A Possible (Minor) Fix for Combat Expertise?

[Urpriest]

One of the bigger problems with Combat Expertise is the "tanking" problem of 3.5: namely, that tanking doesn't exist. If you boost your AC by weakening your attacks then chances are your opponents will just focus on somebody else.

Taking this apart, the reason opponents can make this sort of choice is because you've spent a round using Combat Expertise. You're fighting defensively, and they can all see you doing it.

Here's my idea: why not have Combat Expertise penalize the next round's attacks, rather than this one's? Here's how I envision it:

Between turns, a character can choose to activate Combat Expertise in response to an attack. Until the end of their next turn, they gain a bonus to their AC. In exchange, all attacks they make until the end of their next turn take a penalty.

This lets you get in a perfectly functional full attack, then if your enemy isn't dead you can respond to their decision to attack you by raising your weapons, hoping for one of your allies to finish it off. You'd probably want to add a requirement that the character made a melee attack in the preceding round so you don't get spellcasters using this all the time.

What do you guys think? How much does this solve, and how desirable does it make the feat?

[Silva Stormrage]

One of the bigger problems with Combat Expertise is the "tanking" problem of 3.5: namely, that tanking doesn't exist. If you boost your AC by weakening your attacks then chances are your opponents will just focus on somebody else.

Taking this apart, the reason opponents can make this sort of choice is because you've spent a round using Combat Expertise. You're fighting defensively, and they can all see you doing it.

Here's my idea: why not have Combat Expertise penalize the next round's attacks, rather than this one's? Here's how I envision it:

Between turns, a character can choose to activate Combat Expertise in response to an attack. Until the end of their next turn, they gain a bonus to their AC. In exchange, all attacks they make until the end of their next turn take a penalty.

This lets you get in a perfectly functional full attack, then if your enemy isn't dead you can respond to their decision to attack you by raising your weapons, hoping for one of your allies to finish it off. You'd probably want to add a requirement that the character made a melee attack in the preceding round so you don't get spellcasters using this all the time.

What do you guys think? How much does this solve, and how desirable does it make the feat?

Hm. It makes the feat work more as intended definitely. However, it would still have one problem. Sacrificing offense for defense is very rarely a good thing in DND.

[Vladislav]

However, sacrificing something you may get in the future for something you get right now is almost always a good thing. I give this idea a thumbs up!

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Definitely make the player sacrifice AB before he knows the attack roll of the foe.

Captain Obvious, away!

[Fax Celestis]

How about...

"After making an attack, you may spend a swift action to subtract an amount up to 5 or your Base Attack Bonus (whichever is lower) from any attacks you make until the end of the next turn (including attacks of opportunity). In exchange, you gain an equal dodge bonus to Armor Class until the end of your next turn."

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

How about...

"After making an attack, you may spend a swift action to subtract an amount up to 5 or your Base Attack Bonus (whichever is lower) from any attacks you make until the end of the next turn (including attacks of opportunity). In exchange, you gain an equal dodge bonus to Armor Class until the end of your next turn."The commitment to "tankiness" at the expense of offense, even if it's somewhat delayed, creates the incentive problem for the DM/monsters. Having the action be immediate means the front liner can be flexible enough to lay down the hurt on monsters if he's not dealt with or bolster his AC if they attack. Similar to 4e's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sticky tank philosophy.

[Evard]

I would say use your new CE feat and just somehow port the fighter's mark ability from 4e into it also. Let it allow for a mark and give the player the options the fighter (4e) would get such as AoO that stops its movement.

[Fax Celestis]

The commitment to "tankiness" at the expense of offense, even if it's somewhat delayed, creates the incentive problem for the DM/monsters. Having the action be immediate means the front liner can be flexible enough to lay down the hurt on monsters if he's not dealt with or bolster his AC if they attack. Similar to 4e's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sticky tank philosophy.

Yeah, make it an immediate, I guess. That way you can pop your defense after they've already started attacking.

[ericgrau]

Well if you have improved trip then tripping is a touch attack, so you can do both offense and defense pretty well. Especially if they try to move away and get tripped (or in rare builds disarmed).

Besides that I've done a few duel scenarios and found that CE gave a dramatic advantage. The trick in a party-scenario is to use it when you don't want foes to focus on you. You charge in all out, do some damage, take some damage, say ouch and start CEing.

Both options are essentially free for someone who already used CE as a prerequisite.

As for the fix it does make the feat a lot easier to plan and you only use it after you get attacked so it becomes a great panic button. Yet it's not too overpowered either since you still face a drawback. You merely have insurance that you won't get stuck with no benefit for what you paid.