08-03-07, 01:27 PM	The basic theme behind the Combat Expertise feat is that you can put yourself into a defensive mode/stance/whatever and dodge incoming attacks more easily at the expense of being able to hit (you swing less aggressively, etc). It's not parrying. It's a dodge bonus. The only reason they specified "attack action" and "full attack action" is because they didn't want you jacking up your AC when you cast spells or drink potions or whatever. However, sacrificing your standard action to go into "CE" mode should be perfectly valid in my opinion. It hurts your AoO ability to hit, so it is still a sacrifice. It throws out your standard action, the most important action you have available:). If you want to move 30' and get +5ac and do nothing else, who cares? I think the various limitations of the wording of the feat are there as a shotgun method of problem solving. "I see that there might be some issues with this feat. Lets solve the problem by throwing a bunch of really limiting restrictions on it so we don't have to write 2 pages of exceptions." Which is perfectly valid.
Pentar 08-03-07, 01:41 PM	Pentar: You would have me believe that COMBAT EXPERTISE is inherently flawed since the implications of its application reveal information to players that their characters could then use to their benefit. This is called meta-gaming, and it is against the rules. The DMG educates DM's on how to address such an obvious exploit. I totally agree with you; which is why I said I would rule it on a case-by-case basis (many messages ago). But strictly in terms of RAW, mechanically speaking, this could be done and some would argue (though not me!) that this was meant to be the case. [/B] Yes.DISARM As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.A Disarm attempt is considered a melee attack, therefore it is applicable to gaining the benefit of COMBAT EXPERTISE.[/indent] So you can gain the benefit of a CE without actually having to make an attack? Just by declaring you are using CE, you get the benefit? Even though CE's description indicates you have to make an attack? In the example I suggested, the attacker never made a disarm attempt. He was tripped before he made his own attack roll. Therefore, his attempted attack never occurred. If his attack never occurs, can he still get the benefit of the CE? Arguably the crux of this debate is how far the semantics of COMBAT EXPERTISE's benefit description may be twisted by number-cruncher types before we consider it broken. Oh, but that's just the nature of the forums :D
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 01:57 PM	My overall problem is that they are technically sacrificing next to nothing. They move their 30' and basically transfer their BAB to dodge AC. My primary argument for not being able to do it is that the feat says "in melee" in the description. If you are not "in melee", that is, actively engaged with a threatening and threatened opponent, then you can't use CE. But I don't see the rational. Why is attacking someone helping you defend agaisnt an archer with precise shot some 50 feet away? How is it helping you defend against a guy who comes up and flanks you later in the round? The only rationale that makes sense is that when using CE you are doing more active blocking, dodging and parrying than you normaly would, and that unlike "fighting defensively" you have more control and technique. The melle fighting part seems to indicate that you... A. need to be focusing on combat b. need to be using a melee weapon or combat mode of some kind I can see an interpretation that says that you are using some of your offense to keep your opponent on guard, but in that case I would only allow the bonus agaisnt targets you threaten. As to cost... Why is having to attack an opponent a cost as opposed to using a standard action without attacking or doing anything else (other than focusing on defense agaisnt whomever attacks you that round)? I'd rather be in a situation where I am attacking someone that one where I am wandering around hoping not to get killed by archers. In melee I'd also get the -4 for firing into combat.. At the moment I just use full defense in these situations, but I think CE "should" apply and as a DM I usualy allow it both for conceptual and balance reasons.
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 02:09 PM	Sigfried Trent: A thorough re-read of the combat mechanic would support my own proposal that combat is a continuum that we resolve sequentially. Sequence, as you present it, is inapplicable to the cinematic product the game mechanic produces.] I disagree, but this is the rhealm of imagination anyhow so not much sense arguing about it. You are still reaching beyond the suspension of disbelief. You are arguing the comparable intricacies of a reasonable, balanced game mechanic to the implications of real-world physics. The way I see it, Case #1 considers you an active member of the foray whereas Case #2 considers you a meta-gamer.. Bah! Imagine you are about to run into a room filled with bugbear archers (who you are aware of). You can... A. Wander in with your shield hanging limp on your arm waving at your enemies. (suprised) B. Come in at a normal combat stance. (normal) C. Come in with your shield held held high moving slowly, with your sword ready to deflect arrows and other attacks, only attacking when an easy opening comes up. (Using CE / FiD etc) What is so meta-game about case C? Its actualy a realistic choice if you arn't sure that you can reach and attack someone. I can't think of much of anythig you can do to defend agaisnt an archer that is aided by the act of stabbing someone else. However I can think of lots of defensive actions that would hinder your abbility to attack, but would not require you to attack. (I've done a lot of fencing/SCA/boffer/stage-fighting over the years) This is meta-game thinking. Doing things like this leads to abuse of the mechanic. Just Fight Defensively or go Full Defense. You yourself have made the corellation between them; simply choose the appropriate legal action. But how is it abuse? What am I getting that is so amazingly game breaking here? An extra +1 ac? The possiblity of an AOO agaisnt no one? (considering that I didn't have anyone I could attack..) Pentar: I agree with most of your points, with the exception of your proposal of a simple ruling that states you need to be aware that you are threatened in order to use CE as an attempt at preventing people from using CE as an invisibility radar. I believe I have already discredited the use of CE as an invisibility radar in my earlier posts. And I aslso agree that using CE as invisibility radar is absurd. I can see using a defensive technique against as of yet unknown opponents.. but I generaly would not allow it unless the character specified they were moving around slowly and defensively at all times, and even then not if they claimed that they were "always" moving around like that.
Pentar 08-03-07, 02:12 PM	But I don't see the rational. Why is attacking someone helping you defend agaisnt an archer with precise shot some 50 feet away? How is it helping you defend against a guy who comes up and flanks you later in the round? Why is attacking a chair any different? How can you make the above justification to me when you'd allow someone to attack NOTHING and still get the bonus? You're not even talking about Combat Expertise anymore, you're talking about some form of "Improved Fighting Defensively". It's not the same thing. The only rationale that makes sense is that when using CE you are doing more active blocking, dodging and parrying than you normaly would, and that unlike "fighting defensively" you have more control and technique. The melle fighting part seems to indicate that you... A. need to be focusing on combat b. need to be using a melee weapon or combat mode of some kind No. That's a willful misinterpretation of what "in melee" means. In melee combat means you are toe-to-toe with someone. You do not need to have a melee weapon. Your opponent does not need to have a melee weapon. You just need to be at each other's throats with the intent to kill each other (or at least do harm to). Think about it: Are you suggesting that if your opponent dropped their weapon before you made your action, that you could not longer declare CE against them, because they're not armed anymore and therefore not in "melee" with you? That's absolutely ridiculous. "In Melee" has nothing to do with your weapon and everything to do with your position on the grid relative to those trying to kill you. The whole issue is that mechanically, you have to be in melee combat with an opponent use CE. Period. End of Sentence. Arguing anything else is just allowing meta-gaming and/or willfully misinterpreting RAW. House rule it, if you'd like - I'm not a fan of giving away AC bonuses to players because they engaged in a duel against a bowl of cereal... but hey, everyone's campaign is different.
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 02:20 PM	The action referring to moving your speed is called "normal movement". This was cleared up in a Rules of the Game article. So in a sense, there is "the move action". Go over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), and take a look under standard actions. Now, aren't all of those VERY specific actions? Isn't an action called "attack" one of them? If Combat Expertise triggered on "the Activating a Magic Item action", wouldn't you agree that the action listed here is the only one that would qualify? By the same token, the ONLY action "the attack action" refers to is listed right here. If it was ambiguous, then it could refer to others, but the fact that there is a standard action called "the attack action" means that there is no ambiguity and there is one way to read it. I don't see "the move action" anywhere. Now if a mechanic said "normal movement only" I'd have no argument that it ment actualy moving and not all the other move actions. I read the rules. Here is what it says for "Attack" Attack Making an attack is a standard action. It doesn't say "the attack" or "the standard action". It is a question of cattegory. Is "The attack" a melee attack? a ranged attack? an unarmed attack? Those are all listed "seperately" they have their own lines on the AOO char etc... I'm not saying you can't interpret "the" any way you like but that language seems like an abberation in the rules (and we all know that is not uncommon). They almost never use that terminology anywhere, especaily not in the actual combat rules. And they make it clear that the special combat actions like trip and disarm are specificaly attacks and in nearly all ways can be used interchangable with a "normal attack" or a "standard attack" (also terms that are not specificaly defined). There is even a section of the FAQ that tells you that CE and PA apply to opposed attack rolls in disarm and sunder attempts. How much more evidence do you need? "the attack" is just refering to the category of actions called attack, not to a specific implementation of that rule. There isn't even a "the disarm action" there are only disarm attempts or disarm manuvers etc.. Each one follows certain rules but there are variations (armed disarm attempts, unarmed disarm attempts, ranged disarm attempts etc..)
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 02:23 PM	CE only works in melee combat - of this, the wording is fairly explicit. Does this mean, if he uses his weapon for a ranged attack, he suffers the CE penalties? Or because he's not longer attacking in melee, he loses the CE penalties but still gains the AC benefit since he did technically make an attack in melee, took a negative to hit that loathsome pebble, and thus has gains his dodge AC until his next round? Silly, right? Attacking pebbles is silly. Declaring that you are using a very defensive stance without swinging your sword at someoen is not. Saying that swinging your sword at someone (or a pebble) helps you defend agaisnt an archer is silly as well.
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 02:40 PM	Why is attacking a chair any different? How can you make the above justification to me when you'd allow someone to attack NOTHING and still get the bonus? You're not even talking about Combat Expertise anymore, you're talking about some form of "Improved Fighting Defensively". It's not the same thing.. That is my point :> Attacking a chiar isn't different. Indeed there is nothing about attacking someone or something that could be construed as helping you defend agaisnt soeone else. Yet that is how CE is worded. The feat is what is silly here. CE makes the most sence as Improved Fighting Defensively. The fact you can "fight defensively" and use CE at the same time is kind of silly in my opinion. If you want to talk strict rules, then sundering a chair, or the floor or even the air is a viable melee attack and you can use CE that way. I think its rediculous. But I also thin its rediculous you can't use CE without actualy swinging at someone. I will however present my not so rediculous versions in a sec... No. That's a willful misinterpretation of what "in melee" means. In melee combat means you are toe-to-toe with someone. You do not need to have a melee weapon. Your opponent does not need to have a melee weapon. You just need to be at each other's throats with the intent to kill each other (or at least do harm to). .. Not entirely precise but close... Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. This is from the ranged combat rules. It is the only place I can find any kind of definition or consiquence of "in melee". There is an exception for big targets 10 or more feet away. I will say your "in melee" argument is much better than the "the attack" argument. And I agree to some extent that it is a reasonable requiremnt but you do run into the whole "time line" thing. AKA I'm in melee and I attack with CE. My target dies. Top of the next round someone shoots me and I still get my AC bonus despite not being "in melee" any longer. Think about it: Are you suggesting that if your opponent dropped their weapon before you made your action, that you could not longer declare CE against them, because they're not armed anymore and therefore not in "melee" with you? That's absolutely ridiculous. I agree. I think the "in melee" rules are a little ood that way, they require one of the opponents to actively threaten the other (which you couldn't do if fist fighting according to the rules. (which is why we make adjustmens as DMs and why I adjust CE a bit, because I think it doesn't make sense sometimes) The whole issue is that mechanically, you have to be in melee combat with an opponent use CE. Period. End of Sentence. Arguing anything else is just allowing meta-gaming and/or willfully misinterpreting RAW. House rule it, if you'd like - I'm not a fan of giving away AC bonuses to players because they engaged in a duel against a bowl of cereal... but hey, everyone's campaign is different. But what do you think it is that CE is simulating that can only be usefull when attacking somene?
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 02:58 PM	Here is how I would improve CE... Two ways.... Combat Expertise [General, Fighter] You can increase your defenses agaisnt opponents you threaten. Prerequisites: Int 13 Benefit: You may elect to use Combat Expertice when making an attack or full attack action. You may select a value between one and 5, but not exceding your base attack bonus. You suffer a penalty to all attacks equal to that value and gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to that value against any opponent you threaten in melee combat. Special: You my elect to take a standard action to use Combat Expertice instead of using it as part of an attack. (This one clarifies some of the wierdness, allows you to use it without attacking chairs, and doesn't help you agaisnt archers of if you have no means of fending off enemies.) Combat Expertise [General, Fighter] You have mastered defensive fighting techniques. Prerequisites: Int 13 Benefit: You may elect to use Combat Expertice when fighting defensively or using the full defense action. When fighting defensively you may select a value between one and 5, but not exceding your base attack bonus. You suffer a penalty to all attacks equal to that value and gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to that value. When using full defense you gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to 4 or your base attack bonus, whichever is higher. Special: Other feats or abilities which modify fighting defensively or full defense bonuses also effect combat expertise. (I think this is the better mechanic.)
Pentar 08-03-07, 04:32 PM	That is my point :> Attacking a chiar isn't different. Indeed there is nothing about attacking someone or something that could be construed as helping you defend agaisnt soeone else. Yet that is how CE is worded. The feat is what is silly here. CE makes the most sence as Improved Fighting Defensively. The fact you can "fight defensively" and use CE at the same time is kind of silly in my opinion. Well, to me, I don't really care how it works "in reality" because I just use my imagination and DM's flourish to describe what happens when CE or fighting defensively is successfully used. CE, etc. is a mechanical game device. It does not matter "how it would work in reality", because D&D is not reality. D&D combat is not meant to mimic reality. By the rules, it simply converts attack bonus into Dodge AC given certain conditions. These conditions are explicit and these conditions must be met. Period. Done. End of Story. Everything else is up to your imagination and gravy. If you want to talk strict rules, then sundering a chair, or the floor or even the air is a viable melee attack and you can use CE that way. I think its rediculous. But I also thin its rediculous you can't use CE without actualy swinging at someone. I don't, because I have absolutely no pre-conceived idea of "what CE is" in terms of blow-by-blow. It treat it as a mechanical device that provides a benefit for an appropriate penalty. You're trying to add a thematic flourish as a substitute for the rules. This is from the ranged combat rules. It is the only place I can find any kind of definition or consiquence of "in melee". There is an exception for big targets 10 or more feet away. Well, they use the terms "threatening each other". So as long as one person is threatening the other, both sides are considered "in melee" and thus either combatant could use CE, if they had it. The oddity, as you've mentioned, is if two humans were in a fist fight (thus using natural non-threatening weapons), then neither could use CE... I will say your "in melee" argument is much better than the "the attack" argument. And I agree to some extent that it is a reasonable requiremnt but you do run into the whole "time line" thing. AKA I'm in melee and I attack with CE. My target dies. Top of the next round someone shoots me and I still get my AC bonus despite not being "in melee" any longer. You could extend this example as well. Let's say you're in melee - you attack someone using CE and regardless of the outcome of your attack you then move out of melee range with everyone... You still have the dodge AC benefit, even though you're not in melee anymore. The important distinction is that in order to initiate that CE move, you have to make an attack against someone in melee with you. After that, the benefits of CE apply until the next round, regardless of what happens to you, your opponent, or your surroundings. You cannot apply any more "logic" than that - it is a mechanical system. But what do you think it is that CE is simulating that can only be usefull when attacking somene? As I said before - I don't know and frankly, don't care :) How it "looks" when someone is using CE, or how it actually works "in reality" is nothing something I really explore. It goes into the combat description as the DM sees fit at the time and that's it.
Pentar 08-03-07, 04:39 PM	Here is how I would improve CE... Two ways.... Combat Expertise [General, Fighter] You can increase your defenses agaisnt opponents you threaten. Prerequisites: Int 13 Benefit: You may elect to use Combat Expertice when making an attack or full attack action. You may select a value between one and 5, but not exceding your base attack bonus. You suffer a penalty to all attacks equal to that value and gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to that value against any opponent you threaten in melee combat. Special: You my elect to take a standard action to use Combat Expertice instead of using it as part of an attack. That makes it more explicit at least, about using CE as a standard action. You've also removed the "in melee" requirement, which means you'd allow someone to use CE with a ranged weapon? Combat Expertise [General, Fighter] You have mastered defensive fighting techniques. Prerequisites: Int 13 Benefit: You may elect to use Combat Expertice when fighting defensively or using the full defense action. When fighting defensively you may select a value between one and 5, but not exceding your base attack bonus. You suffer a penalty to all attacks equal to that value and gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to that value. When using full defense you gain a dodge bonus to armor class equal to 4 or your base attack bonus, whichever is higher. Special: Other feats or abilities which modify fighting defensively or full defense bonuses also effect combat expertise. (I think this is the better mechanic.) Hmm, I do like this one. Basically, you tack it on top of Fighting Defensively or Total Defense, which is better than the way it is now... this sort of nebulous, free-floating "semi-attack" form that can be combined with one form of fighting defensive, but not another. It's almost worth it to rename it to "Improved Defensive Fighting". heheh :)
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 04:51 PM	As I said before - I don't know and frankly, don't care :) How it "looks" when someone is using CE, or how it actually works "in reality" is nothing something I really explore. It goes into the combat description as the DM sees fit at the time and that's it. Be that as it may, I am keenly intersted in exactly how it works as an analogy to real life. For me D&D is a set or rules to simulate martial combat with fantacy weapons and spells. Each rule has some mirror as to what is actualy happening in the imaginary world. That is the way I run games. If the rules don't make sense in the imaginary world, I change them, because story comes before rules when the two come into conflict (which doesn't happen too often). 3.0 was a bit of a revolution in combat mechanics because it worked out the details of a number of real world strategies and actions that make combat more strategic and interesting. They increasd the strength of the "Game" by increasing the relation between rules and the imaginary world of the story. When I create a feat or rule I start with an idea of what is happening in the imaginary world, then I figure out the best way to represent it in the rules. I don't start thinking... "gee I want a feat that ads 2 AC when wielding a blunt weapon." I think.. "How do I represent a character that learns to parry more effectively?"
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 04:54 PM	That makes it more explicit at least, about using CE as a standard action. You've also removed the "in melee" requirement, which means you'd allow someone to use CE with a ranged weapon? Well, you could but you wouldn't get the AC bonus since it only applies to "opponents you threaten in melee combat."
zorgling25 08-03-07, 07:54 PM	It doesn't say "the attack" or "the standard action". It is a question of cattegory. Is "The attack" a melee attack? a ranged attack? an unarmed attack? Those are all listed "seperately" they have their own lines on the AOO char etc... I'm not saying you can't interpret "the" any way you like but that language seems like an abberation in the rules (and we all know that is not uncommon). They almost never use that terminology anywhere, especaily not in the actual combat rules. And they make it clear that the special combat actions like trip and disarm are specificaly attacks and in nearly all ways can be used interchangable with a "normal attack" or a "standard attack" (also terms that are not specificaly defined). There is even a section of the FAQ that tells you that CE and PA apply to opposed attack rolls in disarm and sunder attempts. How much more evidence do you need? "the attack" is just refering to the category of actions called attack, not to a specific implementation of that rule. There isn't even a "the disarm action" there are only disarm attempts or disarm manuvers etc.. Each one follows certain rules but there are variations (armed disarm attempts, unarmed disarm attempts, ranged disarm attempts etc..) If you'll note the smaller text, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, melee attacks, disarms, etc. are all subrules for attacks, not separate entries. They are all forms of the attack action just as Sleep, Magic Missile, Fireball, and Dispel magic are kinds of spells. If something triggered on the action of casting a spell, then those four would qualify, but it would be clear that spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities wouldn't count. So why isn't it clear here with attacks?
Sigfried Trent 08-03-07, 08:05 PM	If you'll note the smaller text, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, melee attacks, disarms, etc. are all subrules for attacks, not separate entries. They are all forms of the attack action just as Sleep, Magic Missile, Fireball, and Dispel magic are kinds of spells. If something triggered on the action of casting a spell, then those four would qualify, but it would be clear that spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities wouldn't count. So why isn't it clear here with attacks? Easy. Spell-like abbilities are not spells, neither are Supernatural Abilities. Disarm, melee attacks etc... are attacks. 'The Attack Action" is like saying "The Spell".. which one? Is there a generic "spell" somewhere? Nope.. Spell is a category of individual and specific spells, just like Attack is a category of specific actions. "Attack" includes all actions that are attacks, just like "Cast a Spell" includes the casting of all spells. What if something refered to "The Cast a Spell action"? What spell is that?
zorgling25 08-03-07, 09:37 PM	Easy. Spell-like abbilities are not spells, neither are Supernatural Abilities. Disarm, melee attacks etc... are attacks. 'The Attack Action" is like saying "The Spell".. which one? Is there a generic "spell" somewhere? Nope.. Spell is a category of individual and specific spells, just like Attack is a category of specific actions. "Attack" includes all actions that are attacks, just like "Cast a Spell" includes the casting of all spells. What if something refered to "The Cast a Spell action"? What spell is that? Except that it DOES trigger on disarm, because disarm is a form of the attack action, just as casting fireball as a form of the cast a spell action. If something refers to the cast a spell action, it refers to the casting of any spell. If something refers to the attack action, it refers to any of the actions that are subgroups of "attack" under the list of actions, or anything that can substitute said actions. I fail to see how this is not explicit. Why assume that its more complicated than it actually is? Why assume that the text is miswritten when the words can be read to mean something very clear and explicit the way they are? Trip and disarm substitute normal melee attacks, meaning that they can substitute in the attack action. Grapple, for example, however, or charge, don't substitute attacks. Since they are separate actions, they don't fall under the attack action.
mrpopstar 08-03-07, 11:19 PM	zorgling25: Except that it DOES trigger on disarm, because disarm is a form of the attack action, just as casting fireball as a form of the cast a spell action. If something refers to the cast a spell action, it refers to the casting of any spell. If something refers to the attack action, it refers to any of the actions that are subgroups of "attack" under the list of actions, or anything that can substitute said actions. I fail to see how this is not explicit. Why assume that its more complicated than it actually is? Why assume that the text is miswritten when the words can be read to mean something very clear and explicit the way they are? Trip and disarm substitute normal melee attacks, meaning that they can substitute in the attack action. Grapple, for example, however, or charge, don't substitute attacks. Since they are separate actions, they don't fall under the attack action.Exactly.
Nom 08-03-07, 11:30 PM	Ok, here's a question for you: A guy declares he is using CE to make an attack. He elects to attempt a disarm, without the Improved Disarm feat and draws an AoO. His opponent elects to Trip him with the AoO and succeeds. Does the original attacker (the guy making the disarm attempt) get the benefit of the AC from attempting to us CE?Doesn't this lead us back to the rather ambiguous "in melee"? Personally, I take the simple route out and say "you can't use CE while attacking with a ranged weapon". Or is this example heading somewhere completely different? If so, I don't see the relevance. In the example I suggested, the attacker never made a disarm attempt. He was tripped before he made his own attack roll. Therefore, his attempted attack never occurred. If his attack never occurs, can he still get the benefit of the CE?Ah, now I see what you are getting at. Yes, he incontrovertibly does benefit from CE. CE doesn't requre you to attack; it requires you to "use the attack or full attack action in melee". He used the attack action (declared a disarm), so that is satisfied. Further, he was tripped on an AoO, which clearly means he was "in melee" with someone. Both conditions are completely satisfied and CE is RAW completely legal. Or... it could just mean "when attacking", sort of like what the words explicitly say. You have to attack something.Well, "when attacking" isn't a specifically defined term in D&D. "Attack" is. "Attack action" is. And "Full attack" is. And all of them mean something distinct. Considering that "fighting defensively as a full round action" specifies that you must use the "full attack action" (PH pg 143), it doesn't seem to inconceivable that "fighting defensively as a standard action" - a sub-point of the attack action - expects that you are taking the "attack action" (pg 140). Of course, if you have no intention of making any attacks and are happy to burn a standard action you'd normally be better to "total defense" rather than "fight defensively". ... it states rather explicitly that you have to be in melee combat, does it not stand to reason that you have to attack something in melee to gain the benefits of CE?Except that CE doesn't define "in melee" (which is a failing of the rules and the cause of this controversy). "Shooting or throwing into melee" defines "in melee" as being less than 10 ft. away from an opponent who either threatens you or you threaten. That's the only explicit definition of "in melee" that I'm aware of in the PH. So let's apply it to CE. This would mean that you are not allowed to use CE in any of the following situations: * both you and your opponent are using unarmed strikes * both you and your opponent have (and are using) reach * both you and your opponent are inside the "donut" for reach weapons Of course, if a second opponent who is wielding a melee weapon begins threatening you then you are now "in melee" and can use CE against both opponents and against any other attackers. However, your original opponent is not "in melee" with you and thus cannot use CE even though you might have attacked him and are using CE against his unarmed melee attacks. I hope I'm not the only one for whom this seems a silly interpretation. Parrying what? A chair? A rock lobster? An Avril Lavigne CD?If you like. I'd rather parry the ranged (heck, or reach) attacks being used against me. Note that it's totally legal to use total defense while not in melee combat. Similarly, CE specifies only "in melee", not "against melee attacks", and thus applies to all attack rolls against you whether ranged or melee. Neither action at any point actually requires you to make an attack roll, nor does the modelling of such actions assume that the defensive bonus is due to active offense against attackers. Since RAW is so ambiguous and most interpretations that push "in melee" too hard result in massive inconsistencies, I find that the cleanest and most consistent interpretation of "in melee" is simply "not using a ranged weapon". Yeah, it might allow use of CE when not actually making attack rolls against an opponent, but I fail to see the coherence of a rule that grants a defensive bonus against third parties only if you are fighting someone else at the time. Here's another question for you: A character with CE is not in melee combat. He has multiple iterative attacks and is wielding a dagger. He declares a Full Attack action and is using CE. He then attacks a pebble (woe be to you, foul pebble!). With his iternative attack(s) he throws his dagger at his ranged opponents. What happens?Several options: (1) He loses his CE bonus (but not the penalty, which lasts until his next turn) from the point he makes a ranged attack, and cannot regain it until he takes CE on a new attack or full attack action. (2) As above, except loses the CE penalty at the same time. (3) The ranged attack is illegal and cannot be made. I'd probably rule #1 on the fly, though would be completely happy with #3 also. #2 might be able to be abused.
mrpopstar 08-04-07, 10:05 AM	Nom: "Shooting or throwing into melee" defines "in melee" as being less than 10 ft. away from an opponent who either threatens you or you threaten. That's the only explicit definition of "in melee" that I'm aware of in the PH. So let's apply it to CE. This would mean that you are not allowed to use CE in any of the following situations: * both you and your opponent are using unarmed strikes * both you and your opponent have (and are using) reach * both you and your opponent are inside the "donut" for reach weapons Of course, if a second opponent who is wielding a melee weapon begins threatening you then you are now "in melee" and can use CE against both opponents and against any other attackers. However, your original opponent is not "in melee" with you and thus cannot use CE even though you might have attacked him and are using CE against his unarmed melee attacks. I hope I'm not the only one for whom this seems a silly interpretation.The PHB Glossary defines Melee.Melee Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat.
zorgling25 08-04-07, 10:29 AM	"Shooting or throwing into melee" defines "in melee" as being less than 10 ft. away from an opponent who either threatens you or you threaten. That's the only explicit definition of "in melee" that I'm aware of in the PH. So let's apply it to CE. This would mean that you are not allowed to use CE in any of the following situations: * both you and your opponent are using unarmed strikes * both you and your opponent have (and are using) reach * both you and your opponent are inside the "donut" for reach weapons 10 ft. is not really a good definition of melee, particularly since you are leaving out creatures of different sizes. Diminutive creatures would have to be in the same square to be engaged in melee, while colossal creatures could do it many squares away.
mrpopstar 08-04-07, 03:59 PM	Pentar: So you can gain the benefit of a CE without actually having to make an attack? Just by declaring you are using CE, you get the benefit? Even though CE's description indicates you have to make an attack? In the example I suggested, the attacker never made a disarm attempt. He was tripped before he made his own attack roll. Therefore, his attempted attack never occurred. If his attack never occurs, can he still get the benefit of the CE?As has been previously stated, the game mechanic takes into account that two characters who threaten each other are in melee and the dice rolled by players is representative of only one attempted attack. Keeping this in mind, it is assumed that the two characters in question are engaged in melee and the player's declaration of COMBAT EXPERTISE is indicative of beneficial gain whether the attempted attack the dice represents is successful or not. Sigfried Trent: As to cost... Why is having to attack an opponent a cost as opposed to using a standard action without attacking or doing anything else (other than focusing on defense agaisnt whomever attacks you that round)? I'd rather be in a situation where I am attacking someone that one where I am wandering around hoping not to get killed by archers. In melee I'd also get the -4 for firing into combat..You are neglecting to consider the cost of placing yourself within melee range of an opponent.
Nom 08-05-07, 01:04 AM	The PHB Glossary defines Melee.: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat.Ah, yes, there's that magic word "threaten" again. Thus, whips, (non-improved) unarmed strikes, unarmed combatants and grapplers aren't "in melee". And it still doesn't deal with the silly situation where you can use CE against ranged attacks only if you're fighting in melee. 10 ft. is not really a good definition of melee, particularly since you are leaving out creatures of different sizes. Diminutive creatures would have to be in the same square to be engaged in melee, while colossal creatures could do it many squares away.Hey, I'm just drawing out the implications. I didn't say it was a good rule. The CE rules are broken (as in "poorly / incorrectly defined") at two points: "in melee" and "next action". "In action" is best dealt with by assuming it means "turn" (as it does in about 5 other places in the PH). As for "in melee", I simply note that allowing CE to be used as long as the attacker does not use ranged attacks fits the spirit of the rules and avoids the nasty "in melee" corner cases. Alternatively, you could rule that "in melee" actually means that it doesn't apply against ranged attacks. But ruling that "in melee" requires some form of threatening creates all sorts of silly exceptions.
Hapycamper 08-05-07, 04:45 PM	Ah, yes, there's that magic word "threaten" again. Thus, whips, (non-improved) unarmed strikes, unarmed combatants and grapplers aren't "in melee". Technically, it doesn't say they have to "threaten" they just have to be "close enough to threaten". So you could rule weasel that two unarmed/grappling/etc... combatants are in melee (because they are close enough to threaten) even though they don't (they're ineligible for other reasons...) So, being in melee only checks to see if you satisfy the distance requirements for threatening an opponent, not any of the other requirements (have a weapon or valid attack of some sort...)
mrpopstar 08-05-07, 10:14 PM	Hapycamper: Technically, it doesn't say they have to "threaten" they just have to be "close enough to threaten". So you could rule weasel that two unarmed/grappling/etc... combatants are in melee (because they are close enough to threaten) even though they don't (they're ineligible for other reasons...) So, being in melee only checks to see if you satisfy the distance requirements for threatening an opponent, not any of the other requirements (have a weapon or valid attack of some sort...)This interpretation deviates from the intent of the mechanic. It also disregards RAW. Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat. This is an explicit statement. If you do not threaten an opponent in melee, you do not gain the benefit of COMBAT EXPERTISE. Nom: Ah, yes, there's that magic word "threaten" again. Thus, whips, (non-improved) unarmed strikes, unarmed combatants and grapplers aren't "in melee".Correct. Therefore they cannot enjoy the benefit of COMBAT EXPERTISE. And it still doesn't deal with the silly situation where you can use CE against ranged attacks only if you're fighting in melee.I don't find the situation to be silly at all. Silliness originates from your desire to find what we percieve as reality to be emulated in every aspect of your game. The feat seems non-sensical due to your comparison. Someone who recognizes that they are playing a game would consider COMBAT EXPERTISE to be a useful, tactical game mechanic that requires a bit of thought and therefore enriches the intellectual engagement that is D&D.
Nom 08-06-07, 07:09 AM	I don't find the situation to be silly at all. Silliness originates from your desire to find what we percieve as reality to be emulated in every aspect of your game.Not at all. Silliness originates from the game mechanic benefit of creating a pseudo-melee in order to grant yourself a benefit not directly connected to the activity. As a general rule, any game mechanic that encourages you synthesise a state in order to gain a benefit not directly related to that state is a poor mechanic. It's one flaw with Greate Cleave as written, and its a flaw with this interpretation of CE. It's forgivable in the case of feats such as Combat Focus, where the feat is deliberately trying to simulate an adrenaline effect and accepts the need for hand-waving to rule it correctly. However, explaining why CE works against ranged when you're "in melee" (whatever that means) but not if you're not smacks of pleading to justify a mechanically broken rule.
Sigfried Trent 08-06-07, 01:27 PM	Trip and disarm substitute normal melee attacks, meaning that they can substitute in the attack action. Grapple, for example, however, or charge, don't substitute attacks. Since they are separate actions, they don't fall under the attack action. LOL, I though you were arguing that you can not use CE with trip and disarm... funny that. :D Bull rush is totaly out of the qustion, doesn't work. Charge.. you can make an decent argument both ways but I think the idea of charging and CE are pretty opposed to one another so I'd go against using them together. Grabling.. this is a wierd one, I think technicaly you can't do it, and conceptualy.. probably not. So I think despite all our arguments we have agreed all along. Too funny.
Sigfried Trent 08-06-07, 01:35 PM	I don't find the situation to be silly at all. Silliness originates from your desire to find what we percieve as reality to be emulated in every aspect of your game. The feat seems non-sensical due to your comparison. Someone who recognizes that they are playing a game would consider COMBAT EXPERTISE to be a useful, tactical game mechanic that requires a bit of thought and therefore enriches the intellectual engagement that is D&D.[/list][/indent] Meh.. to each thier own, but for me the rules are there to provide a game element to a story telling expereince. If the rules come into conflict with a vision of what is happening in the story, then the rules should be changed so that they no longer conflict. That is what makes a role playing game different than a miniatures or board game.
mrpopstar 08-07-07, 01:36 AM	Nom: Not at all. Silliness originates from the game mechanic benefit of creating a pseudo-melee in order to grant yourself a benefit not directly connected to the activity.Pseudo-melee? Since melee is explicitly defined in pertinence to the game mechanic, being in melee is like being pregnant; you are or you aren't. There's no "pseudo" state of being. As a general rule, any game mechanic that encourages you synthesise a state in order to gain a benefit not directly related to that state is a poor mechanic. It's one flaw with Greate Cleave as written, and its a flaw with this interpretation of CE.Where might I find this "general rule" as stated by the designers? It's forgivable in the case of feats such as Combat Focus, where the feat is deliberately trying to simulate an adrenaline effect and accepts the need for hand-waving to rule it correctly. However, explaining why CE works against ranged when you're "in melee" (whatever that means) but not if you're not smacks of pleading to justify a mechanically broken rule.Forgiven in one instance, discredited in another. Seemingly the need for "hand-waving" is an established and justified constant that is measurable within the game mechanic, given that you can site two examples. What screams of "pleading to justify" is your contention and it's supporting points. Sigfried Trent: Meh.. to each thier own, but for me the rules are there to provide a game element to a story telling expereince. If the rules come into conflict with a vision of what is happening in the story, then the rules should be changed so that they no longer conflict. That is what makes a role playing game different than a miniatures or board game.I agree. My stance is taken in effort to make evident that the seemingly illogical implications of the game mechanic, when found to contrast the logical physics of reality, distracts from the roleplaying experience only to the extent in which you allow it.
mrpopstar 08-07-07, 02:02 AM	Double Post!
Nom 08-07-07, 02:10 AM	Where might I find this "general rule" as stated by the designers?Oh, it's a lot wider than D&D, though the complexity and open-endedness of the D&D ruleset makes it more vulnerable. Unless the whole point of the game is to game the rules, a rule which encourages a seemingly counterintuitive activity in order to gain a tangential benefit is a poor rule. For example, some versions of draughts allow a player to choose not to jump, and instead suffer the penalty of losing a piece. I've seen some people suggest that enforcing the penalty counts as the opposition's turn. Generally, this penalises the non-offending player more than the offending player, and creates situations where it is to a player's interest to launch an attack rather than make a "compulsory" jump, because it costs the opponent more to enforce the penalty than to leave it and defend against the attack. Or a wargame I've been playing, where it costs less to enter difficult terrain if you do so when assaulting an enemy unit than when unhindered. This is a similar situation. I have seen no mechanical or modelling reason why a character actively threatening or being threatened should be better able to gain an additional defensive bonus against a ranged attacker than one who is not, and yet that interpretation of "in melee" encourages the attacker to threaten something or anything in order to benefit from this defensive bonus. Note that Combat Focus specifically clarifies what sort of combat counts as a bonus. This clarification actually highlights the technical flaw in the rules, but in doing so clarifies the intent of the rule and asks players to stay within the spirit thereof. CE contains no such clarification nor provides a benchmark to determine intent. It just drops the non-technical limitation "in melee" into the game mechanics at a single point without defining whether this means "with melee weapon in hand", "while threatening", "while being threatened", "while not making ranged attacks", or "against melee attacks". Any or all of those definitions could fit "in melee", and the feat provides no further guidance as to which is meant. Mithral's "movement and other limitations" is another example. The problem isn't "other limitations", it's the complete absence of examples or clarfications to guide the DM's judgement on what counts as a "limitation".
mrpopstar 08-07-07, 01:03 PM	Nom: Oh, it's a lot wider than D&D, though the complexity and open-endedness of the D&D ruleset makes it more vulnerable. Unless the whole point of the game is to game the rules, a rule which encourages a seemingly counterintuitive activity in order to gain a tangential benefit is a poor rule.As I expected, you have no reference for this "general rule". It stands to reason that it would be more appropriately stated that you are of the opinion that any game mechanic that encourages you synthesize a state in order to gain a benefit not directly related to that state is a poor mechanic; no? For example, some versions of draughts allow a player to choose not to jump, and instead suffer the penalty of losing a piece. I've seen some people suggest that enforcing the penalty counts as the opposition's turn. Generally, this penalises the non-offending player more than the offending player, and creates situations where it is to a player's interest to launch an attack rather than make a "compulsory" jump, because it costs the opponent more to enforce the penalty than to leave it and defend against the attack. Or a wargame I've been playing, where it costs less to enter difficult terrain if you do so when assaulting an enemy unit than when unhindered.Neither of these points has any relevance to our discussion. The admission of these points actually supports the contention that not all rules need make perfect sense, considering you've sited three games now that include seemingly nonsensical implications within their mechanic. This is a similar situation. I have seen no mechanical or modelling reason why a character actively threatening or being threatened should be better able to gain an additional defensive bonus against a ranged attacker than one who is not, and yet that interpretation of "in melee" encourages the attacker to threaten something or anything in order to benefit from this defensive bonus.That interpretation of "in melee" requires (not encourages) the attacker to threaten an opponent (not something or anything) who threatens him in return. Note that Combat Focus specifically clarifies what sort of combat counts as a bonus. This clarification actually highlights the technical flaw in the rules, but in doing so clarifies the intent of the rule and asks players to stay within the spirit thereof.Noted. Note that COMBAT EXPERTISE clarifies what sort of combat counts as a bonus (melee). This clarification actually highlights the technical strength of the rules, and in doing so clarifies the intent of the mechanic, which assumes players will stay within the spirit thereof (that spirit being fairness). CE contains no such clarification nor provides a benchmark to determine intent. It just drops the non-technical limitation "in melee" into the game mechanics at a single point without defining whether this means "with melee weapon in hand", "while threatening", "while being threatened", "while not making ranged attacks", or "against melee attacks". Any or all of those definitions could fit "in melee", and the feat provides no further guidance as to which is meant.The game defines melee. When one has satisfied the implications of the definition, all related situational modifiers accounted for, he finds himself within the state. You are having difficulty with the idea of "in melee" because you are viewing the mechanic in separate parts and disregarding the fact of characters living within a continuum."With melee weapon in hand" does not consitute being in melee; why? Because holding a melee weapon in your hand does not satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee. Abuse of the mechanic would run rampant if at any time a character held a melee weapon in their hand they were then considered to be taking part in melee combat; which could theoretically become a constant state of being if a character walked around with a melee weapon in hand at all times. "While not making ranged attacks" does not constitute being in melee; why? Because abstaining from ranged combat does not satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee. Abuse of the mechanic would run rampant if at any time a character abstained from ranged combat they were then considered to be taking part in melee combat; which could theoretically become a constant state of being if a character never laid a hand on a ranged weapon. "While threatening" does not constitute being in melee; why? Because threatening an opponent does not always satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee. If an opponent does not threaten you in return, then you are not exchanging physical blows with him. "While being threatened" does not constitute being in mlee; why? Because being threatened does not always satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee. If you do not threaten an opponent in return, then you are not exchanging physical blows with him.The limitation of being in melee, which is quite technical I might add, considers the continuum. The continuum takes into account that any two characters who threaten each other in combat are constantly exchanging physical blows. Thusly, any two characters who threaten each other in combat are in melee. Being in melee is an explicit state of being. A character having met the requirements may enjoy the benefits of COMBAT EXPERTISE. Hopefully everyone taking part in this discussion recognizes that I am merely playing devil's advocate. I am (obviously) an afficiando and supporter of the RAW, yet my own game is not quite as prudent as one might assume. COMBAT EXPERTISE is not broken in regard to its mechanic, it is simply distateful to some in terms of flavor. Most taking part in this discussion are attacking the facts of the game in favor of their own opinions. I defend the RAW because discrediting its authority is unfair, considering the RAW fully validates one altering the game to meet his own taste, need, and desire (Rule 0).
Pentar 08-07-07, 03:12 PM	In the example I suggested, the attacker never made a disarm attempt. He was tripped before he made his own attack roll. Therefore, his attempted attack never occurred. If his attack never occurs, can he still get the benefit of the CE? Ah, now I see what you are getting at. Yes, he incontrovertibly does benefit from CE. CE doesn't requre you to attack; it requires you to "use the attack or full attack action in melee". He used the attack action (declared a disarm), so that is satisfied. Further, he was tripped on an AoO, which clearly means he was "in melee" with someone. Both conditions are completely satisfied and CE is RAW completely legal. See, I can understand and agree with both sides of the argument there. Firstly, I see what you're saying. He had declared the use of CE and then began an attempt to Disarm. However, he never actually made his attack roll, because his attempt was interrupted by an AoO that caused his entire attack to fail. So if you fail to make an attack roll, do you still get CE? The more I consider this, the more I agree with your ruling. He must have spent his standard action in order to begin the Disarm attempt. Therefore, even though he never got to the "rolling" stage of his move, he did begin it, which is what caused the AoO to begin with. Thus, when his opponent was making the AoO, he was already benefiting from the CE and thus would get the Dodge AC to the trip AoO. Well, "when attacking" isn't a specifically defined term in D&D. "Attack" is. "Attack action" is. And "Full attack" is. And all of them mean something distinct. Considering that "fighting defensively as a full round action" specifies that you must use the "full attack action" (PH pg 143), it doesn't seem to inconceivable that "fighting defensively as a standard action" - a sub-point of the attack action - expects that you are taking the "attack action" (pg 140). Of course, if you have no intention of making any attacks and are happy to burn a standard action you'd normally be better to "total defense" rather than "fight defensively". Except that CE doesn't define "in melee" (which is a failing of the rules and the cause of this controversy). Uhm. It doesn't have to define "in melee". In melee is defined elsewhere. That is to say, you have to be engaged and threatening and/or be threatened by someone else while attacking them to gain the benefit. All this word-smithing hogwash about trying to define what "when attacking" and what "in melee" means is just rules-lawyering meta-gaming. It's as if people are trying to redefine language in order to fit the rules into what they want it to say. Just take the words at point blank. Assume the simplest explanation. The designers fully intended that the person with CE must be engaged in melee and attacking someone to get the benefit. It's really, really, quite simple. "Shooting or throwing into melee" defines "in melee" as being less than 10 ft. away from an opponent who either threatens you or you threaten. Err, no, it doesn't. There is a difference between being "In Combat" and being "In melee". Again, you're trying to redefine something that does not need to be redefined. Shoe horns and D&D are a poor mix. Remember, shooting into melee only applies if your opponent is ACTUALLY engaged in melee. Otherwise, you're just "shooting". Consider feats like "Precise Shot" and how it is termed regarding firing "into melee". That's the only explicit definition of "in melee" that I'm aware of in the PH. So let's apply it to CE. This would mean that you are not allowed to use CE in any of the following situations: * both you and your opponent are using unarmed strikes * both you and your opponent have (and are using) reach * both you and your opponent are inside the "donut" for reach weapons Unfortunately, I think, like many other things, this is one of those areas that the rules missed. After all, as much as we'd like them to be, WoTC designers aren't super-human. But utilizing a little gift called Common Sense, we can often define for ourselves when "In melee" makes sense and thus would allow CE to apply. Note that it's totally legal to use total defense while not in melee combat. Similarly, CE specifies only "in melee", not "against melee attacks", and thus applies to all attack rolls against you whether ranged or melee. Neither action at any point actually requires you to make an attack roll, nor does the modelling of such actions assume that the defensive bonus is due to active offense against attackers. *facepalms* CE requires you to make an attack - you may not need to make a roll for the attack (as we had discussed above, simply having begun the action is enough to gain the benefit), but that doesn't mean you can use CE without attacking. You have to attack. It says so in its description. You have just been working very hard to redefine what "attack" means and what "in melee" means. I think, for those of us not suffering from the delusion that English needs to be redefined for this game, the rules for CE makes perfect sense and requires no further dissection and nitpicking of commas, periods and participles. Since RAW is so ambiguous and most interpretations that push "in melee" too hard result in massive inconsistencies, I find that the cleanest and most consistent interpretation of "in melee" is simply "not using a ranged weapon". Yeah, it might allow use of CE when not actually making attack rolls against an opponent, but I fail to see the coherence of a rule that grants a defensive bonus against third parties only if you are fighting someone else at the time. Well, aside from the fact that this means you get to use CE for attacking a stop sign... It makes a lot more sense that fighting an inanimate object grants you a Dodge bonus to AC more so than fighting a real opponent who wants to put 4 feet of steel into your innards. (1) He loses his CE bonus (but not the penalty, which lasts until his next turn) from the point he makes a ranged attack, and cannot regain it until he takes CE on a new attack or full attack action. (2) As above, except loses the CE penalty at the same time. (3) The ranged attack is illegal and cannot be made. I'd probably rule #1 on the fly, though would be completely happy with #3 also. #2 might be able to be abused. By RAW, #1 is an inconsistent ruling. He successfully "attacked" the pebble... therefore, he gets the AC bonus until the beginning of the next round. Done. Nothing in the rules of CE says he can lose it, unless under conditions where he would normally lose his Dodge AC (being denied DEX). Since throwing a dagger does not make you lose your DEX bonus to AC, you do not lose CE either. #2 wouldn't work because it is again, against the rules. He declared his CE use, all his attacks should suffer from it. Same idea if he legitimately used CE in an action and then before his next turn, he got an AoO - he still suffers from the penalty. There's no reason that just because he is throwing a dagger, he would lose it. #3 doesn't make sense either, since you can't stop him from throwing the dagger... It's an attack action and he has attack actions left to take... Basically, this is one of the abuses you can use if you stick with the concept that you can attack "nothing" and get the CE benefit. It's silly and it's abusable and it does not make sense. It makes more sense that you get a flat Dodge bonus against all attacks when you're engaged more so than if you're using an attack action on thin-air.
Nom 08-07-07, 08:06 PM	As I expected, you have no reference for this "general rule".I'm sorry. Do you happen to have a the seminal textbook of "principles of good game design" that we could look in? I'm just holding the D&D ruleset to the same standards that I hold any ruleset. And before you ask, there is a published board game out there with sales in the thousands which includes me as a designer. I'm not just an "armchair expert". I don't need WotC permission or policy to spot a bad rule, although the presence of an official explanation can sometimes help understand what was intended. It stands to reason that it would be more appropriately stated that you are of the opinion that any game mechanic that encourages you synthesize a state in order to gain a benefit not directly related to that state is a poor mechanic; no?What makes you think anything I post here is opinion? Everything I say should be taken as statement of eternal and incontrovertible fact unless I explictly state otherwise, even if I don't believe it myself. :P The admission of these points actually supports the contention that not all rules need make perfect sense, considering you've sited three games now that include seemingly nonsensical implications within their mechanic.Rather, it supports the contention that nonsensical or poorly written rules aren't somehow a flaw unique to D&D. That interpretation of "in melee" requires (not encourages) the attacker to threaten an opponent (not something or anything) who threatens him in return.But we've already noted that requiring even at least one party to threaten means that there's a whole of situations where characters can make melee attacks without strictly being "in melee". In a sense, some of those same issues are applicable to "firing into melee". The game defines melee.Yes. Multiple times and in different ways. For example, strictly using the glossary definition of "melee" / "melee combat" to define "in melee" creates conflicts with the definition of "in melee" from "firing into melee": "While threatening" does not constitute being in melee; why? Because threatening an opponent does not always satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee. If an opponent does not threaten you in return, then you are not exchanging physical blows with him.Except that this explicitly contradicts the definition of melee for "firing into melee". "While being threatened" does not constitute being in mlee; why? Because being threatened does not always satisfy the requisite of exchanging physical blows with an opponent, as stated by the definition of Melee.As above. Other wacky examples: * Two opponents move up to flank me, but don't make attack rolls on this round. I declare CE and attack one, dropping him. Am I "in melee" with the other opponent, since neither of us have exchanged blows yet? * I declare CE and attack my opponent. On his turn, he withdraws. Am I "in melee"? Do I still gain CE? What if another opponent now runs in and attacks me? * I draw my sword in a bar fight, declare CE, and attack. My opponent successfully performs an unarmed disarm. Am I still "in melee"? What happens to my CE bonus?