Let's have a talk about Combat Expertise

[Aotrs Commander]

Combat Expertise has always been something of a problem feat, since it's intrduction in 3.5 (I actually thought it came in 3.0, but looking it up, it did not) and continuing PF1. It's never been a popular feat for several reasons, and the more I thought about it - when promtped by the discussion on another thread, the more I begin to question it.

(Yes, yes, I'm sure you're all sick of me by this point, but let's face face guys, girls and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, there is only a finite amount of 3.x/PF that I have left to pick holes in at this point, so I might even eventually shut up...!)

The prerequiste is the first problem. Combat Expertise is a gateway feat to a lot of other feats, including a goodly chunk of the combat maneuvers, in both 3.5 and PF. It is essentially a stat tax for martials to be able to do much apart from Hit With Sword (50% of Combat Manuveres and feint). In core 3.5, notably the ONLY class that actually had Intelligence as a stat that had any relevance outside of extra skill points was Wizard, the class absolutely least inclined to want to spend a feat on it. For fighters and especially monks - the classes MOST likely to want it, either because they had the actually feats to get it or because of the thematic approach, had to sacrifice their precious stat points to gain an Intelligence that brought few benefits, especially to the fighter, and on an already-MAD destribution on Monk. Rogues had it slightly better, since as a skill monkey, they get the most milage out of more Intelligence.

And Combat Expertise doesn't really HAVE anything to with how smart you are, outside of the tenuous connection. Unlike Power Attack or Dodge, where Strength and Dodge made at least kind of sense, Combat Expertise really doesn't have anything to intelligence not even it's FLUFF. "You are trained at using your combat skill for defense as well as offense." (Why is "trained" and Intelligence thing, given you can literally "train" animals? But that's a common collelation a lot of the feats I looked at seemed to make.) The pre-req seems to exists soley as feat tax, which Is Bad.

You know that it is clearly a problem, when Pathfinder 1 had to create a specific feat and add a class feature to TWO base classes at least, as a means to SPECIFICALLY get around Combat Expertise's pre-reqs (i.e. to qualify for Combat feats that have an Int 13 requirement).

And that's not hyberbole. I did a check; out of the 787 combat feats in PF on the PFSRD, there were EIGHT that used Int 13 as a pre-req but did not also require Combat Expertise (and three that required one of those as pre-req but did themselves not require Int 13): Ambush Sense, Artful Dodge, Brute Style (and by dint of requiring that, Brute Stomp and Brute Assault), Defensive Weapon Training, Focussed Shot, Fox Style (and Fox Insight, but not Fox Trickery), Quick Study and Traditional Weapons.

Ambush Sense is for rogues (trap sense requirement) and Quick Study for fighters (Bravery requirement). The Int connection to Defensive Weapon Training and Traditional Study is little if any less tenuous that to Combat Expertise itself. Both Style feats have at least a fair fluff reason - though not mechanical ones - to have an Int-based prereq.



Out of those 787 feats (this is JUST Combat feats, remember), of which 36 have Int 13 as requirement or rely on a feat which does... Only FOUR ACTUALLY gives you an benefit for HAVING an Int bonus; Artful Dodge (use Int instead of Dex for prereqs), Fox Style (if you have Int 19, bonus on Bluff), Fox Insigth (If you have Int 19, increase feint/demoralise DC) and Focussed Shot (Int to ranged damage). ALL the rest only have Int 13 as basically a flavour requirement; it has not actual bearing on the feat's mechanics,

Half a percent.

That's quite impressive?

So, yes, basically, Brawler's Cunning and Swashbuckler's Finesse are required to get around a requirement for fundementally ONE feat.

(I didn't do a similar analysis for 3.5, on the basis that it would be harder to find a conveniant list, but it pretty much still holds true from the ones I looked at on my own list.)



So, what do you actually GET for this feat tax? Given that it gates off so much stuff, it must be, like, the boss, right?

In 3.5, it lets you straight subtract from attacl to add to AC (to a max of 5, you better take another feat to go further) and in PF, it does the same, only on a fixed BAB-based rate (to a max of -6/+6 at level 20).

Oh.

That sounds good right? It sort of sounda a bit like what Power Attack does, yes, so it must be good, especailly as they capped the 3.5 version?

Well... No.

It's a purely defensive option, and those only have a very limited niche to start with. (It's also passive, which isn't interesting.) It's often noted that AC doesn't scales as quickly as attack bonuses, and outside of very specific, near TO-levels of maxing out AC specialists, trading offense for defense is not a good trade-off. Trading attack for AC doesn't turn you into a Pokémon-style Staller; at best, what it does it turn the fight into a random chance of who rolls high enough to hit the other guy - you with you penalty to AC, verses them with your boosted AC. And that doesn't win you battles. There are far better ways to attempt to tank - just making yourself need a higher number to hit if you don't have anything to punish ignoring you works on only stupid enemies.

So most characters that have to take will never use it in practise - because they are NOT specialist AC tanks. Sure, the feat has a USE - but the use is much more niche than the feats it gates. Power Attack is a much better use of you sacrificing your attack bonus for something and so Combext Expertise is in general in direct resources competation with one of the most useful and wide-spread feats in the game.



(It's worth noting in 20 years of playing 3.0, I've only ever used Fighting Defensively on a character ONCE, and that was in Pathfinder Kingmaker with a paladin/monk build using Crane Style. I didn't take Combat Expertise, because it wsn't worth it; there were simply far better options that didn't reduce my offense as well - e.g. Crane Wing, which gave me a +4 bonus for no further loss of offense and Crane Riposte that gave me some extra offense.)



So. We have a feat whose prereqs don't tie it to it's mechanics or EVEN the fluff it's given, which is an ability-score tax on the classes that most want to use it that gates off a wide variety of feats (to which Int also doesn't apply) that the martial classes most penalised by this most need to be able to do stuff outside of "roll attack" (to the point where PF had to actively work around it rather than errata it) and that gives an extremely niche benefit that comes at the expense locking out other, better options that most of these class won't want to use anyway.

So it isn't even good at doing the job it's supposed to do for the classes that will be in the potenial position to want to use it.



I started this rumination wondering what the pre-req for Combat Expertise should be, if not Intelligence - or if it should have one at all - but as I've looked at it more and more, I find myself increasingly asking whether it should exist at all. And if it should, whether it ought to be a stand-along feat and not gate so much off, and if a gate feat is required at all in its place, what that feat should actually DO that would benefit a wider array of characters that will be taking it to get to the Good Stuff - perhaps something like a small flat AC bonus (like PF Dodge), or a simple nonscaling -1 attack for +2 AC which might be a trade-off worth having.



So, playground, is Combat Expertise defencible from a mechanical standpoint? Again, I can certainly see that people might want it for specific - and niche - builds as a stand-alone, but as a gateway feat tax, it really does not stand up to scuteny as far as I can see.



(I should note that I had already disconnected all Combat Maneuvers from feat prereqs entirely for 3.Aotrs, as well as folding in PF's "greater" into scalng abilities, to reduce the feat tax before I started this. And also, I have also elimnated the much-reviled Mobility and folded it straight into Dodge, 'cos Mobility was an even worse feat tax.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Here's all 34 of the 3.5 feats I could find that specifically list Combat Expertise as a prerequisite, but this doesn't include feats that have one of those feats as a prerequisite, though:
Feat nameRulebook
Allied DefenseShining South
Chink in the ArmorSong and Silence: A Guidebook to Bards and Rogues
Cobalt ExpertiseMagic of Incarnum
Combat Cloak ExpertPlayer's Handbook II
Combat InsightComplete Warrior
Deceptive DodgeDragon Compendium
Defensive StrikeComplete Warrior
Deft StrikeComplete Adventurer
Deft StrikeDraconomicon
Epic Combat ExpertiseComplete Warrior
Improved Combat ExpertiseComplete Warrior
Improved DisarmPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved FeintPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved OverrunSword and Fist: A Guidebook to Monks and Fighters
Improved TripPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved Whirlwind AttackEpic Level Handbook
Inlindl SchoolDrow of the Underdark
Karmic StrikeComplete Warrior
Melee EvasionPlayer's Handbook II
Mighty are FallenDragon Compendium
Quick StaffComplete Warrior
RiposteDragon Compendium
Sand SnareSandstorm
Sense WeaknessDraconomicon
Shield of BladesPlayer's Guide to Eberron
Single Blade StyleDragon Compendium
Spinning DefenseDragon Compendium
Steal And StrikeDrow of the Underdark
Superior ExpertiseDeities and Demigods
Superior ExpertiseFaiths & Pantheons
Surprising RiposteDrow of the Underdark
Vae SchoolDrow of the Underdark
Vicious WoundSavage Species
Whirlwind AttackPlayer's Handbook v.3.5


3.5 has the Broadblade Shortsword in CV, which was errated to only give +1 AC instead of the printed +2, but that still stacks per such weapon wielded. Before the errata a Thri-Kreen with Multiweapon Fighting and four of those could take a -2 to hit for +10 AC (or save a feat and fight defensively for -4 to hit and +11 AC, but with MWF penalties you're even less likely to hit). There's also the Longstaff in CV and the Quick Staff feat in CW, both of which can help make Combat Expertise worthwhile on the right build, such as a Duskblade or Wizard Gish with Eilservs School.

Edit: I wanted to throw together an Eilservs School Gish with Quick Staff:
8th level: Human, Human Paragon 1/ Fighter 1/ Martial Wizard 2/ Human Paragon 2/ Spellsword 1/ Eldritch Knight 1, future levels are Eldritch Knight 1/ Abjurant Champion 5/ EK+. Eight feats without flaws: EWP: Longstaff, Combat Expertise, Expeditious Dodge, Weapon Focus: Quarterstaff, Eilservs School, Practiced Spellcaster, Arcane Strike, Power Attack. Wear Gloves of the Balanced Hand for TWF, or take flaws to get that and Ancestral Relic to upgrade your staff.

You can use iterative attacks to hit with different weapons you wield without taking TWF penalties, TWF penalties only apply if you gain additional attacks. A specific example given by WotC is someone holding a sword and a crossbow, dropping the only adjacent opponent with the sword then using their iterative attack to fire the crossbow at another opponent. So with a +6 BAB you can hit with each end of the quarterstaff for your two attacks, wielding it as a two-handed weapon for each since you're not TWF with it.

You can't cast (wand of) Wraithstrike and activate Eilservs School on the same round, but you can use (Lesser Rod of) Extended Wraithstrike every other round and activate Eilservs School on the rounds in between. Or just go Illumian with Naenhoon (which has the human subtype and can still take Human Paragon) and dip Sacred Exorcist to persist Wraithstrike.

Put two wand chambers in your longstaff, use Ancestral Relic to make it a +1 or higher weapon and make it a magic staff with charges of spells, and even make it a custom Runestaff if desired. Every time you modify your ancestral relic you can completely change what it has, so replace its magic-staff-with-20-charges-left effect (recovered value of that portion is 2/5 of the fully charged price) with a magic-staff-same-spells-fully-charged effect.

As for making Combat Expertise worthwhile, maybe make it so every -1 to hit gives you +1 AC per attack you make that round? So a character with iterative attacks, using TWF, secondary natural attacks, flurry of blows, snap kick, rapid shot, etc. would multiply that AC bonus by the number of attacks they make in their full attack. Yes, it would get absolutely absurd, but it would be worth the cost of taking it at that point and may even be considered a Nice Thing for martial characters. Plus there are plenty of ways to deny an opponent a dodge bonus to AC (if they don't have Uncanny Dodge or Balance 5 ranks). On top of that it would be hilarious with something like an Aptitude weapon Lightning Maces build.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Combat Expertise should be a default option instead of Fight Defensively/Total Defense. As you pointed out, there's little reason to ever use it, so it should be free, not a feat, but it does serve a purpose and needs to be added to the game.

If you want some form of replacement feat tax, something to let Int be relevant in combat could be interesting. Int Bonus to AC or Damage seems to fit the same basic mold as CE but isn't completely useless(just mostly). The problem there is that you have to be careful to balance "reasonable bonus for a 14-Int Fighter" with "Not broken on a 20-Int Wizard Gish", which is not an easy needle to thread.

[Biggus]

Comabte Expertise has always been something of a problem feat, since it's intrduction in 3.5 (I actually thought it cam in 3.0, but looking it up, it did not) and continuing PF1.

It did exist in 3.0, but it was just called Expertise then not Combat Expertise.

[Aotrs Commander]

Here's all 34 of the 3.5 feats I could find that specifically list Combat Expertise as a prerequisite, but this doesn't include feats that have one of those feats as a prerequisite, though:
Feat nameRulebook
Allied DefenseShining South
Chink in the ArmorSong and Silence: A Guidebook to Bards and Rogues
Cobalt ExpertiseMagic of Incarnum
Combat Cloak ExpertPlayer's Handbook II
Combat InsightComplete Warrior
Deceptive DodgeDragon Compendium
Defensive StrikeComplete Warrior
Deft StrikeComplete Adventurer
Deft StrikeDraconomicon
Epic Combat ExpertiseComplete Warrior
Improved Combat ExpertiseComplete Warrior
Improved DisarmPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved FeintPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved OverrunSword and Fist: A Guidebook to Monks and Fighters
Improved TripPlayer's Handbook v.3.5
Improved Whirlwind AttackEpic Level Handbook
Inlindl SchoolDrow of the Underdark
Karmic StrikeComplete Warrior
Melee EvasionPlayer's Handbook II
Mighty are FallenDragon Compendium
Quick StaffComplete Warrior
RiposteDragon Compendium
Sand SnareSandstorm
Sense WeaknessDraconomicon
Shield of BladesPlayer's Guide to Eberron
Single Blade StyleDragon Compendium
Spinning DefenseDragon Compendium
Steal And StrikeDrow of the Underdark
Superior ExpertiseDeities and Demigods
Superior ExpertiseFaiths & Pantheons
Surprising RiposteDrow of the Underdark
Vae SchoolDrow of the Underdark
Vicious WoundSavage Species
Whirlwind AttackPlayer's Handbook v.3.5

Not familair with all of those, but of the ones I do know, I can't think of any that actually need Intelligence mechanically.



As for making Combat Expertise worthwhile, maybe make it so every -1 to hit gives you +1 AC per attack you make that round? So a character with iterative attacks, using TWF, secondary natural attacks, flurry of blows, snap kick, rapid shot, etc. would multiply that AC bonus by the number of attacks they make in their full attack. Yes, it would get absolutely absurd, but it would be worth the cost of taking it at that point and may even be considered a Nice Thing for martial characters. Plus there are plenty of ways to deny an opponent a dodge bonus to AC (if they don't have Uncanny Dodge or Balance 5 ranks). On top of that it would be hilarious with something like an Aptitude weapon Lightning Maces build.

I think that might be too easy to abuse; it's make it almost an automatic feat to take for TWF. A TWF monk could be getting +4 AC out for a -1 to hit as soon as they could get three feats. A -1 to hit for the 11th-level dwarf barbarian fighter in my Rise of thr Runlords party for +6AC would shunt his AC nearly to that party's warblade tank.


Combat Expertise should be a default option instead of Fight Defensively/Total Defense. As you pointed out, there's little reason to ever use it, so it should be free, not a feat, but it does serve a purpose and needs to be added to the game.

That certainly is a fair argument; I've heard the same arguement made about Power Attack before now. Though as you say Combat Expertise is sufficiently uncommon to use that it is debatable whether it's worth a feat, unlike PA and it's other PF family, which get used a lot. I may well consider doing that, in addition to whatever else I do.


If you want some form of replacement feat tax, something to let Int be relevant in combat could be interesting. Int Bonus to AC or Damage seems to fit the same basic mold as CE but isn't completely useless(just mostly). The problem there is that you have to be careful to balance "reasonable bonus for a 14-Int Fighter" with "Not broken on a 20-Int Wizard Gish", which is not an easy needle to thread.

I think a replacement should not be linked to Intelligence at all, as the Int requirement is part of the problem. (There's already ways to do add Int to AC/attack already, though they require a bit of investment given they are mostly classes abilities, as I feel, at least, they ought to.)




It did exist in 3.0, but it was just called Expertise then not Combat Expertise.

AHHH, thank you; that would be why I couldn't find it, I was only looking for "Combat Expertise" on the 3.0 SRD and thought "could have sworn it was in 3.0, but as the last time I played that was, what 17 years sgo, so maybe I was wrong!"

So it is likely another remenant of 3.0 that got mostly copy-pasted up. PF certainly standardised it to the same level as they did with their other feats that did similar things, but apparently didn't stop to seriously ask "we're converting it, but should we?"

[Vrock Bait]

Mostly, with a lot of similar feats like Weapon Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting, I think it should just be something everyone can do. The reason why it’s so bad is that instead of offering a trade of feat slot for extra power, it offers a trade of feat slot for the option to do another trade. That’s alright with feats like Kung Fu Genius or Power Attack, but this feat simply gives too little benefit for the trade off.

[Anthrowhale]

There is a play-style where combat expertise ends up being pretty useful---a group engaged in tactical combat in a low magic setting. Then, if someone in the party specializes in AC and lockdown, they can keep the rest of the party from taking melee attacks while the rest of the party can specialize in dealing damage.

If it's a high magic / high op setting, the value is greatly diminished since combat doesn't last long enough for defense to really matter. And if it's a "group" that is really an uncoordinated bunch of individuals doing there thing, then the strategy is pointless.

Also note that when it's useful, Allied Defense and Improved Combat Expertise can really matter. The ability to add 20 to the AC of every character in the party (at level 20) at the cost of doing nothing productive offensively could be a good tradeoff in many combats. Taking the canonical Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard as an example, the fighter can do nothing, granting 20 extra AC to the other 3 members of the party. The budget armor calculator (http://www.wdtaylor.net/calculator.html) suggests the Wizard with Dex 14 can spend 8% of wealthy-by-level on equipment to reach an AC of 33 providing a combined AC of 53, which shuts off melee attacks by a Balor. Other characters (rogue, cleric, fighter) need invest even less so they can power up offense.

[Telok]

I used it reasonably well on a xeph dex & speed warblade. It stacked with fighting defensively and that, combined with a couple stacking movement boosts, allowed effective immunity to AoO when he zipped through fights to reach the casters at the back. As a one feat cost for on demand +5 ac it wasn't bad, although between massive dex and mithril light armor+shield+defending weapons/spikes that was an ac freak any ways. But it was also picked as a bonus feat from a distinctly strength biased feat list and we rolled stats which made the int requirement less problematic.

[Troacctid]

If you're a tripper, you can Combat Expertise on the touch attack to trip, and then cancel out the penalty on your real attacks with the bonus for attacking a prone target.


Mostly, with a lot of similar feats like Weapon Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting, I think it should just be something everyone can do.
It is already something everyone can do.

[Vrock Bait]

If you're a tripper, you can Combat Expertise on the touch attack to trip, and then cancel out the penalty on your real attacks with the bonus for attacking a prone target.


It is already something everyone can do.

Not well. I’ve never seen a single person ever use -4 to Atk & +2 to AC.

[Blackhawk748]

I rolled it into just an option for people to do like Power Attack. Yes PA gets used more but I firmly believe that it should just be an option instead of a Mandatory Feat that all THF people take. Making Combat Expertise take the role of Fighting Defensively would just make people more likely to actually use that option


There is a play-style where combat expertise ends up being pretty useful---a group engaged in tactical combat in a low magic setting. Then, if someone in the party specializes in AC and lockdown, they can keep the rest of the party from taking melee attacks while the rest of the party can specialize in dealing damage.

Even in that situation why would I make it harder for me to hit and lockdown my opponents (cuz Im a Martial Tripper I still need to hit) for mediocre AC increases?

[Aotrs Commander]

Even in that situation why would I make it harder for me to hit and lockdown my opponents (cuz Im a Martial Tripper I still need to hit) for mediocre AC increases?

It also is not much use you're playing PF, where trip is not a touch attack but a standard attack roll instead.

[Blackhawk748]

It also is not much use you're playing PF, where trip is not a touch attack but a standard attack roll instead.

Exactly. Yes, it's a touch attack in 3.5, but if I take a -4, that's a negative I don't need to be taking for a pretty mediocre advantage to AC. If it was -1 to get a +2 we could talk about it being a feat, but as is I don't think I've ever used it outside of something very, very specific.

I mean, this thing isn't Combat Focus which actually uses the Stat in question for something, so all you do is now have a random 13 in Int.

[Anthrowhale]

Even in that situation why would I make it harder for me to hit and lockdown my opponents (cuz Im a Martial Tripper I still need to hit) for mediocre AC increases?

See Troacctid's comment.

At times in the past, I've deliberately chosen and effectively used combat expertise in these sorts of tactical games.

It's not even clear to me that Combat Expertise is below the median amongst all feats.

[Blackhawk748]

See Troacctid's comment.

At times in the past, I've deliberately chosen and effectively used combat expertise in these sorts of tactical games.

It's not even clear to me that Combat Expertise is below the median amongst all feats.

Or I could have +4 to hit above my norm. I've played Trippers and literally never used Combat Expertise.

I would say it's definitely on the boring and niche side. Even in your example it's a pretty small niche that you even use it in and this is coming from someone who plays E6 a ton. AC boosts are just easier to get whereas bonuses to hit are not, so trading my To Hit for AC just doesn't seem to be worth it.

[Anthrowhale]

I would say it's definitely on the boring and niche side. Even in your example it's a pretty small niche that you even use it in and this is coming from someone who plays E6 a ton. AC boosts are just easier to get whereas bonuses to hit are not, so trading my To Hit for AC just doesn't seem to be worth it.
For a solo play style, where it's all about what you personally can do, it's certainly more limited.

Above, I was speaking about party use. If you can (effectively) increase the AC for the whole party by 5 (or 20 with improved combat expertise) while decreasing damage output by only 1/4, it seems like a fairly reasonable tradeoff. Think of it as an effective 4:1 improvement.

[Aotrs Commander]

For a solo play style, where it's all about what you personally can do, it's certainly more limited.

Above, I was speaking about party use. If you can (effectively) increase the AC for the whole party by 5 (or 20 with improved combat expertise) while decreasing damage output by only 1/4, it seems like a fairly reasonable tradeoff. Think of it as an effective 4:1 improvement.

Provided the entire party doesn't intend to flank, is happy to be in melee range of anything with more than 5' feet of reach and vulnerable to every single area-effect effect going around.

That feat (which I note comes from a fairly obscure setting sourcebook - it's certainly not one I've heard of and I had to look up) only applies the bonus to adjacent characters. My party size is usually as big as 6-8 and aside from marching order, they are all very rarely that close to each other.

[Psyren]

So it is likely another remenant of 3.0 that got mostly copy-pasted up. PF certainly standardised it to the same level as they did with their other feats that did similar things, but apparently didn't stop to seriously ask "we're converting it, but should we?"

Why do you think they didn't seriously ask that? As Biffonacius pointed out, it's a prerequisite for at least 30 feats in 3.5, several of which are found in core. One of the biggest selling points of Pathfinder, especially early on, was that people could take their existing 3.5 characters and port them over wholesale with minimal work - especially core characters.

The approach they ended up taking was recreating it, and then printing something later to allow people who didn't like it (many of us, it turned out) to skip using it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hey look, I'm an outlier again.

I'm usually loathe to build a fighting type character that -doesn't- have combat expertise. Doubly so if I can't at least get the ranks in tumble to make fighting defensively -4/+3 instead.

There are plenty of situations where being able to drag the fight out can work to the PCs' advantage; a barbarian enemy's rage only lasts so long, for example.

Since it's a dodge bonus, it also improves touch ac. That can be a serious life or death roll in a -lot- of cases or at least the difference between continuing to fight unfettered vs being severely hampered.

Finally, if you're making touch-attacks as an avverage or good BAB character (tripping, grappling, throwing a net, emerald razor, stormguard warrior, etc), you can certainly afford the to-hit penalty and more AC is -rarely- a bad thing if you don't expect the attack to disable your foe immediately.


Now improved expertise; that's a feat that's tough to justify unless your GM rules that using expertise -is- fighting defensively rather than the two being separate things that stack. If fighting defensivelly and expertise are two things, it's gonna be a rare situation indeed that you need more than 7-8 ac for a -9 to-hit penalty. That's just "I'm trying my damnedest to stay alive long enough for the situation to change because my hits aren't going to accomplish much of anything right now anyway."

[ExLibrisMortis]

Combat Expertise is bad, agreed.

Proposed new version, mirroring Power Attack:
(1) The stat requirement is now Dexterity or Intelligence.
(2) The maximum penalty is now limited by your base attack bonus (no Improved version needed).
(3) The AC bonus is doubled if you're using a shield (benefiting from a shield bonus to AC).
(4) A tactical feat is introduced that allows you to shift the attack penalty to damage (to a minimum of 1), which facilitates Trip/Disarm-based builds.

Of course (4) would combine with Shock Trooper for a net gain of +1 damage and +1 AC per base attack (stacking -1 damage/+2 AC with -1 AC/+2 damage), as long as you were wielding a two-handed weapon and under a shield spell. But since that would presumably take ~6 feats (CA and PA, the two tactical feats, and Improved Bull Rush + second prerequisite for this hypothetical tactical feat), I'm okay with that. I'd suggest rebalancing some other classic prerequisite feats (like Dodge), and, if you feel the numbers are too inflated, capping PA and CA at 1/2 base attack + 2.

(You can make the "must have a shield" requirement stricter by requiring a physical shield, but there's still animated shields out there, so that just makes it slightly more expensive to pull this combo off.)

[Anthrowhale]

Provided the entire party doesn't intend to flank, is happy to be in melee range of anything with more than 5' feet of reach and vulnerable to every single area-effect effect going around.

You don't need allied defense to gain a 4:1 advantage at low levels---all you need is a doorway. Stand in the doorway and block any monsters from passing through while letting your allies rain ranged attacks. Obviously this doesn't always work, but doors are common as is the party having better ranged attacks than the monsters.

[el minster]

Combat Expertise is bad, agreed.

Proposed new version, mirroring Power Attack:
(1) The stat requirement is now Dexterity or Intelligence.
(2) The maximum penalty is now limited by your base attack bonus (no Improved version needed).
(3) The AC bonus is doubled if you're using a shield (benefiting from a shield bonus to AC).
(4) A tactical feat is introduced that allows you to shift the attack penalty to damage (to a minimum of 1), which facilitates Trip/Disarm-based builds.

Of course (4) would combine with Shock Trooper for a net gain of +1 damage and +1 AC per base attack (stacking -1 damage/+2 AC with -1 AC/+2 damage), as long as you were wielding a two-handed weapon and under a shield spell. But since that would presumably take ~6 feats (CA and PA, the two tactical feats, and Improved Bull Rush + second prerequisite for this hypothetical tactical feat), I'm okay with that. I'd suggest rebalancing some other classic prerequisite feats (like Dodge), and, if you feel the numbers are too inflated, capping PA and CA at 1/2 base attack + 2.

(You can make the "must have a shield" requirement stricter by requiring a physical shield, but there's still animated shields out there, so that just makes it slightly more expensive to pull this combo off.)

I like this but I'm thinking -1 attack for +1.5
AC turns into +2 AC with shield or more than one weapon. Up to -6 attack and Dex or Int prerequisite.

[tiercel]

It’s not enough to redeem the feat as is, but it should be noted that Combat Expertise supplies a dodge bonus, which means it matters (and proportionally more) for touch AC. If you need to worry about trips, grapples, Stormguard Warrior, rays of just-lose, a Mailman looking to deliver the damage (or even a Hellfire Warlock), etc.... having an AC bonus does sound better (albeit limited by the need to be making an attack/full-attack in melee to get the bonus).

Beyond that, yeah, feat tax, and arguably suffers the issues of many prereq feats.

[Morty]

Combat Expertise is more of a symptom than a problem in itself. A flagrant example of the general approach to non-casting characters and abilities in the 3E era. Feats for everything remotely special you want to do, piles of prerequisites and what you get for all of it isn't even that good. The 13 Int requirement mostly feels like misapplied realism.

[Fizban]

Warning: Fundamental disagreement on basically all of melee combat incoming.

But hey, you asked and I feel like restating it, so here's what I've been saying for years. Consider it a mission statement- I know perfectly well that you're going to disagree with most or all of it (that's kinda the point). But we do exist. And there is one non-rhetorical question in there.

Also I'm gonna spoiler it 'cause everyone else's responses are short.


For fighters and especially monks - the classes MOST likely to want it, either because they had the actually feats to get it or because of the thematic approach, had to sacrifice their precious stat points to gain an Intelligence that brought few benefits, especially to the fighter, and on an already-MAD destribution on Monk.
Your precious stat points, are my "the game was written assuming a +2 modifier to start, not +4/6/8/lol." If you put your top three stats from the elite array into physicals (and the playtest characters used the elite array, with builds that would make you weep), you have 15, 14, and 13, for modifiers of +2, +2, and +1. If you shift the 13 to int, you can use the 12 instead, resulting in modifiers of +2, +2, and +1. Literally zero reduction in physical capability. The only reduction is that you can't increase that +1 to a +2 until 8th, assuming you were even considering that.

It is only in a world where you're expected to have all 18's and yet also be somehow on a constrained budget that ability score budgeting becomes a serious problem. When the standard is +0 to +2, anyone can play.

Rogues had it slightly better, since as a skill monkey, they get the most milage out of more Intelligence.
Alternatively, rogues have the least use for intelligence, because the massive pile of points they're given is already enough to do everything they need to do and then some.

And Combat Expertise doesn't really HAVE anything to with how smart you are, outside of the tenuous connection. Unlike Power Attack or Dodge, where Strength and Dodge made at least kind of sense, Combat Expertise really doesn't have anything to intelligence not even it's FLUFF. "You are trained at using your combat skill for defense as well as offense." (Why is "trained" and Intelligence thing, given you can literally "train" animals? But that's a common collelation a lot of the feats I looked at seemed to make.) The pre-req seems to exists soley as feat tax, which Is Bad.
Mmmm, if you're gonna complain about it for CE I don't think you can give PA any amount of pass either. Learning to use skill to make up for a lack of strength is the whole reason someone would want to take PA, and yet here we are.

Half a percent.

That's quite impressive?
Pathfinder's list of dependent feats have nothing to do with it? If you want everything that requires a stat to give bonuses based on that stat, then do that. If you just hate ability score prerequisites, then get rid of them- they're a holdover from older editions when classes had ability score requirements, which isn't how those work anymore either. I actually think it's kindof hilarious that 5e brought them back, with how otherwise laboriously inclusive and do-no-wrong it's being.

So, what do you actually GET for this feat tax? Given that it gates off so much stuff, it must be, like, the boss, right?

In 3.5, it lets you straight subtract from attacl to add to AC (to a max of 5, you better take another feat to go further) and in PF, it does the same, only on a fixed BAB-based rate (to a max of -6/+6 at level 20).
And if you have an appropriate armor class, adding +5 either takes you from say 50% immunity to 75%, or from 75% to 5%, and getting hit less is getting hit less. If armor class is bad in your game, then maybe you need to look at the attack bonuses and damaging abilities of your monsters and the builds of your players- it turns out that when people use nothing but AC dumping builds and DMs use optimized monsters with the highest attack bonus, AC looks bad, whoda thunk? Of course it doesn't help that later books followed the trend so which book you're using has a massive impact.

It's a purely defensive option, and those only have a very limited niche to start with.
A limited niche which is also the actual only job of the melee role.

Trading attack for AC doesn't turn you into a Pokémon-style Staller; at best, what it does it turn the fight into a random chance of who rolls high enough to hit the other guy - you with you penalty to AC, verses them with your boosted AC. And that doesn't win you battles.
No, it doesn't win you battles. It wins your party battles, because every turn an enemy wastes attacking you is a turn that 3 other people get to attack/sneak attack/cast spells at it, and the less damage you take the fewer heals it takes to recover and the more you can do it.

There are far better ways to attempt to tank - just making yourself need a higher number to hit if you don't have anything to punish ignoring you works on only stupid enemies.
Ah yes, the old "but they'll just walk past!" argument. Except they don't. Because most enemies a melee character would stand in front of have implicit or even explicit programming that they should attack whatever's in front of them. And also they have no reason to walk around when they know that 99% of puny humans die in one hit anyway. And also the rest of your party could maybe try actually moving away instead of just standing there. And it's called Dungeons and Dragons, implying a significant amount of dungeons, where you can just stand in the doorway. And oh yeah there's all those OP BFC spells people go on about. And the other feats that can let you move around in response. And those uber trip builds that like it or not are supposed to require Combat Expertise (even if you avoid it with every variant under the sun), and the fact that once you've tripped them enough to make them stop "trying to walk past" they might, ya know, attack you and maybe it'd be nice to take less damage? And even if they did successfully walk past you they can't kill someone on that turn anyway (not at original MM1 power level, ha).

One of the worst things I think they did was cave and start adding MMO style "aggro pulling" abilities, validating this non-complaint and giving even more excuse to ignore the tactical part of a combat system rooted in tactical wargaming. Funny thing is people don't even like the Goad feat or the Knight or basically any other "tank" ability, not that I've noticed- they just use them as further excuses why the uber trippers or one-shot chargers should be allowed because they "can't tank effectively" otherwise because the tank abilities aren't "good enough." :smallfurious:

So most characters that have to take will never use it in practise - because they are NOT specialist AC tanks.
A specialist AC tank wouldn't need Combat Expertise. A character who is not a specialist AC tank, can get 5 points out of a single feat with this. Five. Points. How much AC do you get from other feats? One, usually with huge caveats. The game values AC, because in games where AC is not rendered invalid, it can quickly become a god stat. And this feat gives you up to five times more than other feats.

Power Attack is a much better use of you sacrificing your attack bonus for something and so Combext Expertise is in general in direct resources competation with one of the most useful and wide-spread feats in the game.
Only if your game thinks melee characters are for primary dps. A distressingly common sentiment, but quite clearly not how the game was originally written, nor how I intend to run or play it.


Now, if you've been writing your re-write or otherwise running or playing in games where all of what you say there is inherently true, then sure you might have to change Combat Expertise and/or its relation to other feats. That's not the feat's fault though.



(It's worth noting in 20 years of playing 3.0, I've only ever used Fighting Defensively on a character ONCE,
Yeah, Fight Defensively sucks. It's also not Combat Expertise. And actually still has some potential use if you're say, a 4-5th level character fighting waves of 1st level mooks in bad armor with an AC of less than 20 yourself. A scenario fully within the realm of the game's origins.

gates off a wide variety of feats (to which Int also doesn't apply)
Non-rhetorical question: So what kind of martial combat feat do you think actually should involve int? There's a whole trope of people winning by being smarter than their enemies: by what mechanic do you think that should work? 3.x core apparently says that they do so by being able to defend themselves better when necessary, and learn how to do combat maneuvers (the same maneuvers that absolutely do not require the feats to use) better than other people. So if you're removing the only feat that actually requires int, what does the intelligent martial artist do? Presumably they're required to be a member of a special class that gets int-bonuses then.


I started this rumination wondering what the pre-req for Combat Expertise should be, if not Intelligence - or if it should have one at all - but as I've looked at it more and more, I find myself increasingly asking whether it should exist at all.
To which my response would be- if you've thought your way into thinking this core feat shouldn't exist at all, maybe that says more about how you're reading the game than what the game is saying.

I just think it's kinda funny how people enshrine Power Attack so much and deride Combat Expertise, when they could, I dunno- write feats and abilities that just increase damage by a modest amount without a tradeoff? Oh wait that would be Weapon Specialization, can't have that.


And if it should, whether it ought to be a stand-along feat and not gate so much off, and if a gate feat is required at all in its place, what that feat should actually DO that would benefit a wider array of characters that will be taking it to get to the Good Stuff - perhaps something like a small flat AC bonus (like PF Dodge), or a simple nonscaling -1 attack for +2 AC which might be a trade-off worth having.
I expect that if you apply the same reasoning to other feats, you will quickly find that you have no justification for any prerequisite feats for anything that isn't a direct upgrade to the feat it requires. And then you'll probably decide that those feats should have just upgraded automatically with BAB. That's the usual pattern for ambitious 3.x overhauls anyway

So, playground, is Combat Expertise defencible from a mechanical standpoint? Again, I can certainly see that people might want it for specific - and niche - builds as a stand-alone, but as a gateway feat tax, it really does not stand up to scuteny as far as I can see.
Absolutely, when taken with a reading of the game as originally written and intended. In the decades later char-op meta, not so much.


Hey look, I'm an outlier again.

I'm usually loathe to build a fighting type character that -doesn't- have combat expertise. Doubly so if I can't at least get the ranks in tumble to make fighting defensively -4/+3 instead.

There are plenty of situations where being able to drag the fight out can work to the PCs' advantage; a barbarian enemy's rage only lasts so long, for example.

Since it's a dodge bonus, it also improves touch ac. That can be a serious life or death roll in a -lot- of cases or at least the difference between continuing to fight unfettered vs being severely hampered.
High five!

Also:


Provided the entire party doesn't intend to flank, is happy to be in melee range of anything with more than 5' feet of reach and vulnerable to every single area-effect effect going around.

That feat (which I note comes from a fairly obscure setting sourcebook - it's certainly not one I've heard of and I had to look up) only applies the bonus to adjacent characters. My party size is usually as big as 6-8 and aside from marching order, they are all very rarely that close to each other.
And, uh, when you're running parties of that size in a game based on parties of 4 characters? Yeah, not surprising that anything which isn't max aggro looks bad. The kind of fights required to challenge that size of party naturally lead to even more of an escalation than normal. Whether you fight far more numerous or more powerful enemies, all defenses will fall by the wayside. Even one character choosing to kill as hard as possible will make the others "fall behind," and with 6-8 people at least one of them is going to do that. You can't have a group following the four intended roles in a reasonably balanced fashion with twice that many people.

I'm pretty sure I've actually pointed this out before, possibly even to you specifically? Oversized games are different- it's not like it makes your opinion invalid, but I find it really weird when someone makes a huge point of something and only later reveals that they're playing so far out. Just the fact that there are so many people itching to do something means that slow, defensive, methodical party operation is probably a no-go on general principle. So again, in the type of games you play- yeah, go ahead and get rid of it.

[Troacctid]

I really can't wrap my head around the people who are saying Combat Expertise should just be something everyone can do. Like...it is something everyone can do. That's the status quo. Combat Expertise just makes you better at it. Are feats not allowed to improve your ability to do things you could already do? Is that where we're at now?

[PanosIs]

Even if Combat Expertise is a bit disfunctional (I always wish it did a bit more or cost a bit less) it's still probably my favorite feat to play with for martial characters.

There is a good number of sweet feats that play off Combat Expertise and make it a very decent option for the games where AC isn't made obsolete (I don't like those games anyways).

Cobalt ExpertiseMoI with Azurin makes you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for a +4 on Armor Class plus Trip, Disarm and Feint

Quick StaffCW also increases your bonus to -2/+4 or -1/+3, both of which are quite high value

Allied DefenseSS allows you to share your defenses with the party, although this often requires at least one or two other melee fighters that want to be in the thick of things, doesn't work so well when you're the only one in front

RiposteDrC allows you to utilize your (Hopefully massive) AC to gain additional attacks and is one of the few ways to do so as a move-equivalent action (Just provoke an AoO)

And that's without counting other items and class features that synergize with CE. So yeah, I like it, a lot. Plus it gives you some more options in combat, that's always good when playing a martial character.

[Blackhawk748]

I really can't wrap my head around the people who are saying Combat Expertise should just be something everyone can do. Like...it is something everyone can do. That's the status quo. Combat Expertise just makes you better at it. Are feats not allowed to improve your ability to do things you could already do? Is that where we're at now?

Yes, anyone can Fight Defensively, but I think I've seen it happen... once in all of my years playing DnD. which is why I would just turn Combat Expertise into the Fight Defensively Mechanic to encourage people to actually use the darn thing.

[PanosIs]

Yes, anyone can Fight Defensively, but I think I've seen it happen... once in all of my years playing DnD. which is why I would just turn Combat Expertise into the Fight Defensively Mechanic to encourage people to actually use the darn thing.

I also have quite a different experience regarding this. I've seen plenty of people fight defensively when they don't have Combat Expertise and I often do so myself, especially on characters that have the Tumble ranks to make it -4/+3.

[Aotrs Commander]

So, taking into account what people have said on the thread, I have elected to, at least for my own purposes:

a) Delete the Int prereq, but otherwise left Combat Expertise alone (PF version, so improved combat expertise could be deleted anyway), because enough of you have convinced me to leave it as a feat. (For the moment, if I unFeat PA and stuff, I'll do it to that to, but unFeating PA would also mean going through ALL the parties and both bestiaries again and I can't be arsed to do that now. My players have updated their characters once already this pass.)

b) Gone down my own list of Combat Expertise feats to check which of them actually did something pertaining to Combat Expertise itself, and unhooked it from the pre-reqs if it didn't. Turns out - to my surprise - none of them on my list did (a couple that also had Dodge applied to Defensive Fighting, but that was as close as they came). So a few got "moved" to dodge/combat reflexes (in the sense that I could have listed them there already, but hadn't because I had them under Combat Expertise, which actually is better for listing), promoted Improved Feint to the same level as the 3.Aotrs combat maneuvers proper (i.e. prerqs none, greater feat folded in as a scale as 6th level) and replaced the combat expertise prereq with Improved Feint on the feinting feats that previously only required combat expertise (so a straight swap). Finally, a few (Pathfinder's Gang-Up chain) just got moved to general, with Int/Combat Expertise deleted. (That chain in particular struck me as a good one to open up for, like, animals and such. Especially as there is some consideration in future to give out everything even more feats than PF's rate (so animals and the like would need some more feats too), but that's possibly for 3.Aotrs v3.0, after we've seen how the decision load on my players runs with what I've already smorgosboarded them with!)



Fizban's point about "but what about thematic smart combatants" is one that is fair on the one hand; but on the other, none of the feats listed under Combat Expertise (that I have in my subset of all 3.5 and all PF1 feats) actually gave you a benefit from having a high intelligence other than for meeting the pre-req. Though what form that should take and whether "smart" should equate to "intelligence" and not "Wisdom" (and/or how much of it pertains to Dex) is one that will need more thought; since stuff like Sense Weakness is (Spot) Perception (and thus Wis) based. (I'm loathe to borrow 4E's feat that allowed you to add any ability score to weapon attack and damage, hilarious though it was to be able to say "now that the wizard uses Int, when he hits you it smarts!") Though I had already grabbed 3.5's Int-based Swashbuckler abilites to give PF's as (an option as) part of their overhauled deeds progression, so that's one, also Warblade is another. Something to look for as I slowly pick though my approved list of PrC to see which ones can be safely deleted or folded into alternate class features or need updating.

(As HOPEFULLY, HE SAYS with that last tweak, having completed HOPEFULLY, HE SAYS my pass through the spells document (including spell-check and pagination...) last night, I have fundementally finished. Still plenty of stuff to do (a few class spell lists from 3.5/domains and completeing the Summon Bestiary) but that's all very comparmentalised stuff that won't add any new stuff to characters/spells/feats, which means "point at which I dare start printing" is a lot closer. (As with like 900+ pages, I REALLY don't want to do what happened LAST time and having finished the previous version, printed it out and immediately went "FRACK MISSED DISJUNCTION" like literally the first thing when I starting quest-writing...)

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't get all the hate against Combat Expertise.

Yeah its a niche ability (so are many other feats) and outside of that it feels useless.

But when you have to deal with touch attacks, CE is a nice to have ability.

Most npc (ranged) touch attackers tend to have a medicore attack bonus as best and +5 touch AC will cause them to miss up to +25% more on their attack rolls. Not great but not shabby either imho.

[3Power]

The more I think about it, the more I think the swashbuckler class and it's int to damage ability was at least partially created in order to make using combat reflexes feel like less of a resource waste. I mean high dex + combat expertise + inherent dodge bonuses seem to be hinting at "dodge tank." improved combat expertise and a bunch of other related feats were added in the same book too.

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't get all the hate against Combat Expertise.

Yeah its a niche ability (so are many other feats) and outside of that it feels useless.

But when you have to deal with touch attacks, CE is a nice to have ability.

Most npc (ranged) touch attackers tend to have a medicore attack bonus as best and +5 touch AC will cause them to miss up to +25% more on their attack rolls. Not great but not shabby either imho.

My problem with is has been at the point you have hundreds of combat feats (which you have with 3.5 and/or Pathfinder (especially), feats that are only situational (and thus pretty mediocre) should not really be the gating off other feats that aren't.

[Gruftzwerg]

My problem with is has been at the point you have hundreds of combat feats (which you have with 3.5 and/or Pathfinder (especially), feats that are only situational (and thus pretty mediocre) should not really be the gating off other feats that aren't.

Imho that's a general problem with the 3.5 feat system.
They range from "totally useless" over "has it's moments in its niche" to "super strong". And the limited feats a character gets together with the feat chains just make it worse. While the idea of the feat chains are nice, the limited amount of feats you get, with the amount of "tax feats" that you don't really want/need does make it clumsy at best.

An option to solve this is with special feat houserules. But those take time to set up. Like feat tiers.
- good/strong feats can be optained with the regular 7 feats you get
- give "medicore feats" on a base you see fit
The problem is, that you need to categorize each feat that someone needs/wants and people need to consider this when making their builds. Besides from the extra work this can sometimes be a good way to deal with the feat problem. The real issue is as always the Fighter class who doesn't profit as much as others from this option. But since there are enough reliable combat feats to choose from that need tax feats, maybe even the fighter could makes some good deals here and there.

[Aotrs Commander]

Imho that's a general problem with the 3.5 feat system.
They range from "totally useless" over "has it's moments in its niche" to "super strong". And the limited feats a character gets together with the feat chains just make it worse. While the idea of the feat chains are nice, the limited amount of feats you get, with the amount of "tax feats" that you don't really want/need does make it clumsy at best.

An option to solve this is with special feat houserules. But those take time to set up. Like feat tiers.
- good/strong feats can be optained with the regular 7 feats you get
- give "medicore feats" on a base you see fit
The problem is, that you need to categorize each feat that someone needs/wants and people need to consider this when making their builds. Besides from the extra work this can sometimes be a good way to deal with the feat problem. The real issue is as always the Fighter class who doesn't profit as much as others from this option. But since there are enough reliable combat feats to choose from that need tax feats, maybe even the fighter could makes some good deals here and there.

We switched to PF progression (so 10/20 instead of 7/20) a while back, and I've been letting fighters have a feat every level for years.

I have very seriously considered increasing the amount of feats even further, as I noted above (I mean, you could give fighters the same number of feats as wizard get spells and it wouldn't break the game, one feels!), but I want to actually play with what we're written first before I overload the players with having to select another load of feats on top of the round of updates I've already made them do (ditto for re-sorting the bestiaries for the umpteenth time!)