(improved) Combat expertise problem [Archive] - Wizards Community

(improved) Combat expertise problem [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Yaeri
02-26-08, 12:01 PM One of my players has taken the combat expertise feat and its follow-up feat improved (?) combat expertise.
The player is first and foremost an archer, and possibly intends to use the feats in ranged combat.
I only now reread the feats and saw that they talk about melee combat.

The way the feat is worded in the PHB its added dodge bonus helps against both melee and ranged attacks, so I don't see an immediate problem in allowing it in ranged combat as well, but I wanted to be sure.

Does anyone foresee balance problems if I let the player use the feats in both melee and ranged combat? Suggestions? Fixes?
Tordak
02-26-08, 12:40 PM I don't think the balance will be an issue. Ranged fighter are already out of harm reach, they don't often need AC boost. He will still have to take the penalty to AB, so I think it's balanced. I suppose it wasn't in the feat description because it does not fit well the idea being the feat (fighters who fight in a more defensive style, which is hard to imagine for an archer). As long as you let everyone use the feat in that manner. However, he might have some trick in mind, combining PrC/Feat for maximum effect, altough I don't see what.
Yaeri
02-26-08, 12:47 PM Nah, it's not in that players nature to aim for any such abuse. Thanks for the reply.
StevenO
02-26-08, 02:28 PM The only time I think Improved CE could become a problem is when a melee character abuses it and Power Attack to go all out where only a natural 20 is required to hit because of the rules.

Full PA coupled with full ICE means that the attacks will have a HUGE attack penalty requiring a 20 to hit by RAW but will give the character a good AC and a very nice damage bonus when they do hit 5% of the time.
Tordak
02-26-08, 02:36 PM The only time I think Improved CE could become a problem is when a melee character abuses it and Power Attack to go all out where only a natural 20 is required to hit because of the rules.

Full PA coupled with full ICE means that the attacks will have a HUGE attack penalty requiring a 20 to hit by RAW but will give the character a good AC and a very nice damage bonus when they do hit 5% of the time.

And when you only hit on natural 20, this is hardly abusive ...
mplindustries
02-26-08, 04:29 PM Personally, I see no balance issue with allowing it for ranged attacks. As a houserule, its reasonable, and its the way I've done it for years.

By the book though, its strange because according to the wording in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise):
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.You can only assign the penalty/bonus when you use the attack or full attack action "in melee." It does not however say those attacks need to be with a melee weapon. "In melee" is actually defined here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)(under "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee"):
Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.That means as long as either you are threatened by or threatening an enemy, it works. This obviously works best if you have a "no hands" way to threaten when they can't. A large creature with armor spikes vs. a medium sized enemy for example. My favorite way was with my Binder who TWFed a bow and Otiax's wind blasts.

In anycase, if you can't threaten further, you could stand at the edge of their threatened range, declare the attack and the penalty, then use your 5' step to avoid their AoO since you can use it "before, after, or between your attacks." Of course, you could also just eat one AoO before you move away if you don't want to get into complicated timing issues.

Unfortunately, this penalty does apply to all attacks, unlike Power Attack which refers specifically only to melee attacks. As the aforementioned binder, before I could TWF (or if I didn't want to), I would make a full attack to shoot my bow, declaring a full power attack at the same time, just in case I got an AoO with my wind blast before my next turn.
StevenO
02-26-08, 04:54 PM And when you only hit on natural 20, this is hardly abusive ...
But if you are making four attacks or more each round (where those last attacks would be at -15 anyway) and your first attack needed a 15 or better to hit then it becomes a great deal. You are trading in your first attacks better chance to hit for a lot more damage when you DO hit and a lot better chance to avoid getting hit in return.
Sildatorak
02-26-08, 06:46 PM But if you are making four attacks or more each round (where those last attacks would be at -15 anyway) and your first attack needed a 15 or better to hit then it becomes a great deal. You are trading in your first attacks better chance to hit for a lot more damage when you DO hit and a lot better chance to avoid getting hit in return.
If you are making 4 attacks and the first needs a 15 to hit then you have a .75*(.95^3)= 64% chance of totally whiffing (36% chance to hit). If you up that to needing natural 20's on all 4 attacks then your chance of absolutely no damage becomes about 81% (19% chance to hit). You hit about half as often, so unless you've more than doubled your expected damage per hit you haven't done much except make your output more sporadic.
StevenO
02-26-08, 07:21 PM Needing a 15 to hit may actually make using normal attack better but as that first attack becomes more questionable going for broke (natural 20's) makes more sense. I'm sure the numbers vary but with a +16 BAB and a two handed weapon going for broke would give you an additional +32 damage on a hit which doubles the damage from a 2d6 Greatsword with +25 in modifiers. Maybe STR 26 is low but that is only +12 meaning you'd need another +13 in damage modifiers to make it match the PA damage bonus of +32. The other important thing here is that you are now at +16 AC as well which should reduce the damage you take.
StevenO
02-26-08, 07:36 PM With a +16 BAB and wielding a two hander going for broke (full Power Attack and ICE) will get you +32 damage. Now if that hit needs to deal double damage to make the strategy pay of with average damage that means your average damage with a Greataxe needs +25 points of damage; maybe STR 26 is low but that is only +12 damage meaning you need another +13 from other sources to keep that big PA hit from more than doubling a hits damage. That discounts the slightly improved chance you have for scoring a crit when you only need a 15+ to hit of course. At the same time don't forget that the character is getting +16 AC at the same time they are swinging for the hills. If a 2 was needed to hit them before they are now taking 80% less damage than without previously meaning they can afford to wait longer for those natural 20's on the attack to come.

Wow, a double post because I failed to realize I actually hit send before mistakenly hitting the Back button on my browser and thinking I lost everything.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Yaeri 02-26-08, 12:01 PM	One of my players has taken the combat expertise feat and its follow-up feat improved (?) combat expertise. The player is first and foremost an archer, and possibly intends to use the feats in ranged combat. I only now reread the feats and saw that they talk about melee combat. The way the feat is worded in the PHB its added dodge bonus helps against both melee and ranged attacks, so I don't see an immediate problem in allowing it in ranged combat as well, but I wanted to be sure. Does anyone foresee balance problems if I let the player use the feats in both melee and ranged combat? Suggestions? Fixes?
Tordak 02-26-08, 12:40 PM	I don't think the balance will be an issue. Ranged fighter are already out of harm reach, they don't often need AC boost. He will still have to take the penalty to AB, so I think it's balanced. I suppose it wasn't in the feat description because it does not fit well the idea being the feat (fighters who fight in a more defensive style, which is hard to imagine for an archer). As long as you let everyone use the feat in that manner. However, he might have some trick in mind, combining PrC/Feat for maximum effect, altough I don't see what.
Yaeri 02-26-08, 12:47 PM	Nah, it's not in that players nature to aim for any such abuse. Thanks for the reply.
StevenO 02-26-08, 02:28 PM	The only time I think Improved CE could become a problem is when a melee character abuses it and Power Attack to go all out where only a natural 20 is required to hit because of the rules. Full PA coupled with full ICE means that the attacks will have a HUGE attack penalty requiring a 20 to hit by RAW but will give the character a good AC and a very nice damage bonus when they do hit 5% of the time.
Tordak 02-26-08, 02:36 PM	The only time I think Improved CE could become a problem is when a melee character abuses it and Power Attack to go all out where only a natural 20 is required to hit because of the rules. Full PA coupled with full ICE means that the attacks will have a HUGE attack penalty requiring a 20 to hit by RAW but will give the character a good AC and a very nice damage bonus when they do hit 5% of the time. And when you only hit on natural 20, this is hardly abusive ...
mplindustries 02-26-08, 04:29 PM	Personally, I see no balance issue with allowing it for ranged attacks. As a houserule, its reasonable, and its the way I've done it for years. By the book though, its strange because according to the wording in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise): 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.You can only assign the penalty/bonus when you use the attack or full attack action "in melee." It does not however say those attacks need to be with a melee weapon. "In melee" is actually defined here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)(under "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee"): Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.That means as long as either you are threatened by or threatening an enemy, it works. This obviously works best if you have a "no hands" way to threaten when they can't. A large creature with armor spikes vs. a medium sized enemy for example. My favorite way was with my Binder who TWFed a bow and Otiax's wind blasts. In anycase, if you can't threaten further, you could stand at the edge of their threatened range, declare the attack and the penalty, then use your 5' step to avoid their AoO since you can use it "before, after, or between your attacks." Of course, you could also just eat one AoO before you move away if you don't want to get into complicated timing issues. Unfortunately, this penalty does apply to all attacks, unlike Power Attack which refers specifically only to melee attacks. As the aforementioned binder, before I could TWF (or if I didn't want to), I would make a full attack to shoot my bow, declaring a full power attack at the same time, just in case I got an AoO with my wind blast before my next turn.
StevenO 02-26-08, 04:54 PM	And when you only hit on natural 20, this is hardly abusive ... But if you are making four attacks or more each round (where those last attacks would be at -15 anyway) and your first attack needed a 15 or better to hit then it becomes a great deal. You are trading in your first attacks better chance to hit for a lot more damage when you DO hit and a lot better chance to avoid getting hit in return.
Sildatorak 02-26-08, 06:46 PM	But if you are making four attacks or more each round (where those last attacks would be at -15 anyway) and your first attack needed a 15 or better to hit then it becomes a great deal. You are trading in your first attacks better chance to hit for a lot more damage when you DO hit and a lot better chance to avoid getting hit in return. If you are making 4 attacks and the first needs a 15 to hit then you have a .75*(.95^3)= 64% chance of totally whiffing (36% chance to hit). If you up that to needing natural 20's on all 4 attacks then your chance of absolutely no damage becomes about 81% (19% chance to hit). You hit about half as often, so unless you've more than doubled your expected damage per hit you haven't done much except make your output more sporadic.
StevenO 02-26-08, 07:21 PM	Needing a 15 to hit may actually make using normal attack better but as that first attack becomes more questionable going for broke (natural 20's) makes more sense. I'm sure the numbers vary but with a +16 BAB and a two handed weapon going for broke would give you an additional +32 damage on a hit which doubles the damage from a 2d6 Greatsword with +25 in modifiers. Maybe STR 26 is low but that is only +12 meaning you'd need another +13 in damage modifiers to make it match the PA damage bonus of +32. The other important thing here is that you are now at +16 AC as well which should reduce the damage you take.
StevenO 02-26-08, 07:36 PM	With a +16 BAB and wielding a two hander going for broke (full Power Attack and ICE) will get you +32 damage. Now if that hit needs to deal double damage to make the strategy pay of with average damage that means your average damage with a Greataxe needs +25 points of damage; maybe STR 26 is low but that is only +12 damage meaning you need another +13 from other sources to keep that big PA hit from more than doubling a hits damage. That discounts the slightly improved chance you have for scoring a crit when you only need a 15+ to hit of course. At the same time don't forget that the character is getting +16 AC at the same time they are swinging for the hills. If a 2 was needed to hit them before they are now taking 80% less damage than without previously meaning they can afford to wait longer for those natural 20's on the attack to come. Wow, a double post because I failed to realize I actually hit send before mistakenly hitting the Back button on my browser and thinking I lost everything.