Full Defense versus Combat Expertise?

[Sirea]

Good thing, otherwise that opens up a entirely different can of worms regarding CE.

Exactly, that's why the "in melee" (as defined in Hypersmurf's description) prerequisite to activate CE is nonsense. It leads to situations like: you and your party stumble upon some enemies on the other side of a 80' long hall. You (the party fighter with CE, wielding a longsword) goes first in the initiative order. Can you move up 20' and CE for 5, for example?
If you hang on to the tight description of "in melee" then no, because if you move up 20', you won't be threatening anyone, so you're not "in melee", so activating CE is not allowed.

You should be able to, from a roleplay point of view: you're just moving up a bit, and using your attack action to take on a defensive stance (CE).

So if you stick to the strict "in melee" definition, you have to find some way around this problem. For example, you probably started your action besides one of your party members. So you "threaten" him. So it's perfectly legal to use your attack action then, make some 'pseudo' attack and activate CE, and then move up 20'.

Same result as what you wanted to do initially (move and activate CE), except this is legal and totally silly, compared to illegal but totally logical.

So ditch the strict "in melee" definition, as it leads to absurd situations.

Inigo Carmine already said what I wanted to say anyway:

The two important things are that you spend the action to do it (ie using at least the standard action of a melee attack, if not a full attack), and you must do it with a melee weapon.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[NexH]

Why would it ever be useful to use Total Defense after a certain point when you can just use Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively to consistently get a higher bonus to AC AND still be able to attack?

Because using combat expertise and fighting defensively gives you a penalty to all attack rolls, and therefore makes you vulnerable to disarms, sunders, and (if you consider grapple checks to be an attack roll) grapples.

 

[pokedigimaniac]

So what is the opinion on this possibility of ditching the 'in melee' part of Combat Expertise? Both Sirea and Inigo Carmine make good points. I just worry that it may ratchet up CE's power levels a bit too high. Imagine always walking around using that feat, for example.

The 'in melee' portion of the description, I took to mean that you are giving up some of the power of your attack to study your foe's reactions and gain a little insight into how it attacks, so that you can better defend yourself from its attacks.

Now, I admit that this rationalization has flaws - what happens when someone new appears in the middle of the round and attacks the CEing character? That character still gets the CE bonus to AC, even though he's not seen how the new enemy fights yet.

The CE feat can be a bit of a pain in the neck when you get down to nitpicky rule interpretation.

 

[Ranes]

Exactly, that's why the "in melee" (as defined in Hypersmurf's description) prerequisite to activate CE is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense that you must be engaged in melee combat to use a feat designed to make you more effective in melee combat?

It leads to situations like: you and your party stumble upon some enemies on the other side of a 80' long hall. You (the party fighter with CE, wielding a longsword) goes first in the initiative order. Can you move up 20' and CE for 5, for example?

You can't do that even if you do ditch the 'in melee' clause. All CE does is add to the dodge bonus to your AC. It does not grant additional movement.

If you hang on to the tight description of "in melee" then no, because if you move up 20', you won't be threatening anyone, so you're not "in melee", so activating CE is not allowed.

That's right. That's because CE represents the more sophisticated options available to you when making melee attacks.

You should be able to, from a roleplay point of view: you're just moving up a bit, and using your attack action to take on a defensive stance (CE).

Can't you also move first in initiative and then ready a melee attack, should someone enter a square you threaten, in which case, CE can kick in, if you want it to? Can you not delay until later in the initiative order, with intent to move-attack (with CE if you want)?

So if you stick to the strict "in melee" definition, you have to find some way around this problem. For example, you probably started your action besides one of your party members. So you "threaten" him. So it's perfectly legal to use your attack action then, make some 'pseudo' attack and activate CE, and then move up 20'.

Pseudo-attack is not an action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So if you stick to the strict "in melee" definition, you have to find some way around this problem. For example, you probably started your action besides one of your party members. So you "threaten" him. So it's perfectly legal to use your attack action then, make some 'pseudo' attack and activate CE, and then move up 20'.

You forgot the other part of the 'engaged in melee' definition.

Two character are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. Standing next to your friend? You might threaten him, but you aren't engaged in melee. If you introduce this, then you effectively grant +4 AC to your opponents any time you try and shoot at a couple of orcs... they can just claim they're engaged in melee with each other, before they run up and eat you together.

In your example, the fighter is standing alone in the middle of a corridor, 60 feet away from his enemies. I don't see how it could possibly be claimed that he is in melee.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can't do that even if you do ditch the 'in melee' clause. All CE does is add to the dodge bonus to your AC. It does not grant additional movement.

He doesn't mean "CE for 5 feet", he means "CE for -5 to attacks and +5 to AC".

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

After reading the entire post, the interpretation of melee and example given struck me as being so far away from mine that I misinterpreted post's first sentence. I apologise to everyone, Sirea in particular, for that. No misrepresentation was intended.

 

[Sirea]

Two character are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.

Except that "being enemies" is a relative term.

If my character and his best friend engage in some friendly swordplay sparring, we're not engaged in melee? Because he's my best friend, not my enemy at all. At most, he's my opponent in this sparring match. Quite absurd how you could do a whole friendly longsword sparring match, without ever being "in melee".

Or you could say he's "my enemy" for the duration of the sparring match. But then you could argue as well that in the situation I described in my earlier post (the encounter in the 80' hall), I declare a 1-round sparring match with my friend next to me, so now he's "my enemy", so I'm allowed to activate my Combat Expertise with an attack action, hitting (or missing) that mean pebble at my feet, and then proceed to move 20' towards the real enemies.

Or imagine my friend is actually a doppelganger who took over my real friend. I don't see him as my enemy, but he knows I'm his enemy, yet doesn't want to blow his cover yet. We start side by side when a mutual enemy appears in that hall 80' away.
Strictly speaking, I can not activate CE and move 20', but my doppelganger companion can: all he has to do is use his attack action to whack at that pebble and his CE kicks in. Because technically he's in melee with me: I'm his enemy and I'm in his threatened range.

My point is the "in melee" clause in CE leads to several silly situations, you might as well rephrase "in melee" to "wielding a melee weapon", which eliminates the absurdities, yet keeps the flavor and function of the CE feat intact.

Hanes: No offense taken at all. By pseudo-attack I meant the whacking a pebble or thin air, meaning you use up your attack action, but don't actually attack something meaningful.

 

[Ranes]

I know what you meant by pseudo attack. Glad to have caused no offence.

 

[Ranes]

Your buddy-mode doppleganger's CE kicks in when he uses a (melee) attack action against an enemy, which could indeed be you. It could not be a stone, unless perhaps the NPC or character in question was insane and truly believed that.