I want combat expertise for 4.0 - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

I want combat expertise for 4.0

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zillah
Nov 08, 2008 22:56:08 thread says it all. I want to sacrifice -2 attack to +1 AC in heroic, +2 AC in paragon and +3 in Epic.
possible? too good?
#2
AttilatheNun
Nov 08, 2008 23:07:39 It might be feasible, but attack bonus is very important in 4e. It might not be worth the penalty at lower tiers, if at all. I'm not as familiar with the underlying math as some, so I'll leave it to them to tell you for sure, but I just wanted to point out a possible flaw.
#3
crimson_lancer
Nov 08, 2008 23:31:29 I'd double the AC bonus, myself, because bonus to-hit is THAT good, but it seems pretty hawt. :D
#4
tavitin
Nov 09, 2008 0:24:35 Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield)

prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13.
you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC.
-2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic
-2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon
-2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic

something like that :D
#5
carios
Nov 09, 2008 7:21:54
Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield)

prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13.
you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC.
-2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic
-2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon
-2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic

something like that :D

I would personally stick with the +1/+2/+3 AC. Getting +2 to AC, which will be reducing the chance of an enemy hit by 10%, thus reducing damage recieved by a large amount, is much better than a simple +2 damage.

Then when you scale that up... +9AC with a shield? That is rediculous for a feat. Every player would want this.
#6
Dark_Stryke
Nov 09, 2008 9:34:16
Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield)

prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13.
you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC.
-2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic
-2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon
-2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic

something like that :D

I think the +1/+2/+3 thing would work a whole lot better. Sure, that version is more flavorful, but getting +9 AC is seriously broken. Maybe have the bonus also apply to your reflex defense if you're using a shield, though even that might be too good for a heroic tier feat. Maybe a paragon version?

SHIELDED EXPERTISE
Prerequisite: Paragon Tier, Combat Expertise
Effect: When using combat expertise, you gain the bonuses to your reflex defense as well.
Special: You must be wielding a shield.
#7
khift
Nov 09, 2008 9:58:38 I don't see why Combat Expertise should scale with level at all. Damage needs to scale with level, yes, but AC and To-Hit doesn't. You don't see Weapon Focus granting +1/+2/+3 To-Hit. No, it should be a static bonus because a +2 to AC is just as effective in heroic tier as it is in epic tier.

Combat Expertise
Prerequisite: 13 Dex
When making a melee attack, you can take a -2 penalty to the attack roll and all future attack rolls until the beginning of your next turn. If you do, you gain a +2 bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. If you are wearing a shield, this bonus increases to +3.
#8
undreren
Nov 09, 2008 15:52:04 I think getting +2 ac for -2 attack is way too good. It makes "all out defense" useless (+2 all defenses for using a standard action)...
#9
ekko
Nov 09, 2008 16:04:21 Yeah, combat expertise killed the Total Defense action in 3.5e, so (because the TDA is actually a useful mechanic to boost AC in place of attacking, and things like defensive stances exist in a lot of the literature/media that DnD is based on/works with) they cut out combat expertise.

If you want to sacrifice attack for a bonus to defense: use TDA.
#10
scipion_emilien
Nov 09, 2008 16:13:24 Well I always thought that combat expertise was a trained defense action. So I didn't see the problem of having it with defense action. I use defense action a lot in 3.5 with PC that didn't have expertise.

As for the feat, It seem like the kind of thing they could put in the martial handbook.
#11
carios
Nov 09, 2008 16:13:46 To stop Total Defense being obsolete you could make combat expertise give an extra +2 AC and reflex when you use total defense. This is more inline with other feats which grant an AC boost only in certain situations.
#12
undreren
Nov 09, 2008 16:17:16
To stop Total Defense being obsolete you could make combat expertise give an extra +2 AC and reflex when you use total defense. This is more inline with other feats which grant an AC boost only in certain situations.

That's a better idea IMO.

Having a feat that gives you +4 to all defenses instead of +2 when you use Total Defense is actually kind of a good idea. I could never imagine using Total Defense without being a paladin (in which case I can mark people and render myself unhittable ;))...
#13
carios
Nov 09, 2008 16:22:18
I could never imagine using Total Defense without being a paladin (in which case I can mark people and render myself unhittable ;))...

I was thinking the exact same thing
#14
zillah
Nov 09, 2008 17:06:23 I don't think that hitting something first should be a pre-req for the feat to work. But, +9 AC is too much for -2 attack.
I thought the way I scaled it was pretty good in accordance to what I thought was balanced in 4.0.
A +2 to total defense when you have the feat is a good idea, but it discourages attacks in general and would really only benefit the paladin/swordmage. Not the fighter.
In fact, I could totally see a fighter doing rain of steel stance, and doing a total defense/combat expertise set up.
Maybe a -3 to hit and a +1 AC at heroic, +2 paragon, +3 epic would better, idk. I don't believe that -2 is too weak a penalty for +1 AC respectively. I lose 10% chance to hit them, and they lose 5%. its not an even trade off but its still there.
But yea, I would combo combat expertise with total defense if I had actions points or if my attacks were minor actions.
#15
undreren
Nov 09, 2008 17:55:45 Noone said anything about you had to hit for the effect to come, the problem is just that Total Defense gives you +2 to all defenses but costs a standard action.

With this feat, you could gain this benefit AND attack the monster, albeit you get a penalty, which is easily minimized with combat advantage.

I just think it's plain out broken. Too good.
#16
corncob
Nov 09, 2008 19:53:30
With this feat, you could gain this benefit AND attack the monster, albeit you get a penalty, which is easily minimized with combat advantage.

Defensive Advantage gives you an AC boost with CA and lets you keep the attack bonus, so it's not necessarily untenable. There might be problems with Expertise and DA stacking, though.

My suggestion is to have Expertise extend your Total Defense action to the end of your next turn.
#17
ekko
Nov 09, 2008 22:02:06 I like the bonus to TDA. It makes more sense from a flavor perspective, as well as a mechanics one.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zillah Nov 08, 2008 22:56:08	thread says it all. I want to sacrifice -2 attack to +1 AC in heroic, +2 AC in paragon and +3 in Epic. possible? too good?
#2 AttilatheNun Nov 08, 2008 23:07:39	It might be feasible, but attack bonus is very important in 4e. It might not be worth the penalty at lower tiers, if at all. I'm not as familiar with the underlying math as some, so I'll leave it to them to tell you for sure, but I just wanted to point out a possible flaw.
#3 crimson_lancer Nov 08, 2008 23:31:29	I'd double the AC bonus, myself, because bonus to-hit is THAT good, but it seems pretty hawt. :D
#4 tavitin Nov 09, 2008 0:24:35	Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield) prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13. you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC. -2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic -2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon -2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic something like that :D
#5 carios Nov 09, 2008 7:21:54	Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield) prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13. you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC. -2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic -2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon -2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic something like that :D I would personally stick with the +1/+2/+3 AC. Getting +2 to AC, which will be reducing the chance of an enemy hit by 10%, thus reducing damage recieved by a large amount, is much better than a simple +2 damage. Then when you scale that up... +9AC with a shield? That is rediculous for a feat. Every player would want this.
#6 Dark_Stryke Nov 09, 2008 9:34:16	Use power attack as base, instead of gaining bonus to damage you gain bonus to AC(the extra bonus for using two-handed weapons could be when 'Expertise' is used with a player with a Shield) prerequisite: Dex 13 or Int 13. you only gain the bonus to AC if you hit with at least one attack you've made this round and the penalty applies to all attacks until the start of your next turn, as does the bonus to AC. -2 to hit for +2 to AC (+3 if your using a shield) for Heroic -2 to hit for +4 to AC (+6 if your using a shield) for Paragon -2 to hit for +6 to AC (+9 if your using a shield) for Epic something like that :D I think the +1/+2/+3 thing would work a whole lot better. Sure, that version is more flavorful, but getting +9 AC is seriously broken. Maybe have the bonus also apply to your reflex defense if you're using a shield, though even that might be too good for a heroic tier feat. Maybe a paragon version? SHIELDED EXPERTISE Prerequisite: Paragon Tier, Combat Expertise Effect: When using combat expertise, you gain the bonuses to your reflex defense as well. Special: You must be wielding a shield.
#7 khift Nov 09, 2008 9:58:38	I don't see why Combat Expertise should scale with level at all. Damage needs to scale with level, yes, but AC and To-Hit doesn't. You don't see Weapon Focus granting +1/+2/+3 To-Hit. No, it should be a static bonus because a +2 to AC is just as effective in heroic tier as it is in epic tier. Combat Expertise Prerequisite: 13 Dex When making a melee attack, you can take a -2 penalty to the attack roll and all future attack rolls until the beginning of your next turn. If you do, you gain a +2 bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. If you are wearing a shield, this bonus increases to +3.
#8 undreren Nov 09, 2008 15:52:04	I think getting +2 ac for -2 attack is way too good. It makes "all out defense" useless (+2 all defenses for using a standard action)...
#9 ekko Nov 09, 2008 16:04:21	Yeah, combat expertise killed the Total Defense action in 3.5e, so (because the TDA is actually a useful mechanic to boost AC in place of attacking, and things like defensive stances exist in a lot of the literature/media that DnD is based on/works with) they cut out combat expertise. If you want to sacrifice attack for a bonus to defense: use TDA.
#10 scipion_emilien Nov 09, 2008 16:13:24	Well I always thought that combat expertise was a trained defense action. So I didn't see the problem of having it with defense action. I use defense action a lot in 3.5 with PC that didn't have expertise. As for the feat, It seem like the kind of thing they could put in the martial handbook.
#11 carios Nov 09, 2008 16:13:46	To stop Total Defense being obsolete you could make combat expertise give an extra +2 AC and reflex when you use total defense. This is more inline with other feats which grant an AC boost only in certain situations.
#12 undreren Nov 09, 2008 16:17:16	To stop Total Defense being obsolete you could make combat expertise give an extra +2 AC and reflex when you use total defense. This is more inline with other feats which grant an AC boost only in certain situations. That's a better idea IMO. Having a feat that gives you +4 to all defenses instead of +2 when you use Total Defense is actually kind of a good idea. I could never imagine using Total Defense without being a paladin (in which case I can mark people and render myself unhittable ;))...
#13 carios Nov 09, 2008 16:22:18	I could never imagine using Total Defense without being a paladin (in which case I can mark people and render myself unhittable ;))... I was thinking the exact same thing
#14 zillah Nov 09, 2008 17:06:23	I don't think that hitting something first should be a pre-req for the feat to work. But, +9 AC is too much for -2 attack. I thought the way I scaled it was pretty good in accordance to what I thought was balanced in 4.0. A +2 to total defense when you have the feat is a good idea, but it discourages attacks in general and would really only benefit the paladin/swordmage. Not the fighter. In fact, I could totally see a fighter doing rain of steel stance, and doing a total defense/combat expertise set up. Maybe a -3 to hit and a +1 AC at heroic, +2 paragon, +3 epic would better, idk. I don't believe that -2 is too weak a penalty for +1 AC respectively. I lose 10% chance to hit them, and they lose 5%. its not an even trade off but its still there. But yea, I would combo combat expertise with total defense if I had actions points or if my attacks were minor actions.
#15 undreren Nov 09, 2008 17:55:45	Noone said anything about you had to hit for the effect to come, the problem is just that Total Defense gives you +2 to all defenses but costs a standard action. With this feat, you could gain this benefit AND attack the monster, albeit you get a penalty, which is easily minimized with combat advantage. I just think it's plain out broken. Too good.
#16 corncob Nov 09, 2008 19:53:30	With this feat, you could gain this benefit AND attack the monster, albeit you get a penalty, which is easily minimized with combat advantage. Defensive Advantage gives you an AC boost with CA and lets you keep the attack bonus, so it's not necessarily untenable. There might be problems with Expertise and DA stacking, though. My suggestion is to have Expertise extend your Total Defense action to the end of your next turn.
#17 ekko Nov 09, 2008 22:02:06	I like the bonus to TDA. It makes more sense from a flavor perspective, as well as a mechanics one.