TWF and expertise

[krazykid]

I am sure this is an old question but....

If a character has TWF and combat expertise - can they opt to take max defense with their expertise feat on one or both weapons?

Eg Character with a BAB +5

Can they 1) attack at max attack with one hand and take -5 from BAB with other hand to add +5 to AC

eg intially AC 17
attack at +7/+7 .

after expertise - AC 22, attack at +7/+2

2) have to take the adjustment from both weapon attacks equally and add only once to AC

eg intially AC 17
attack is +7/+7 .

after expertise - AC 22, attack at +2/+2

3) have to take the adjustment EQUALLY from both weapon attacks and add both bonuses to AC

eg intially AC 17
attack is +7/+7 .

after expertise - AC 27, attack at +2/+2

4) to take the adjustment AS DESIRED from both weapon attacks and add both bonuses to AC

eg intially AC 17
attack is +7/+7 .

after expertise - AC 22, attack at +5/+4

Since Expertise grants a dodge bonus I would have thought that options 1,3 & 4 are valid.

What do others do?

 

[Fenlock]

we play it so you're penalized on both attacks for the same bonus to ac.

eg. +7/+7 & AC22 => +2/+2 & AC27

but i like the idea, i would call it so you declared one expertise rate at the start of the round for double ac bonus and same penalty on both attacks.

imho it fits nicely with the 3.5 changes to power attack. byt i would like to see som number crunching first

/f

 

[Li Shenron]

You use Combat Expertise on a round-by-round basis. At the start of your turn you decide how much you want to use it (the amount of bonus to AC / penalty to attacks) and that penalty applies to every attacks you make until your next turn, including AoOs. In your case, it must apply to both weapons.

edit: I think I might have confused with Power Attack... Combat Expertise applies until your "next action", this might have a difference if you use the standard attack action. In any case, to use 2 weapons in the same round requires a full-attack action and for the whole action (both weapons) you get the penalties.

Can someone very keen of ruling help with this issue? Why does CExpertise says "until you next ACTION"? Does it mean that if I use the full-attack action and then make a 5ft step (my "next action") then I won't get the AC bonus against AoOs but instead if I skip the 5ft step I will keep the AC bonus until my next turn?

 

[Darklone]

I am surprised they didn't rewrite Combat Expertise more carefully. As written, one might try to munchkinize his way into substracting 5 points from your lowest BAB attack each round and skewer the enemy with the higher attacks normally.

It does not make sense not to apply the penalty on all attack rolls.

 

[Li Shenron]

As written, one might try to munchkinize his way into substracting 5 points from your lowest BAB attack each round and skewer the enemy with the higher attacks normally.

Why do you say that? To me how the feat is written seems that it applies to your WHOLE action, so if you have more attacks per round it applies to the whole full-attack action.

I agree that it's not well-written anyway. See my complaint before... if "next action" was "next turn" I would be more happy.

 

[CCamfield]

I think "next action" is fine because it's the character's next action, not the next combat turn. i.e. if my character goes last in the turn, Combat Expertise does not end at the start of the next turn, but when my character next gets their action.

I do think it would have been good if the feat said "This penalty applies to all attacks until the character's next action" or something of that sort. But in general any such penalty applies till the character's next action. e.g. if you use Power Attack, it also applies to all attacks until your next action, including AoOs.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think "next action" is fine because it's the character's next action, not the next combat turn. i.e. if my character goes last in the turn, Combat Expertise does not end at the start of the next turn, but when my character next gets their action.

IMHO, "next turn" doesn't mean at the start of next Initiative count, it means next time it's your character's turn to act (which is of course in the next round). "next action" to me may be read so that (for example) if you start your turn with a standard action and then you want to take a move action, the move action is your "next action".

Note that Power Attack talks about "next turn" and Combat Expertise about "next action".

I do think it would have been good if the feat said "This penalty applies to all attacks until the character's next action" or something of that sort. But in general any such penalty applies till the character's next action. e.g. if you use Power Attack, it also applies to all attacks until your next action, including AoOs.

For the reasons above, I wish it said "next turn" just as Power Attack does. That's exactly what would make it work as you also say.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IMHO, "next turn" doesn't mean at the start of next Initiative count, it means next time it's your character's turn to act (which is of course in the next round). "next action" to me may be read so that (for example) if you start your turn with a standard action and then you want to take a move action, the move action is your "next action".

"Your action" is also a term used to describe your turn in the initiative order.

See 3E Haste, for example - the extra partial can be taken before or after "your regular action". "Your regular action" refers to your allotment of actions for the round - whether it be a Full Round action, FRA + 5' step, Standard w/ move, Standard w/ MEA, Standard w/ MEA + 5' step, double move, or whatever.

So "your next action" can be "the next time you receive an allotment of actions in the initiative order". Or, if you prefer, "your next turn".

It's sloppy language.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's sloppy language.

Since in this game so much seems to depend on the exact wording of a rule, I think this is to be consider a hell of a lot sloppy .

The whole combat section talks about "actions" in types of standard, move, full-round and free, they cannot later make such a rot-job as talking about "actions" and "turns" interchangeably.

Of course I am not angry with your comment, ok? I am angry with the SRD.

We have discussed a lot about Manyshot + Shot on the Run, and decided that you can't combine them because the first is a "standard action" and the second allows only an "attack action" but although an attack action is a standard action, it's not true the other way around.
"Standard action" is very clearly defined, "attack action" is less clearly defined, "action" is perhaps even less clearly defined but IMHO not enormously less than "attack action". After all, definition of "attack action" is implicit in how it is used in the text (plus its presence in a - very important - table), just as "action" is.

Please I DON'T WANT to discuss this, I may get sick in the process, I just wanted to say that if they decide to write rules in a very precise & sophisticated way, they can't later appeal on easy interchangeability of the terms.

 

[billd91]

I am surprised they didn't rewrite Combat Expertise more carefully. As written, one might try to munchkinize his way into substracting 5 points from your lowest BAB attack each round and skewer the enemy with the higher attacks normally.

It does not make sense not to apply the penalty on all attack rolls.

I certainly would not let someone munchkinize it like that. And I agree it should have been more tightly written like Power Attack. But the DM does have a weapon in his corner. I don't have my PHB at hand, but the SRD does say that "The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action."
So even though the first reference is to reducing the attack roll by up to -5 and attack role is singular, the effect can be argued by DMs against rules-lawyer players that it affects all attack rolls.

Being able to drop just one attack's bonus would be pretty subject to abuse.