Expertise replaces Defensive Fighting?

[green slime]

It's explicit in the 3.5 PHB, p140...

Fighting Defensively: 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.

-Hyp.

That'll learn me for not opening a 3.5 PHB.

Thanks for the page reference Hypersmurf, I thought I had seen it somewhere, but when it come up, I couldn't find it. Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thanks for the page reference Hypersmurf, I thought I had seen it somewhere, but when it come up, I couldn't find it. Cheers!

The annoying thing about that quote is that it's not in the SRD.

-Hyp.

 

[shilsen]

The annoying thing about that quote is that it's not in the SRD.

-Hyp.

I'd shift the emphasis and say the annoying thing about the SRD is that it doesn't have a bunch of important quotations from the rules.

 

[Kemrain]

Now that this thread has, mostly, been resolved, I feel obligated to hijack it!

Ever since I read on Page 140 in the 3.5 Player's Handbook that Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively stacked, I've been confused. How is it that you can be better defended in combat by making attacks, than spending an action on Full Defense? With the tumble bonus, you can get +8 to AC while using Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, but you can only get a +6 when using Full Defense?! Guess they need to rename it Not-So-Full Defense, huh?

In my current game, the GM has stated that, as a Full Round Action, if you have Combat Expertise, you can use the Total Defense action, which stacks the +5 from Combat Expertise and the +4/+6 from Full Defense, allowing you to add +9/+11 to your AC, at the cost of only being able to take a 5 ft. step that round. It's come up, and been very useful in a few situations.

We're also wondering if allowing a Shield user with Combat Expertise to get a 2 for 1 deal (like Power Attack and 2 Handed Weapons) would be terribly unbalancing. -1 to hit for +2 to AC if you have a Light, Heavy or Tower Shield, capped at -5 +10. Is that broken?

- Kemrain the Not-So-Fully Defended.

 

[two]

simple

Now that this thread has, mostly, been resolved, I feel obligated to hijack it!

Ever since I read on Page 140 in the 3.5 Player's Handbook that Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively stacked, I've been confused. How is it that you can be better defended in combat by making attacks, than spending an action on Full Defense? With the tumble bonus, you can get +8 to AC while using Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, but you can only get a +6 when using Full Defense?! Guess they need to rename it Not-So-Full Defense, huh?

In my current game, the GM has stated that, as a Full Round Action, if you have Combat Expertise, you can use the Total Defense action, which stacks the +5 from Combat Expertise and the +4/+6 from Full Defense, allowing you to add +9/+11 to your AC, at the cost of only being able to take a 5 ft. step that round. It's come up, and been very useful in a few situations.

We're also wondering if allowing a Shield user with Combat Expertise to get a 2 for 1 deal (like Power Attack and 2 Handed Weapons) would be terribly unbalancing. -1 to hit for +2 to AC if you have a Light, Heavy or Tower Shield, capped at -5 +10. Is that broken?

- Kemrain the Not-So-Fully Defended.

Simple.

When you use "Full Defense" you are "obviously" not attacking, spending all your time dodging and etc. allowing your opponents to attack willy-nilly, and because they don't have to worry as much about getting hit, they can be pretty aggressive.

When you are using Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively, you are obviously being very defensive in your manoevers, but are still striking out every once in a while, though somewhat haphazardly. Thus, attackers must take more care when attacking (because they can be hit in return), resulting in a higher "net" AC for the defender.

That's the fluff answer. Mechanically, it's one of hidden bonuses of spending a feat on expertise, I suppose. I don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant house rules, personally.

 

[Someone]

You don't have to use both of them, but if you're desperate about trying not to get hit as you withdraw out of a crowded battle, you should consider using them.

Tactic known as the "bouncing midget trick" by the paty´s rogue/acrobat thief IMC.

 

[BSF]

Agreed. I can see where somebody specifically skilled in in a defensive fighting technique could be very effective at avoiding being hit. Not stacking with Full Defense might seem counterintuitive, but remember that battle is abstracted. Regardless of whether you have iterative attacks or not, the idea is that you are still trying to make multiple strikes in a melee round. You just have one, or more, that are good enough to have a chance to hit. Full Defense implies you are not trying to be hit at all. Fighting Defensively implies that you are focusing more on avoiding being hit, but you are still trying to get your shot in on the opponent as well. Combat Expertise means that you have some sort of talent/training that allows you to avoid being hit while you are fighting (maybe you are parrying or dodging more). Combat Expertise + Fighting Defensively means you are leveraging your skill to be a threat while avoiding being hit.

Hmm, that brings up a thought. According to the SRD, you cannot make AOO while you are in Total Defense. If you can't make AOO and you can't attack, do you provide a flanking bonus?

Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can’t combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

 

[Kemrain]

I think that it's rather obvious that the tactic you can utelize to best improve your defenses is making use of all the best defensive maneuvers. That means swinging and threatening, just not so well as to be able to connect. It seems odd, to me, that it would be argued that since you're not so defensive that you can make an effective attack, you can have better defenses than someone concentrating on defense to the point where they can't make an attack. In Full Defense, you're concentrating so hard on defending yourself, that even when your opponent leaves himself open your swipes are too defensive to connect!

Oh well. Seems clear enough to me.

- Kemrain the Transparent.

Edit: If I had to make a ruling, I would say that Yes, you do threaten an area, and do provide flanking bonuses, even if you can't take an attack of opportunity.

- Kemrain the Threatening.

 

[BSF]

I see total defense as just trying to avoid all of your opponents attacks. It's the best an untrained combatant can do. Combat Expertise can make a better defense because you are trained in a style of combat that facilitates that.

But if it works in your game, that's great. I don't need to win you over to my side, I can just see where I think the rule makes sense.

 

[Ranger REG]

The annoying thing about that quote is that it's not in the SRD.

Meh. You can either notify Andy Smith about the omission, or just say to yourself, "The SRD is a game designer's toolkit."