afaik, it hits the stated limit of 5/-. Incidentally, Crane Style reduces the Fighting Defensively penalty to -2 and adds another +1 dodge. So with Acro-3 in the mix you are -2 on attacks but 4/- DR. If that is close enough, you don't have to mess with Combat Expertise at all.
It's difficult to adjudicate.
It cites that you use one or the other. So this can mean that only one of the two subjects provides the DR increase, and the other provides an AC increase.
Simultaneously, it makes no sense to use the term "or," when you can combine two of the three subjects at once (Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise); it might have been used to separate between the three, but without the knowledge of some of them being synergistic.
Of course, this doesn't allow you to surpass the DR 5/- cap, so having +3 from each means you're still only getting DR 5/-. Improved Stalwart would make this DR 10/-, but regardless, you're still running into the issue of wasted AC benefits when you combine the two, not to mention the penalties to hit are very difficult to properly rectify; -7 to-hit is a brutal penalty. By that point, you should be using a Vital Strike build.
What if you wanted AC from one and DR from the other?
I suppose you could try to alternate the AC and DR, but I'm fairly certain that's not RAI.
...you can forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain to instead gain an equivalent amount of DR, to a maximum of DR 5/—...
Also, there is a bit of a RAW snafu, since, if you use both options, you have a consolidated Dodge bonus that you have to substitute, and it's not a "per" basis.
I mean, I can see how it would be allowed, but I can also see how it wouldn't. Results that lead to table variation are not always the wisest courses of action.
It says "you can", not "you must".
It says "you can", not "you must".
That's hardly relevant to the point being made here.
The option says you forgo "the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain." THE Dodge Bonus. Not "The Dodge Bonus of your choice," THE Dodge Bonus.
When you Fight Defensively and use Combat Expertise, their results combine together to form a singular Dodge Bonus. In other words, A + B = C. Yes, A and B are combined together and are treated as separate entities for determining the source, but they're still added to the same resource, C: The Dodge Bonus.
You aren't given a choice between which Dodge Bonus is affected, because it's all combined into one number, the Dodge Bonus you normally gain.
I normally gain a Dodge Bonus of +6 when I use Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise, not +3/+3 like you keep treating it as. This isn't iterative attacks, saving throws, or TWF.
This is not the case, you can have multiple dodge bonuses, and dodge bonuses are a rare stackable thing
You can have multiple sources for Dodge Bonuses, but they're still all combined into a single number to determine what your Dodge Bonus to AC is.
You're a level 2 Lore Warden Fighter. You have Combat Expertise. You decide to use Combat Expertise and choose to Fight Defensively for this turn, incurring a -5 penalty to hit. What's your Dodge Bonus to AC? It's not +1/+2, it doesn't add or work that way. This isn't some 3.X Uncanny Dodge crap that we're pulling here, especially when the Dodge Bonus to AC isn't conditional upon who is hitting you.
You get a +3 Dodge Bonus to AC from the two options combined together.
No player is going to say "I get +1/+2 AC from Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively" to the above question, because it makes no logical sense to do so.
It might make sense to parse the different sources, but the sources stack together to form a single result, which is what you add to the target number.
I suppose you could try to alternate the AC and DR, but I'm fairly certain that's not RAI.
...you can forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain to instead gain an equivalent amount of DR, to a maximum of DR 5/—...Also, there is a bit of a RAW snafu, since, if you use both options, you have a consolidated Dodge bonus that you have to substitute, and it's not a "per" basis.
I mean, I can see how it would be allowed, but I can also see how it wouldn't. Results that lead to table variation are not always the wisest courses of action.
You're missing the first part of that quote!
The entire sentence is:
While using the total defense action, fighting defensively action, or Combat Expertise, you can forgo the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain to instead gain an equivalent amount of DR, to a maximum of DR 5/—, until the start of your next turn.Whenever you choose any of these options, you can forgo the dodge bonus it gives. Note that it does NOT say:
While using the total defense action, fighting defensively action, or Combat Expertise, you can forgo their combined dodge bonus to AC...
I'm not missing anything. The 'or' in that statement refers to if you are using any of the listed options. Two of those options can be used together.
The first part of that sentence doesn't discount the point that you're still combining the two benefits together into one total number that is being checked.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Players don't say "I have a +1/+2 Dodge Bonus to AC," because it makes no sense to split them in this case, nor is it a plausible explanation to a GM as to how you reached that benefit of AC. GMs will say "What's with the split, do you have conditional bonuses? If that's the case, then the attack still hits you."
Players say "I have a +3 Dodge Bonus to AC," especially when the +1 from Combat Expertise and the +2 from Fighting Defensively stack together to form the resulting Dodge Bonus to AC. GMs will say "Well, due to your defensive stance, the attack is brushed aside from your trained poise."
Trying to treat them as separate entities when determining the result only leads to confusion and table variation. One GM might see it your way. Another GM thinks he's on some acid trip down the memory lane of 3.X with Uncanny Dodge. My interpretation is not only simpler, but it also has less table variation.
It doesn't seem plausible when the feat refers to the Dodge Bonuses gained as one entity. Again, when you forgo THE Dodge Bonus you gain, that means you're forgoing the entire number of that Dodge Bonus. Even if the order of operations are required to reach the result, the only thing that matters for the feat is the result itself.
Quite frankly, I'm debating about making a FAQ thread about this.
That's what I just said: They stack together. Into a single number. Just because I used different phrasing doesn't mean my point is any less valid.
Is hence why I said "Players don't say 'I have a +1/+2 Dodge Bonus to AC.'" Especially when that's not an accurate way to explain combining Combat Expertise with Fighting Defensively. But people think you can split that difference and try to misuse the wording of the feat, in that you can choose to affect one number and not the other, even though you affect the total number (the Dodge Bonus you normally gain from any and all of those options).
Look - you've had multiple people point out the many ways you are wrong on this. Maybe take some time, re-read and let it soak in.
If not, you aren't going to be convinced, so I'm done.
As far as the original question - yes it's a max of 5 period, until you get improved stalwart anyway.
From the way I read it, Darksol had multiple people state a different interpretation. That doesn't make him wrong. His interpretation doesn't make the opposing ones wrong. Take some time, breathe in and let good vibes sink in.
Darksol is wrong. With each option you have the choice, is this going to give me DR or the Dodge bonus.
The proper way to parse this sentence with the list in it is, you split it up into 1 sentence per item in the list. Then read those. Thus when you do combat expertise you can give up the dodge bonus for DR, or when you use fighting defensively you can give up the dodge bonus for DR. Etc.
If Darksol was correct the a person with a tower shield, heavy shield and the shield spell running would have a shield bonus of +10 because there are no discrete values, only the total.
If there are no discrete values then there is no need for stacking rules. Since there are stacking rules then there must be discrete values. Thus my example is perfectly valid.
Just because Dodge bonuses stack does not eliminate the fact that they are discrete values. Normally this is irrelevant as there is only one use to put them to. The discrete values only become relevant in corner cases when you have the opportunity to put them to alternate uses.
|
That's what I just said: They stack together. Into a single number. Just because I used different phrasing doesn't mean my point is any less valid.
Is hence why I said "Players don't say 'I have a +1/+2 Dodge Bonus to AC.'" Especially when that's not an accurate way to explain combining Combat Expertise with Fighting Defensively. But people think you can split that difference and try to misuse the wording of the feat, in that you can choose to affect one number and not the other, even though you affect the total number (the Dodge Bonus you normally gain from any and all of those options).
One word: Vastly incorrect.
Suppose Charlie has the Dodge feat, Combat Expertise active, and is Fighting Defensively. Assuming he is at an 8 BAB, with 3+ ranks of Acrobatics, his Dodge bonus, assuming no other sources, is at +7.
However, not all the sources of his Dodge bonus qualify for the potential substitution. The Dodge bonus to AC from the Dodge feat is not going to count, so the sources of the Dodge have to be treated separately, yes?
So, the OR in the feat itself implies that each source of Dodge bonus that the feat can translate into DR is also treated as a separate source.
That's what I just said: They stack together. Into a single number. Just because I used different phrasing doesn't mean my point is any less valid.
Is hence why I said "Players don't say 'I have a +1/+2 Dodge Bonus to AC.'" Especially when that's not an accurate way to explain combining Combat Expertise with Fighting Defensively. But people think you can split that difference and try to misuse the wording of the feat, in that you can choose to affect one number and not the other, even though you affect the total number (the Dodge Bonus you normally gain from any and all of those options).
One word: Vastly incorrect.
Suppose Charlie has the Dodge feat, Combat Expertise active, and is Fighting Defensively. Assuming he is at an 8 BAB, with 3+ ranks of Acrobatics, his Dodge bonus, assuming no other sources, is at +7.
However, not all the sources of his Dodge bonus qualify for the potential substitution. The Dodge bonus to AC from the Dodge feat is not going to count, so the sources of the Dodge have to be treated separately, yes?
So, the OR in the feat itself implies that each source of Dodge bonus that the feat can translate into DR is also treated as a separate source.
I never was incorrect.
You're presupposing that I think the effects of the Dodge feat would be added to it. I did not. The feat description cites a parenthetical:
...the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain...
This text refers to the Dodge Bonus gained from the Total Defense, Fighting Defensively, or Combat Expertise. Did I say Dodge would be among those things? No, albeit I can see a RAW argument for it, but it's certainly not RAI. And if someone asked if it would, I'd tell them what I just told you.
The 'or' in the description refers to having to use any one of them in order to use the feat. Even if you have separate sources for increasing Dodge Bonuses that are referenced in the feat description, they're both added together with the rest of your Dodge Bonuses (if any), as the total of the two options used in conjunction is "the dodge bonus to AC you would normally gain,"