Combat Expertise: Are there ways to make it useful?

[Matrota]

I was looking at the feat Combat Expertise again today, and just couldn't think of any decent builds or situations to use it in. Taking a penalty to hit for a bonus to AC doesn't seem to be inherently a bad idea, but it's a 1:1 trade-off, requires you to attack to gain the benefit, and caps at +5 without ever being able to exceed BaB. This feat is very commonly a prerequisite for other good feats and many many PrCs. Lots of builds need this feat, but not many can properly utilize it. It's a common feat tax, and while there are other feat taxes out there that are arguably worse, the reason I dislike Combat Expertise in particular is because it feels like it could be a good feat. The problem is that it's more often a trap and is rarely, if ever, worth using.

Combat Expertise has the Power Attack philosophy in taking penalties to gain bonuses, but Power Attack has ways to increase trade-off to 2:1 or even 3:1. PA is an offensive penalty for an offensive bonus, and is very worth it in the sense that there are so many ways to make it worth the penalty. However, Combat Expertise is an offensive penalty for a defensive bonus, a less common concern in D&D, and it has no ways to increase the benefit you gain. The only thing I know of that works somewhat well with is is a feat that allows you to share the increased AC with an adjacent ally. The one time I thought I would use it was on a DfA character since I never needed to make attacks so penalizing BaB to give a bonus to AC seemed fine. Then I realized you needed to attack to gain the AC.

Are there any circumstances where Combat Expertise is commonly useful? If you were to rework this feat, how would you go about doing so?

[Darrin]

Ugh. I hate that feat. And the designers made it a prereq for *SO* many other feats, you get locked out of some interesting combos just because your Big Stoopid Fighter is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

However, I did use Combat Expertise and Improved Combat Expertise for my Knuckles Klankplate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22675127&postcount=40) build. Exotic Weapon Master has a stunt called "Throw Exotic Weapon" that, if you deliberately misinterpret it in a very obtuse way, lets you ignore any attack penalties on throwing exotic weapons. (However, I flubbed my prereqs for EWM, so if you use this make sure you take Weapon Focus somewhere.) The same trick could be used with the Tormtor School feat from Drow of the Underdark. You may have some trouble finding a sane DM that would allow such a thing into an actual game.

There are also a few abilities that key off of using Combat Expertise to gain an additional benefit. For example, if you're using a longstaff (exotic weapon from Complete Adventurer) and take at least a -2 penalty with Combat Expertise, you cannot be flanked for the entire round. I've been itching to use that in a monk build at some point, but unfortunately there's not much else you can do with a longstaff.

[Crake]

Make it's bonus 1:2 if you're using a shield? Maybe that'll give sword and board some better traction.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The main problem of Combat Expertise is that AC just isn't worth that much. The feat would barely be worth taking if it just gave a straight AC bonus without the tradeoff.

If i wanted to make it actually useful i'd replace the AC bonus with miss chance. That doesn't get negated by blindsight/True Seeing/etc.
10% miss chance per -1 to-hit, capped at 50% sounds decent enough and actually worth the feat and tradeoff. That may even be too strong, but the numbers can be fiddled with.
But AC just doesn't cut it.

[Crake]

The main problem of Combat Expertise is that AC just isn't worth that much. The feat would barely be worth taking if it just gave a straight AC bonus without the tradeoff.

If i wanted to make it actually useful i'd replace the AC bonus with miss chance. That doesn't get negated by blindsight/True Seeing/etc.
10% miss chance per -1 to-hit, capped at 50% sounds decent enough and actually worth the feat and tradeoff. That may even be too strong, but the numbers can be fiddled with.
But AC just doesn't cut it.

Unless the enemy is hit capped, or you're AC capped, 2 AC per -1 hit is ROUGHLY equivilent to a 10% miss chance. Obviously in some cases it will be worth more (such as the difference between hitting on 18+ and needing a natural 20 being an effective 66% miss chance), but if the opponent hits on a 2 and isn't hit capped (that is, a +2 AC bonus will make them hit on a 4), then you've changed their 95% hit chance to 85%, which is an effective reduction of almost 10.5%. So, again, barring hit/AC capping -1 for +2 AC is always better than -1 for 10% miss chance.

The only time miss chance is actually better than AC is when your AC is so far down the hole that it's hopelessly behind with no chance of catching up. But I somehow don't think that's who this feat was aimed at.

[Zombimode]

I was looking at the feat Combat Expertise again today, and just couldn't think of any decent builds or situations to use it in. Taking a penalty to hit for a bonus to AC doesn't seem to be inherently a bad idea, but it's a 1:1 trade-off, requires you to attack to gain the benefit, and caps at +5 without ever being able to exceed BaB. This feat is very commonly a prerequisite for other good feats and many many PrCs. Lots of builds need this feat, but not many can properly utilize it. It's a common feat tax, and while there are other feat taxes out there that are arguably worse, the reason I dislike Combat Expertise in particular is because it feels like it could be a good feat. The problem is that it's more often a trap and is rarely, if ever, worth using.

Combat Expertise has the Power Attack philosophy in taking penalties to gain bonuses, but Power Attack has ways to increase trade-off to 2:1 or even 3:1. PA is an offensive penalty for an offensive bonus, and is very worth it in the sense that there are so many ways to make it worth the penalty. However, Combat Expertise is an offensive penalty for a defensive bonus, a less common concern in D&D, and it has no ways to increase the benefit you gain. The only thing I know of that works somewhat well with is is a feat that allows you to share the increased AC with an adjacent ally. The one time I thought I would use it was on a DfA character since I never needed to make attacks so penalizing BaB to give a bonus to AC seemed fine. Then I realized you needed to attack to gain the AC.

Are there any circumstances where Combat Expertise is commonly useful? If you were to rework this feat, how would you go about doing so?

Combat Expertise IS a useful feat. You just can't slap in on any character and expect it to function - but that is true for most feats (incl. Power Attack).

Combat Expertise does not make your AC great by itself. But it is a good way of pushing your AC by a relevant number if you need it. You need a character to support it, but again, that is hardly a point against the feat.
I would rank the usefulness of Combat Expertise roughly the same as Power Attack without a two-handed weapon: a good option to have, but not a no-brainer.


One way of increasing Combat Expertise usefulness is to allow rider effect triggering of Fighting Defensively also trigger of Combat Expertise.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The only time miss chance is actually better than AC is when your AC is so far down the hole that it's hopelessly behind with no chance of catching up. But I somehow don't think that's who this feat was aimed at.

Except miss chance applies equally against touch attacks, which are a lot harder to defend against and usually more dangerous too.
If you think that's still not enough make the miss chance apply to targeted (non-attack roll) spells, similar to the Swiftblade ability. That'd definitely be worth a feat.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've used Combat Expertise on at least a handful of occasions very effectively. Sometimes creating the right encounter for the PCs is all about working out the math, and Combat Expertise along with a few other AC boosters can help an NPC survive just that much longer to give your BBEG time to pull off a dramatic escape. :smallbiggrin:

There are actually a bunch of feats that are more useful deployed on NPCs and monsters than on PCs.

[Zaq]

After the very lowest levels, AC is usually a game of collecting a whole lot of nickel-and-dime bonuses that are cobbled together into a reasonably high whole. As stated, Combat Expertise isn't enough on its own, but as a piece of a larger AC picture, it can help. It's about the largest AC bump you'll get from a single feat (assuming you end up taking the maximum penalty), if nothing else.

Now, as to whether it's actually worth it? I can't say I've ever used it or particularly missed it, and while attack bonuses aren't that hard to come by, a -5 is still a -5, and missing sucks. If you drop your to-hit bonus low enough that you aren't hitting, your AC won't matter, because you'll be ignored. Plus, feats are precious. That said, over the course of a campaign, a given PC on the front lines is likely to be attacked more than they make attacks, so if you're playing at a level range and/or at an optimization degree where AC matters at all (at least for a noticeable number of the attacks in a typical full attack routine) and you're not just checking for 1s and 20s, there's an argument to be made for it being noticeable long-term.

I still don't particularly care for it, to be completely honest.

(Side note: Cobalt Expertise can theoretically increase the ratio of attack penalty to AC bonus, but I've never ever seen a build that has the feat space AND the essentia AND a willingness to lock that essentia into Cobalt Expertise, which is the same problem that almost all of the essentia-sequestering feats have. I guess Cobalt Expertise also technically makes you better at tripping/disarming/feinting, but even so.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A Thri-Kreen using four (pre-errata) Broadblade Shortswords (CV) could get +10 AC for -2 to hit with Combat Expertise. However, you could skip that feat and just fight defensively to get +11 AC for -4 to hit with Tumble 5 ranks.

Since the Complete Adventurer errata, a Broadblade Shortsword only adds +1 AC instead of +2 when fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise for at least -2 to hit. So that's now only +6 AC for -2 to hit, still decent, but you're also taking multiweapon fighting penalties so it's probably not worthwhile.


If you want to invest a lot of feats, use a Longstaff (CV) with (Improved, Greater) Two-Weapon Defense and Quick Staff (CW). Use Midnight Dodge to qualify for Quick Staff and also get Cobalt Expertise. The Longstaff makes you immune to flanking while fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise for at least -2 to hit. The bonus from (Improved, Greater) Two-Weapon Defense is doubled when fighting this way. Quick Staff increases the AC bonus by two points when using that. Cobalt Expertise increases the AC bonus by the amount of invested essentia, up to the penalty to attacks you took for Combat Expertise.

That's Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, (Improved, Greater) Two-Weapon Defense, Combat Expertise, Midnight Dodge, Weapon Focus, Quick Staff, and Cobalt Expertise, so ten feats (and unfortunately Exotic Weapon Master adds nothing to this). With your two essentia invested into Cobalt Expertise, you'll be immune to flanking and get +9 AC for -2 to hit when using Combat Expertise.

[daremetoidareyo]

true strike spell and draconic claw. +15 to hit and +5 ac

[Eldariel]

I once used it on a Dervish with Elaborate Parry defensive fighting allowing the near unhittability in melee (using Elaborate Parry pretty much always and adding Combat Expertise as needed). Sadly that comes at the cost of not actually doing an awful lot; 1d6+Str+5 (class)+5 (weapon) at best is nothing to write home about. You will hit if you build for it (the class is full BAB and nets you +5 to hit over its progression and flows neatly into Knock-Down line) but adding minor bonuses like Melee Weapon Mastery, Deadly Defense and company still leaves you doing meh damage. And there's a stupid quirk to Combat Expertise where you only get the bonus once you attack so any pre-attack AoOs and hits you have to take without the bonuses, which is bad news for a non-reach character. TWF Dervish with Knock-Down is still a cute dancing untouchableish (to AC/Touch AC targeting attacks anyways) tripper build though. Sadly it pales in comparison with what you can do with that many class levels and feats otherwise though, and is definitely mostly an anti-melee build that's supersoft to casters of any kind (who are the main threat on higher levels in the first place).

[zergling.exe]

Except miss chance applies equally against touch attacks, which are a lot harder to defend against and usually more dangerous too.
If you think that's still not enough make the miss chance apply to targeted (non-attack roll) spells, similar to the Swiftblade ability. That'd definitely be worth a feat.

Combat Expertise gives a dodge bonus, so it does apply against touch attacks. What it doesn't defend against is being flat-footed (or otherwise Dex denied).

[Nifft]

Combat Expertise

As an Immediate action when you would be hit by an attack, you gain a Dodge bonus to AC vs. that attack. You can declare use of this feat after you see the attack roll total, but before damage is rolled.

Your Dodge bonus is equal to half your BAB, or +2, whichever is more.

[ericgrau]

It's simpler than you think. When you're standard melee with a 75% chance to hit and 25% chance to get hit, you're fighting other melee, then you trade that for 55% and 5% to become invinci-tank. Open the fight normally and hit at full attack bonus. Then if you hit half health against foe(s), you save your own life and hold your tanky position while continuing to do a little less damage. Against higher CR solo super foes you'll still get hit a little but you'll be taking half damage or less. So just don't do the switch at single digit HP, because of them and because even low CR foes could roll a 20. And don't switch against foes that don't attack AC of course.

For a core feat it's pretty good. For a higher OP build your tripper has a free way to save himself in emergencies. Plus trips are touch attacks so you can still be pretty effective.

It's basically your "P-uhlease, melee don't run from mundanes" button. Pop it on, stay there, keep fighting.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I used it effectively on my Eldritch knight in 3.0 and 3.5 (Living Greyhawk so not TO but solidly mid Optimization IMO). There were a number of situations where a bad guy could hit on a reasonable number (13 or 15 for example) and combat expertising put the character's AC close to "don't bother" levels which was useful in a number of tough fights especially around mid levels. Past level 11 or so it didn't see too much use but at those levels, the character's combat contribution was much more spell and arcane strike dependent.

In Pathfinder, there are a few options to make combat expertise better (unfortunately there are more to make fighting defensively better) and the feat is generally worse because it is no longer granular. However, the fighter player in my Red Hand of Doom campaign deployed it effectively on more than a few occasions (before a heavy pick critical ended his career at the climactic battle of the fourth act). I have also seen a number of inquisitors (PC and NPC) do mechanically similar things by switching their judgement from plus to hit to AC bonus and in many cases, this has been an effective choice.

The key for combat expertise or equivalent options is first, having an armor class that is high enough to begin with that Combat Expertise makes a noticable difference and second, knowing when it is the right time to use it. For power attack, all power attack all the time can be an effective choice for some characters. There are very few for whom all combat expertise all the time is a good idea but many for whom it is sometimes a good idea.

[Crake]

Combat Expertise gives a dodge bonus, so it does apply against touch attacks. What it doesn't defend against is being flat-footed (or otherwise Dex denied).

Which can easily be fixed by binding impulse boots, a single feat away with shape soulmeld, or just getting 2 levels in barbarian or warblade.

[mabriss lethe]

I've used it to good effect on a sandblaster focused build. It's basically a freebie since you don't make attack rolls. It would work equally as well on any other build that deals primary in area attacks.

[zergling.exe]

I've used it to good effect on a sandblaster focused build. It's basically a freebie since you don't make attack rolls. It would work equally as well on any other build that deals primary in area attacks.

Unfortunately you have to use the attack or full attack option in melee to be able to activate it, otherwise it would be useful for combat styles other than melee too.

Benefit: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee,

[AnimeTheCat]

Combat expertise can be superb, especially since dodge bonuses usually stack with each other. dodge+Combat Expertise is a +6 bonus to AC and Touch AC against one opponent and a +5 against all opponents. That's pretty substantial considering getting +6 to your AC via magic items is very costly. Further, you can get your magic items AND get your dodge bonuses to AC.

A level 4 fighter can get an AC of 28 without anything except feat investment, and a 23 Touch AC at that. Feats used are Dodge, Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Broadblade Short Sword [CAd]), Shield Focus (Heavy), Shield Ward, Shape Soulmeld (Impulse Boots). Dodge gets +1 to a selected enemy, Combat Expertise stacks a +4 to that (For -4 to hit), Broadblade Short Sword improves the Combat Expertise bonus by 2 for a total of +7 dodge bonus to AC. At level 4 you can reasonably assume a fighter will at least have a breastplate, adding +5 to the total AC and a Heavy shield for an additional +3 (shield focus heavy) to AC. Shield Ward Applies that +3 to touch AC. The final touch is the dexterity modifier and a 16 dex is reasonable to assume for a dex focused fighter netting +3 from dex modifier. Totaled up will get you a 28 standard AC and a 23 Touch AC against a single target (27/22 against all others) before any magic items or other enhancement bonuses. At level 4, that means most CR 4 monsters are only going to hit you on a 19 or 20. With the friendly application of a magic weapon from an ally, or a DFI bard, etc (AKA teamwork), you have a high defense character that can be a threat against CR 4 creatures and effectively tank them. Now, the party should probably not be having multiple CR 4 creatures attack them at once, so it's more reasonable to consider multiple CR 2 creatures attacking which will be even less likely to hit unless they roll a natural 20.

Not saying it's the world's greatest feat, but it's pretty useful since it grants a dodge bonus and with party buffs for damage and to hit, the penalty to attack can easily be made up for and with a little teamwork in the first round, there wouldn't be much threat from many opponents that can't immediately identify the spellcasters as the greatest threats.

[Anthrowhale]

I agree that Combat Expertise is great for quenching expected damage and have used it as such. Combined with some form of regeneration or fast healing, you have the mechanics to run a 'hold the gap' scenario.

The melee combat constraint seems to apply to any melee attack, for example on that rock next to your left foot. Hence, Combat Expertise can potentially grant an AC even in ranged combat. Furthermore, you can attack with ranged weapons and use combat expertise by just using one melee attack/round for example with an elvencraft longbow.

Potentially, the to-hit penalty can be offset by feats like Deep Impact or Fell Shot which convert an attack into a touch attack.

Allied Defense (from Shining South) is the feat which makes Combat Expertise super advantageous. Instead of the AC bonus applying to just you, it applies to you and all adjacent allies. This works great in phalanx fighting from as early as level 1 and even in a general melee, you can typically grant the AC bonus to a couple allies. This gives tank a new meaning.

For high level combat, Allied Defense + Improved Combat Expertise + Antimagic Field + all the other nonmagical forms of AC you can find forms an effective strategy in many situations. The baseline AC here might be 45=10+3(dexterity)+8(full plate)+4(tower shield)+20(Improved Combat Expertise) which is relevant against most CR20 monsters.

[gorfnab]

Combat Expertise stacks with fighting defensively bonus and it is often a feat tax for some feats or abilities based on using any fighting defensively options in combat. I created this build below using a number of the options mentioned in this handbook: A short guide to defensive fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?178445-A-short-guide-to-defensive-fighting)

Human or Strongheart Halfling
1. Swashbuckler - Deadly Defense (CS), Combat Expertise, B: Weapon Finesse
2. Cobra Strike (UA) Decisive Strike (PHBII) Monk - B: Dodge
3. Cobra Strike (UA) Monk - Carmendine Monk (CoV), B: Mobility
4. Swashbuckler
5. Swashbuckler
6. Thief Acrobat - Combat Reflexes
7. Thief Acrobat
8. Thief Acrobat
9. Thief Acrobat - Einhander (PHBII)
10. Thief Acrobat or Warblade
11. Warblade or Duelist
12. Warblade or Duelist - Ironheart Aura (ToB)
13. Duelist
14. Duelist
15. Duelist - Robilar's Gambit (PHBII)
16. Duelist
17. Duelist
18. Duelist - Stormgaurd Warrior (ToB)
19. Duelist
20. Duelist

Levels 10 through 12 can be rearranged depending on your needs. The current setup gives you Improved Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at these levels. However if you don't need Improved Evasion take one less level of Thief Acrobat and move the first level of Warblade to level 10. If you don't need Uncanny Dodge don't take the 2nd level of Warblade and instead go into Duelist a level early. If you don't need either abilities take Warblade at level 10 and enter Duelist at level 11.

If flaws are available, choose two and then grab the feats EWP: Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv, pre-errata version if possible) and Versatile Unarmed Strike (PHBII). If traits are available pick up Cautious (UA).

Items:
Vest of Defense (MIC)
Bracers of Blocking (Dragon 322)
Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv) (pre-errata version if possible) or Rapier with the Defensive Surge (MIC) enhancement.

[heavyfuel]

One way of increasing Combat Expertise usefulness is to allow rider effect triggering of Fighting Defensively also trigger of Combat Expertise.

Considering this is RAW, there's really no reason not to allow it.

The PHB says:


Normal
What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.

And Combat Expertise says:



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.

Normally a character fighting defensively incurs a -4/+2 penalty/bonus, but with Combat Expertise, this ratio becomes 1/1 up to BAB or +5. This is the ratio for a character fighting defensively using Combat Expertise.

[Zombimode]

Hey, you're right. Thats one houserule less.
Thanks for pointing it out :smallsmile:

[Elder_Basilisk]

Interesting. Does anyone know if Pathfinder includes that paragraph? It would make pf Combat Expertise a lot better.

[Zaq]

Considering this is RAW, there's really no reason not to allow it.

The PHB says:


And Combat Expertise says:



Normally a character fighting defensively incurs a -4/+2 penalty/bonus, but with Combat Expertise, this ratio becomes 1/1 up to BAB or +5. This is the ratio for a character fighting defensively using Combat Expertise.

Hmm. Does this mean that you can't separately invoke Combat Expertise and fighting defensively at the same time to have them stack? (Not sure when it would be beneficial to do that, given the massive penalties involved, but there's probably something stupid that could theoretically trigger by using both at once.)

[Sam K]

Combat expertise is essentially about making nothing happen. It makes you harder to hit at the price of becoming worse at hitting back. If you can capitalise on the status quo, that strategy makes sense. But in my experience PCs rarely can. PCs tend to be agents of change, not perservers of the status quo.

If you're frequently fighting to "not lose" rather than "win" the feat makes more sense. That makes me think it might be quite good for some BBEGs: keep fighting until the BBEP (Big Bad Evil Plan) comes into play.

Of course in theory the PCs may fight like that as well: the "tank" keeps fighting until their plan (likely "the sorcerer blasts everything") comes into play, but it only works if the DM is nice enough to keep the enemy attacking the guy which is obviously hard to hit but doing no damage, instead of attacking the guys that are doing a lot of damage but are easier to hit.

[heavyfuel]

Hmm. Does this mean that you can't separately invoke Combat Expertise and fighting defensively at the same time to have them stack? (Not sure when it would be beneficial to do that, given the massive penalties involved, but there's probably something stupid that could theoretically trigger by using both at once.)

You can use either, but not both. For example, a lv 1 Rogue has no BAB to use combat expertise, even he has the feat. He can still choose to fight defensively without the feat.

[King of Nowhere]

It's situational, but it can be useful in many situation.

One single strong fighter (npc boss for example) can use it against many lesser ones: he'll hit less often, but he will become almost untoucheable. Generally, as others pointed out, if you're hitting with 2 and are hit with 15, then taking a -5 to hit to get near invulnerability is worth.

Another useful situation is at the start of a fight. When you are talking with your enemy, and a fight is likely to erupt, use the total defence action and combat expertise. If the other side starts attacking, you'll have +9 to AC (+11 with tumble). When two sides are facing each other, I always take it for granted that until they start to attack, everyone is on total defence. And in many cases of 1v1 melee, it may be useful to use the total defence (including combat expertise) and let the other attack first; he'll charge and attack once without being able to deal much damage, then in your turn you drop the combat expertise and perform a full attack

My tripping monk doesn't have combat expertise but fights defensively a lot - which is even worse, because it's a +3 to AC for a -4 to hit. But when tripping you only need a touch attack, so you can mostly afford the -4. And my AC is not great, so I'd last much less. Especially considering that our DM is fond of using hordes of mooks, and monks are not well suited for that kind of fights. Heck, there was one whole fight where I did nothing but stand defensively and hold a gap. It was pretty useful, because it prevented the part from being surrounded, and forced all the enemies to approach from another side, where they would be surrounded by two other melee. Me acting as a pillar turned a battle aat a numerical ddisadvantage into a fight where enemy mooks would come one or two at a time and be slaughtered. And the cleric only had to heal me once or twice.
The occasional trips I managed to land also helped.

So, it's unfortunately much less useful than one would like, but it has a lot of niche application. In particular if you can afford to take the hit penalty, or if you can count on the rest of the party to take on a more aggressive role while you tank.

[AnimeTheCat]

Is it common thought that you can use both combat expertise and fighting defensively together? I had never thought that you could use them both at the same time, specifically because the feat calls out fighting defensively as the normal situation and using combat expertise as the changed/improved version.

What's the thought process behind thinking that they stack? It doesn't seem as though they do at all to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

[King of Nowhere]

Is it common thought that you can use both combat expertise and fighting defensively together? I had never thought that you could use them both at the same time, specifically because the feat calls out fighting defensively as the normal situation and using combat expertise as the changed/improved version.

What's the thought process behind thinking that they stack? It doesn't seem as though they do at all to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

several reasons for thinking they'd stack.
- in metagaming terms, if they didn't stack, then the feat really wouldn't be worth much. I mean, when I DM I generally stop things from stacking when they become too huge, but that's definitely not the case here.
Also, if you have tumble you can get +6 from total defence. With combat expertise, you can get +5. SO you take this feat to become better at fighting defesively, and actually become worse at it? Doesn't make much sense.
- in verosimilitude terms, the higher defence level is when you're not attacking at all and you're only caring for defence. And that's absolutely not the case when you use combat expertise. You are still making attacks at -5. You can put even more resources on defence if you stop attacking altogether. It would also be ridiculous that you could stop attacking for a +4, or you could take a -5 for a +5.
- in rule lawyering terms, it says nowhere that you can't use both. And dodge bonuses stack.
- in terms of rule as intended, maybe that "A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively" could be read as the combat expertise being meant to substitute figthing defensively. But it's not clear at all; I am generally for strict interpretations, and I read it as "if you don't have this feat, fighting defensively is the only way you can raise your AC as a combat manuever".

[BowStreetRunner]

Is it common thought that you can use both combat expertise and fighting defensively together? I had never thought that you could use them both at the same time, specifically because the feat calls out fighting defensively as the normal situation and using combat expertise as the changed/improved version.

What's the thought process behind thinking that they stack? It doesn't seem as though they do at all to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Because the rules explicitly say so in this case.

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. This bonus stacks with the AC bonus granted by the Combat Expertise feat (page 92).

[AnimeTheCat]

Because the rules explicitly say so in this case.

Right, but both require you to either take the attack or full attack action to use them. Wouldn't that mean you select one or the other when you take that action?

[zergling.exe]

It's situational, but it can be useful in many situation.

One single strong fighter (npc boss for example) can use it against many lesser ones: he'll hit less often, but he will become almost untoucheable. Generally, as others pointed out, if you're hitting with 2 and are hit with 15, then taking a -5 to hit to get near invulnerability is worth.

Another useful situation is at the start of a fight. When you are talking with your enemy, and a fight is likely to erupt, use the total defence action and combat expertise. If the other side starts attacking, you'll have +9 to AC (+11 with tumble). When two sides are facing each other, I always take it for granted that until they start to attack, everyone is on total defence. And in many cases of 1v1 melee, it may be useful to use the total defence (including combat expertise) and let the other attack first; he'll charge and attack once without being able to deal much damage, then in your turn you drop the combat expertise and perform a full attack

My tripping monk doesn't have combat expertise but fights defensively a lot - which is even worse, because it's a +3 to AC for a -4 to hit. But when tripping you only need a touch attack, so you can mostly afford the -4. And my AC is not great, so I'd last much less. Especially considering that our DM is fond of using hordes of mooks, and monks are not well suited for that kind of fights. Heck, there was one whole fight where I did nothing but stand defensively and hold a gap. It was pretty useful, because it prevented the part from being surrounded, and forced all the enemies to approach from another side, where they would be surrounded by two other melee. Me acting as a pillar turned a battle aat a numerical ddisadvantage into a fight where enemy mooks would come one or two at a time and be slaughtered. And the cleric only had to heal me once or twice.
The occasional trips I managed to land also helped.

So, it's unfortunately much less useful than one would like, but it has a lot of niche application. In particular if you can afford to take the hit penalty, or if you can count on the rest of the party to take on a more aggressive role while you tank.


several reasons for thinking they'd stack.
- in metagaming terms, if they didn't stack, then the feat really wouldn't be worth much. I mean, when I DM I generally stop things from stacking when they become too huge, but that's definitely not the case here.
Also, if you have tumble you can get +6 from total defence. With combat expertise, you can get +5. SO you take this feat to become better at fighting defesively, and actually become worse at it? Doesn't make much sense.
- in verosimilitude terms, the higher defence level is when you're not attacking at all and you're only caring for defence. And that's absolutely not the case when you use combat expertise. You are still making attacks at -5. You can put even more resources on defence if you stop attacking altogether. It would also be ridiculous that you could stop attacking for a +4, or you could take a -5 for a +5.
- in rule lawyering terms, it says nowhere that you can't use both. And dodge bonuses stack.
- in terms of rule as intended, maybe that "A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively" could be read as the combat expertise being meant to substitute figthing defensively. But it's not clear at all; I am generally for strict interpretations, and I read it as "if you don't have this feat, fighting defensively is the only way you can raise your AC as a combat manuever".

Total Defense =/= Fighting Defensively. You can use Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise together, but you can't use Total Defense with either of them because you are not making an attack to activate them. They are conflicting actions.

[BowStreetRunner]

Right, but both require you to either take the attack or full attack action to use them. Wouldn't that mean you select one or the other when you take that action?

If you actually look at the Player's Handbook it's pretty clear that fighting defensively is a subsection of the Attack action or the Full Attack action. You have a big blue Attack or Full Attack and then a bunch of smaller black sections within that one. So you fight defensively when taking an Attack or Full Attack action. You can also use Combat Expertise when taking an attack or full attack action.

That's not saying that everyone who has Combat Expertise is going to want to fight defensively as well. But for some characters by the time they've dumped a -5 penalty on their attack to get the first +5 to AC, putting another -4 in for another +2 to AC isn't going to make a difference. They probably already may only hit on a natural 20. It's still a better option (+7 AC for a -9 attack) than Total Defense (+4 AC and can't attack).

[AnimeTheCat]

If you actually look at the Player's Handbook it's pretty clear that fighting defensively is a subsection of the Attack action or the Full Attack action. You have a big blue Attack or Full Attack and then a bunch of smaller black sections within that one. So you fight defensively when taking an Attack or Full Attack action. You can also use Combat Expertise when taking an attack or full attack action.

That's not saying that everyone who has Combat Expertise is going to want to fight defensively as well. But for some characters by the time they've dumped a -5 penalty on their attack to get the first +5 to AC, putting another -4 in for another +2 to AC isn't going to make a difference. They probably already may only hit on a natural 20. It's still a better option (+7 AC for a -9 attack) than Total Defense (+4 AC and can't attack).

That's awesome, thank you. I didn't think it was allowed. I greatly appreciate it.

[heavyfuel]

Because the rules explicitly say so in this case.

I stand corrected

[Matrota]

So it seems that many other groups have found it quite useful, I suppose I just didn't see much of it being used due to varying levels of optimization in different groups. I hadn't really considered that it's a dodge bonus, therefore a bonus to touch AC as well as normal. May find some ways to use this in early tank builds now.

[PacMan2247]

Just make sure your character doesn't move or even say anything after attacking. "The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action." becomes a real bitch when your DM points out that speaking is a free action.

[BowStreetRunner]

Just make sure your character doesn't move or even say anything after attacking. "The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action." becomes a real bitch when your DM points out that speaking is a free action.

LMFAO!!! Combat Expertise really DOES say that, doesn't it!!! Of course, this was written before they even thought of things like immediate actions or swift actions, so I doubt they really understood what they were putting in there. But that is absolutely hilarious! Next time I DM I'm totally going to have to hold this over someone - at least long enough to get a laugh out of it before I let them off the hook. :smallbiggrin:

RAW, in this case, really, really sucks!

[King of Nowhere]

Total Defense =/= Fighting Defensively. You can use Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise together, but you can't use Total Defense with either of them because you are not making an attack to activate them. They are conflicting actions.

Huh. I always considered total defence as equivalent to full attack. I also considered that doing nothing can count as a full attack, because you are doing nothing you could not do while full attacking. Ok, this does not sound great. How about "you are devoting all your attention to weapons, so it is equivalent to an attack action"? There is also the fact that total defence really seem like a more extreme case of figthing defensively, and I would never assume them to be different actions.

But I suppose by RAW you are correct. Not that it comes out that often to realy be relevant anyway