Does using Combat Expertise qualify as "fighting defensively?"

[RigaMortus2]

Oh for crying out loud, Hyp referenced the exact rule that tells you what happens, and there is no possible way to interpret it other than what it says right there on p140.

Quit trolling.

Hey, I am just showing where the rules that contradict this are.

Quit being an ass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would say the inability to use the Fighting Defensively feature would be considered a drawback, wouldn't it?

If not having the faet causes no particular drawback. Not if having the feat causes no particular drawback.

A character without Combat Expertise cannot pick a number and subtract it from their attack rolls, adding the same number to their AC. That's the drawback. However, they can Fight Defensively, which is similar in concept but different in execution.

You quoted yourself: "What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing." Not what a character who has the feat is limited to.

What is a character without Combat Expertise limited to? Fighting Defensively. A character with Combat Expertise is not limited to Fighting Defensively; he can Fight Defensively, or use Combat Expertise, or both.

-Hyp.

 

[Felon]

Why is that too bad?

Suffice to say, I don't think I'm the only person who gives a character Combat Expertise specifically as a superior alternative to figthing defensively.

 

[Crothian]

Suffice to say, I don't think I'm the only person who gives a character Combat Expertise specifically as a superior alternative to figthing defensively.

But it is a superior alternative to fighting defensively. Using them together doesn't change that. Using combat expertise is still better then fighting defensively.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Note that, especially in newer sources, abilities which work when fighting defensively are also called out as working when shifting two or more points of attack using Combat Expertise (c.f. broad-bladed shorsword, Complete Adventurer).

 

[FireLance]

Note that, especially in newer sources, abilities which work when fighting defensively are also called out as working when shifting two or more points of attack using Combat Expertise (c.f. broad-bladed shorsword, Complete Adventurer).

Not all, though. I seem to recall some abilities (could be some of the new feats) in PHB II that trigger on fighting defensively, but do not include the "also trigger when shifting two or more points of attack using Combat Expertise" clause.

In my ideal world, Combat Expertise would work off fighting defensively (e.g. by lowering the attack roll penalty from -4 to -2) so that whenever you use Combat Expertise, you are fighting defensively.

 

[glass]

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.

I would say the inability to use the Fighting Defensively feature would be considered a drawback, wouldn't it? Otherwise, why would they add "Normal" under the Combat Expertise feat?

Did you read your own quote? It says what 'What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing'. It says nothing about restrictions on what characters who do have the feat can do, just like Hyp said.


glass.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not all, though. I seem to recall some abilities (could be some of the new feats) in PHB II that trigger on fighting defensively, but do not include the "also trigger when shifting two or more points of attack using Combat Expertise" clause.

Yeah, it's a shame. That's something they really should have continued using.

 

[Felon]

But it is a superior alternative to fighting defensively. Using them together doesn't change that. Using combat expertise is still better then fighting defensively.

Yes, it's a good deal--until, as I said from the start, abilities come into play that provide bonuses when fighting defensively but not when using combat expertise. Then it feels a bit shafty.

Now, the obvious response is to once again point out that the two can be used together, and the equally obvious rebuttal is to point out how massive an attack penalty a character is choking on when he does so.

In my ideal world, Combat Expertise would work off fighting defensively (e.g. by lowering the attack roll penalty from -4 to -2) so that whenever you use Combat Expertise, you are fighting defensively.

That would have been simple and effective, but for whatever reason WotC went out of their way not to make it so.