Recently my GM has decided he didn't like how fighting defensively works and says you should be able to defend yourself as well as you can attack. The rule is thus. You can subtract up to you full attack bonus with the weapon you are using to add the same amount to your AC, effectively giving everyone an uncapped Combat Expertise feat for free.
Anyone else think this is broken? If yes, how would I abuse the rule so he'll want to change it. I have already suggested alternatives like only your BAB and unless you have C.E. it's only 2att:1ac ratio but he just won't listen.
EDIT: The subtraction applies to all bonuses to attack: ability bonuses, magic item bonuses, feat bonuses, etc. Just to make that clear.
|
This rule isn't broken, per say, but it is poorly thought out. In many cases, the DM makes Houserules which change the way the game works to better fit the image in her/his mind, often without considering how this effects other rules. Coincidentally, many of these Houserules duplicate Feats.
Sometimes this turns out fine, such as how it is common practice in 4th Edition D&D Games to give all the players Weapon Focus, just to smooth out the math. Other times, you can really test the system with changes like this. I can see this becoming an issue in a few ways:
1.) The DM hasn't also improved the Full Defense Action, rendering that completely useless in comparison. This doesn't ruin the game, but it ruins the math.
2.) The DM doesn't let players who already have Combat Expertise switch it to a new Feat which is not redundant. Alternatively, the DM rules that Fighting Defensively with Combat Expertise is even better, giving characters ridiculously high ACs.
3.) The DM continues to require the redundant Feat Combat Expertise to qualify for Feats and Prestige Classes which require it, in other words, forcing players to waste a Feat to do nothing.
4.) The DM throws a big mean dragon at you, who lands and (Fighting Defensively) Claw/Claw/Bites you all to death while waiting for its breath weapon to recharge. It basically never gets hit except by Touch attacks, since its AC is over 9,000. (What?! 9,000!?)
If you really want to show the DM the error of his ways, make yourself a ridiculously high AC Stalwart Defender with a bunch of +HIT stuff, and then Fight Defensively. You'll never get hit except by Touch Attacks.
1.) The DM hasn't also improved the Full Defense Action, rendering that completely useless in comparison. This doesn't ruin the game, but it ruins the math.
Full Defense is considered subtracting all of your attack.
2.) The DM doesn't let players who already have Combat Expertise switch it to a new Feat which is not redundant. Alternatively, the DM rules that Fighting Defensively with Combat Expertise is even better, giving characters ridiculously high ACs.
Combat Expertise is effectively no longer a feat for requirements, use, etc. The DM continues to require the redundant Feat Combat Expertise to qualify for Feats and Prestige Classes which require it, in other words, forcing players to waste a Feat to do nothing.
Sounds cool, Make the fight drag out longer.
Not for the experienced gamer who wants to role-play, but that sound like a good rule for people new to role-playing. As they usually more interested in the action, and fights, than the chatting.
To each his own.
Combat Expertise was weak (3.5) and is entirely pointless now (PF). I can't see how this would hurt anything other than save people a pointless feat.
Combat Expertise is effectively no longer a feat for requirements, use, etc. The DM continues to require the redundant Feat Combat Expertise to qualify for Feats and Prestige Classes which require it, in other words, forcing players to waste a Feat to do nothing.
Now THAT'S a bad rule.