Ok, I can't seem to find it anywhere in the Sage Advice files or D&D FAQ but I remember specifically reading somewhere that you don't necessarily have to make an attack to gain the benefits of Fighting Defensively and/or Combat Expertise.
You can simply state whether you're fighting defensively or not and/or what penalties, if any, you will be taking when your turn comes up for Combat Expertise and it applies to any attack you make until the start of your next turn, including opportunity attacks.
For example, my turn comes up and I go "I am fighting defensively" but my actions are only Move Action to use Tumble skill, than replace Standard Action for a Move Action to ready a shield. Now an enemy makes an attack on me, because I stated I was fighting defensively I would still get the +2 AC. (the -4 to attacks would only happen if I managed to get an opportunity attack on an enemy before my next turn came up).
I can't find it, but I remember a designer stating this somewhere in Dragon Magazine or something you didn't necessarily have to make an attack roll. Anyone here know where I can find that info again? Thanks.
I saw a discussion of this on ENWorld once. Their determination was that you must make an attack to gain the benefit. It seems a bit extreme to me, but I suppose they are afraid of abuse. Also, I just looked on d20srd and it says this about Combat Expertise:
"When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action."
So that seems to confirm that you have to be attacking to gain the benefit.
I've been allowing my players to use Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise in not-so-attack-oriented actions, I guess as a sort of house rule.
I think I remember the general concensus was that you had to use a standard action (just like taking a full defense) if you decide not to attack. So you couldn't use two move equivalent actions if you wanted to get the benefits of fighting defensively and/or combat expertise. I guess you could call this the "I attack the darkness" equivalency.
|
My ruling has always been that you get an AC bonus in exchange for a penalty on attack rolls. If you make no attacks, you cannot penalize any attacks, and thus you gain no AC bonus.
You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee you can (use Combat Expertise).
In my view, if you fight defensively, you are sacrificing the likelyhood of landing solid blows on an opponent in exchange for using your weapons to hinder your opponents ability to attack you (same for Combat Expertise).
Thus, if you do not engage your opponent in melee, you gain no benefit.
It's in the 3.0 FAQ (but remains valid for 3.5):
Do I have to make an attack in order to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class?
No, you don't have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the AC bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. You cannot use Expertise with the total defense action or any other action except attack or full attack.
It's in the 3.0 FAQ (but remains valid for 3.5):
Do I have to make an attack in order to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class?
No, you don't have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the AC bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. You cannot use Expertise with the total defense action or any other action except attack or full attack.
The catch being, however, that by declaring those, they still eat up a standard or full-round action regardless of whether you make the attack roll or not. I suppose this would mainly come up if you wanted an AC boost but were afraid to actually strike an opponent because of some defensive measure (such as a babau's acid).
|
|
It's in the 3.0 FAQ (but remains valid for 3.5):
Do I have to make an attack in order to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class?
No, you don't have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the AC bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. You cannot use Expertise with the total defense action or any other action except attack or full attack.
This makes sense. Only fighting defensively actually mentions "attacking" whereas CE says "attack/full-attack action".
You could reason it as brandishing your weapon to hinder incoming attacks. But you would still have to apply the action while "in melee" as per the feat description. So you can't just sacrifice a standard action whilst standing all along in a field.
So you can't just sacrifice a standard action whilst standing all along in a field.
Of course you could say, "See that empty square? Well there could conceivably be some invisible creature in it. So I attack it! What, didn't hit anything? Must have missed my 50% chance, oops, oh well at least I get my defense bonuses."
It's in the 3.0 FAQ (but remains valid for 3.5):
Do I have to make an attack in order to use the Expertise feat to improve my Armor Class?
No, you don't have to attack, but you do have to choose the attack or full attack action. That is, you can declare an attack or full attack, claim the AC bonus, and then not make the attacks to which you are entitled. You cannot use Expertise with the total defense action or any other action except attack or full attack.
That's what I was looking for! Thanks! I wonder why I couldn't find it in the FAQ...hmm...
I think I know why. I must've been putting in Combat Expertise instead of Expertise, they changed the name in 3.5e.
|
|
So you can't just sacrifice a standard action whilst standing all along in a field.Of course you could say, "See that empty square? Well there could conceivably be some invisible creature in it. So I attack it! What, didn't hit anything? Must have missed my 50% chance, oops, oh well at least I get my defense bonuses."
You could! But it would mean actually making an attack roll, which is slightly different from just using an attack action with no attack (for example, if the DM was mean and had an invisible Olidamarra walking through that square as you attacked...nah, that is too mean).
But you would have to be wielding a melee weapon of some kind, so at the very least you would need to make an unarmed strike...at the air.
You know, it would be funny to see this play out just to mess with the players mind.
You know, it would be funny to see this play out just to mess with the players mind.
Which is why I suggested it is the "I attack the darkness" justification.