Expertise, "Fighting Defensively", Tumble, AND YOU!
- Thread starter gamecat
- Start date
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
They're separate options. Expertise is its own thing, trading up to +/- 5 points between attack and AC. You can do both, and in a round you don't really care about hitting (like a Warblade trying to recover maneuvers to use next round), it's often quite handy to do so.
Now, this means that anything (weapon, feat, class feature, etc...) that gives you a benefit when fighting defensively doesn't work for expertise unless it explicitly says so. If you wanted to houserule letting expertise count, I'd restrict it to an expertise of +/- 4 or higher, since that's the attack penalty of fighting defensively. If it were expertise of any amount, a quaterstaff fighter with cautious trait and Quickstaff weaponstyle feat would gain +4 AC from a -1 expertise penalty.
Now, this means that anything (weapon, feat, class feature, etc...) that gives you a benefit when fighting defensively doesn't work for expertise unless it explicitly says so. If you wanted to houserule letting expertise count, I'd restrict it to an expertise of +/- 4 or higher, since that's the attack penalty of fighting defensively. If it were expertise of any amount, a quaterstaff fighter with cautious trait and Quickstaff weaponstyle feat would gain +4 AC from a -1 expertise penalty.
Ogrork the Mighty
Explorer
I require PCs to actually be making attacks against an actual target when using Expertise, because I've had a player try and say he was constantly attacking empty space to gain the AC bonus.
Actually you can attack empty space. I mean what do you think happens when you know there is an invisible opponent somewhere near you, but you aren't exactly sure which square he is in?
That being said, if the guy wants to give up a standard action every round to gain some slight bonus to AC, I don't see a problem there.
That being said, if the guy wants to give up a standard action every round to gain some slight bonus to AC, I don't see a problem there.
hornedturtle
First Post
I don't think you have to attach to use combat expertise. Like in movies where one sword fighter is purposefully only parying his opponet's attacks.
Jerrand Redband
First Post
Sorry to be a rules lawyer:
You cannot use combat expertise and fighting defensively in the same round unless you can perform two standard actions in a round
Fighting defensively is a standard action or full attack action
Combat Expertise lets you trade +AC/-to hit when you make a attack or full attack action
Tumble says you get the extra bonus when you "fight defensively"
which i take to mean you take that action that round
so you can be +5/-5 with combat expertise or +3/-4 with fighting defensively and 5 ranks tumble
if you have two standard actions for the turn then you would be +8/-9
You cannot use combat expertise and fighting defensively in the same round unless you can perform two standard actions in a round
Fighting defensively is a standard action or full attack action
Combat Expertise lets you trade +AC/-to hit when you make a attack or full attack action
Tumble says you get the extra bonus when you "fight defensively"
which i take to mean you take that action that round
so you can be +5/-5 with combat expertise or +3/-4 with fighting defensively and 5 ranks tumble
if you have two standard actions for the turn then you would be +8/-9
Yeah, it's in the book.
The only thing that bugs me about Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise is that the AC bonus you get is greater than the AC bonus you get for going Full Defense. So it you're partially defensive but still trying to attack your AC is higher than if you devote all your energy to being defensive. That's a little odd, but it's legal.
Personally, I think CE should replace FD (FD is the untrained person's CE), but that's not what the book says and I'll keep taking both with my character until it gets rewritten. (This is a point where my inner rules purist is at odds with my inner not wanting to get hit guy.)
The only thing that bugs me about Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise is that the AC bonus you get is greater than the AC bonus you get for going Full Defense. So it you're partially defensive but still trying to attack your AC is higher than if you devote all your energy to being defensive. That's a little odd, but it's legal.
Personally, I think CE should replace FD (FD is the untrained person's CE), but that's not what the book says and I'll keep taking both with my character until it gets rewritten. (This is a point where my inner rules purist is at odds with my inner not wanting to get hit guy.)
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
phindar said:
"The best defense is a good offense. If you're only defensive, you limit yourself."
I think the rules work as intended, contrary to your view. Someone well trained in guarding themselves from attack (as taking CE, having BAB +5, and possibly the tumble ranks for better FD is) should be better able to stop attacks by mixing in some strikes of their own. I also know from my (admittedly limited) martial arts experience, most if not all martial arts instructors will tell you to never stay completely on the defensive, tighten up, or continuously step back to avoid the other person's onslaught. Doing such things can often be worse than actually fighting back, and maintaining a threat on the other person. Many self defense martial arts even go on the principle that defense is a form of offense -- as you block, you step inside, closing a little with the opponent, to either grapple, try a lock, or launch a counter-attack. I know that Krav Maga teaches to both block and make your own attack in the same motion, which works well as a defense against weapons (and in general). So again, I actually like that full CE + FD is better than full defense. Also note mechanically, CE + FD is limited to when you are in range to make a melee attack. You can put yourself in full defense for the bonus AC at any range.
