Ah, Power Attack vs Combat Expertise, like the offensive and defensive sides of a coin. However, the writing of the feats is markedly different and I have a few questions about them for you all.
1. Can you use a feat when it is not your turn? Rhetorical, I assume yes because of the existance of things like Deflect Arrows.
2. Can you use Power Attack when it is not your turn (e.g. Attack Of Opportunity)? Power Attack states that you may evoke the feat whenever you make "an attack roll". And nothing about on your turn.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
3. If Combat Expertise is supposedly the defensive counter to Power Attack, why is the writing of the feat so wildly different?
You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
4. If you can use Power Attack outside of your turn, then why is the much less popular (and many would say less useful) Combat Expertise so exacting in when it can be utilized?
5. Assuming that you can use Power Attack outside of your turn, would it not be fair to allow Combat Expertise outside of your turn as well? It would be giving a boon to defensive warriors.
Thanks
I presume to prevent you from constantly using Combat Expertise outside of combat in the anticipation of combat.
I believe it's because of the fact that everyone would always use combat expertise after doing their attack; taking the attack roll penalties as an afterthought while getting a boost to AC. Often enough, combat lasts one round and so that second attack with the penalty might not happen, making this free AC bonus. Power attack resolves both the penalty and the benefits simultaneaously, meaning that it can be less strict with its rules. It's self-contained.
From what i read, both feats can be used only upon declaring an attack action during the round, and both last until the pc's next turn.
Combat Expertise can only be used after declaring a combat action so to avoid that someone continously uses it, even when not in combat, to gain the benefit on AC all the times.
Power attack can be used more freely because anyone can strike almost everything everytime, not only in combat.
At least this is what i always believed.
Hope i understood your question correctly.
I think its less your inability to read and more your inability to leave the evil opposites themes out of the equation.
I wish combat expertise had an option like the extra damage from wielding a two handed weapon with power attack. Something like increasing the bonus if you wield a heavy or tower shield. That way you could have your choice of weapons work into your defensive build like power attack users can with their offense.
Hi everyone, thanks for your responses! I hope this will develop into a great discussion. It's a long response, but I did respond to everyone :).
I presume to prevent you from constantly using Combat Expertise outside of combat in the anticipation of combat.
It is strange that you would say that. I'm advocating Combat Expertise get the same treatement as Power Attack. You can only invoke Power Attack "when you make an attack roll". You can't keep power attack's bonus active outside of combat, why could you use Combat Expertise outside of combat?
BTW you can keep Total Defense up at all times.
This would allow you to avoid most of the trade that is supposed to go on in combat expertise. Probably the dev's intend for there to be a trade going on.
But you're still making a Trade no? Your attack comes at the expense of your chance to hit the opponent, I see where you're going, but IMO pumping my damage output at any time would be significantly better (possibly killing the opponent with the AoO) than adding extra AC. Even still, shouldn't I have a Defensive Choice to make? Why only an offensive Choice?
I believe it's because of the fact that everyone would always use combat expertise after doing their attack; taking the attack roll penalties as an afterthought while getting a boost to AC. Often enough, combat lasts one round and so that second attack with the penalty might not happen, making this free AC bonus. Power attack resolves both the penalty and the benefits simultaneaously, meaning that it can be less strict with its rules. It's self-contained.
You can't use it "after the attack", you'd have to (as I'm proposing) make an Attack Roll first - the same as Power Attack. If you can afford the penalty then why not use it (this is the same as Power Attack). For the record, you can't retroactively apply feats, declare first or not at all.
From what i read, both feats can be used only upon declaring an attack action during the round, and both last until the pc's next turn.
This assumption is not correct unfortunately. Only Combat Expertise has that restriction. Power attack can be used on any attack roll (including AoOs, Readied Actions, etc)
Combat Expertise can only be used after declaring a combat action so to avoid that someone continously uses it, even when not in combat, to gain the benefit on AC all the times.
You are the second person to make this assumption, but I find it is lacking. You would need to "make an attack roll" so unless you have an Attack of Opportunity which you make or an attack you made, Combat Expertise will never be "active".
Total Defense on the other hand can always be active.
I think its less your inability to read and more your inability to leave the evil opposites themes out of the equation.
Let me rephrase it.. why is Combat Expertise getting the shaft mechanically, when it is not altogether that powerful already? What is the balance reason for this?
Finally, and most importantly, do you feel it (Combat Expertise) could be changed to be in line with power attack?
I feel it would not affect the balance of the game in any meaningful way. What are your thoughts?
Only difference to me is that CE requires a melee weapon and can be used on a full round attack. Not much different.
While it is a minor issue I have, I feel that the inability to utilize Combat Expertise when making an attack of opportunity severely limits its usability and usefulness.
Power Attack also requires a Melee weapon and can also be used on a Full Round attack or any "attack roll".
"Next turn" means "your turn in the next round"
-- So that includes everything which happens when it's not your turn before the next round.
Yes, but that's not the part I'm taking issue with. CE specifically states it must be used with an Attack Action or Full Attack while Power Attack functions off an "Attack Roll" (of any kind), even an AoO outside of your turn.
Meaning you could do normal attacks then AoO Power Attack to off a bad guy.
I wish combat expertise had an option like the extra damage from wielding a two handed weapon with power attack. Something like increasing the bonus if you wield a heavy or tower shield. That way you could have your choice of weapons work into your defensive build like power attack users can with their offense.
I wish that there was something like this written into Combat Expertise as well.
|
The point is that if Combat Experise could be applied whenever you made an attack roll, then your high-level Greater Two-Weapon Fighting character could make six attacks without the CE penalty, then choose to apply it to his final seventh attack (which has little chance of hitting anything anyway) and claim the AC bonus all the way until the start of his next turn... when he does it again.
Combat Expertise is a fine Feat as it is, despite people still crying about it 'getting nerfed'. It's the only AC bonus Feat with a scaling bonus, and you can even combine it with Fighting Defensively for an extra 2 or 3 AC. Personally I see no problems with the Feat.
The point is that if Combat Experise could be applied whenever you made an attack roll, then your high-level Greater Two-Weapon Fighting character could make six attacks without the CE penalty, then choose to apply it to his final seventh attack (which has little chance of hitting anything anyway) and claim the AC bonus all the way until the start of his next turn... when he does it again.
This is a great observation, and makes a lot of sense balance wise. This defeats a lot of my argument.
However, is there a reason to not allow Combat Expertise on an Attack of Opportunity?
|
|
However, is there a reason to not allow Combat Expertise on an Attack of Opportunity?
I think the main reason would be the illogic you then have of needing to make an AoO to activate CE off-turn. If you can claim the AC bonus when someone provokes, what's stopping you just claiming it by, say, making an AoO Vs thin air? I don't think it'd be an overpowering thing, mechanically speaking, but it wouldn't fit well with the overall way the rules work, IMHO.
If you can claim the AC bonus when someone provokes, what's stopping you just claiming it by, say, making an AoO Vs thin air? I don't think it'd be an overpowering thing, mechanically speaking, but it wouldn't fit well with the overall way the rules work, IMHO.
Errr... I understand your concern, but you can't Attack the Air as an AoO since nothing provoked your attack. If your GM is letting you decide what provokes your AoOs, you may have bigger problems.
You can however, use CE and Fighting Defensively vs a Square you "think an enemy is in" (or vs the Air) on your own turn - legally by RAW.
The point is that if Combat Experise could be applied whenever you made an attack roll, then your high-level Greater Two-Weapon Fighting character could make six attacks without the CE penalty, then choose to apply it to his final seventh attack (which has little chance of hitting anything anyway) and claim the AC bonus all the way until the start of his next turn... when he does it again.This is a great observation, and makes a lot of sense balance wise. This defeats a lot of my argument.
However, is there a reason to not allow Combat Expertise on an Attack of Opportunity?
Because it's again another way to avoid taking the penalty to hit. For example, you can intersperse Trip attacks with normal attacks on a Full attack. So lets say you trip the guy first (and don't use CE), and then resolve the rest of your full attack against his penalized AC. No problem so far. Then your oppenent stands up, provoking an AoO. You take the attack and declare Combat Expertise. So now all of a sudden you've got an AC bonus, but took little to no penalty for it.
Just one example, but I'm sure there are others.
You can however, use CE and Fighting Defensively vs a Square you "think an enemy is in" (or vs the Air) on your own turn - legally by RAW.
As long as you, by RAW, have reason to believe there's a foe there, sure. You can't just declare "Ah! There's an invisible Rogue next to me" <flail> Unless your character is actually insane.
Because it's again another way to avoid taking the penalty to hit. For example, you can intersperse Trip attacks with normal attacks on a Full attack. So lets say you trip the guy first (and don't use CE), and then resolve the rest of your full attack against his penalized AC. No problem so far. Then your oppenent stands up, provoking an AoO. You take the attack and declare Combat Expertise. So now all of a sudden you've got an AC bonus, but took little to no penalty for it.
Just one example, but I'm sure there are others.
But you are taking the penalty to hit for your AoO, which is made at your full BAB... you're giving up your AoO (which might hit again and deal damage) for a AC bonus (which caps at +6, if your BAB ever gets that High). That doesn't seem like a fair trade? Giving up your AoO?
So you're fine with interjecting Power Attacks as AoOs, boosting your damage output (and Greatly for 2handed weapons) for little to no "penalty"?
|
|
Errr... I understand your concern, but you can't Attack the Air as an AoO since nothing provoked your attack. If your GM is letting you decide what provokes your AoOs, you may have bigger problems.
Right... and that's the point I was trying to make. There's a breakdown in game logic if you can claim a higher AC because someone provoked, but not claim that higher AC at other times, by using up the same action (i.e. blowing your AoO Vs nothing).
But you are taking the penalty to hit for your AoO, which is made at your full BAB... you're giving up your AoO (which might hit again and deal damage) for a AC bonus (which caps at +6, if your BAB ever gets that High). That doesn't seem like a fair trade? Giving up your AoO?
Y'know what, I take it back. Just reread the language, and I think it supports allowing you to turn on CE on an AoO. It's also very smart language, because it prevents the issue on the Full Attack mentioned above. Mea culpa.
Right... and that's the point I was trying to make. There's a breakdown in game logic if you can claim a higher AC because someone provoked, but not claim that higher AC at other times, by using up the same action (i.e. blowing your AoO Vs nothing).
Is not that the point of getting a feat that can be turned on and turned off? To use it when it is advantageous? BTW, if your GM did allow you to AoO vs nothing you could totally turn it on when you made your attack vs nothing.
I would agree with you if Combat Expertise was in permanent effect, but since it is able to be toggled at will, I do not.
Y'know what, I take it back. Just reread the language, and I think it supports allowing you to turn on CE on an AoO. It's also very smart language, because it prevents the issue on the Full Attack mentioned above. Mea culpa.
Hmmm. That is interesting. It does say "attack or full attack action".
Does that mean "attack" of any kind? Includes AoO.
Or does that mean "attack action".
Pathfinder is known for it's choice rules wordings, perhaps CE works like I'm envisioning already?
Upon further thinking I'm heavily leaning towards the reading suggested by ZappoHisbane.
Combat Expertise can be used (triggered) with Cleave right? That is not an attack action, but rather simply an attack that is a part of a Standard Action feat.
Therefore, Combat Expertise could also be used with an Attack of Opportunity, as that is an "attack". But when making a Full Attack Action, you have to declare CE at the beginning.
Hmm... the wording is a lot more elegant than I thought... thanks to all for helping me sort this out.
|
|
Combat Expertise can be used (triggered) with Cleave right?
RAW - no, you can't.
Some Feats, such as Cleave, are worded so that they are, in effect, their own 'action type'. Cleave says 'as a standard action you can...'. Combat Expertise, on the other hand, can only be triggered as part of two specific action types - the 'attack action' and 'the full-attack action'.
The Combat Expertise text states it can be used...
'... when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon...'
... for that to mean 'any attack with a melee weapon' or 'a full-attack action' there'd need to be a comma after the first use of the word 'attack'... and there isn't. The bit about a full-attack action would also be redundant.
So Combat Expertise can only be used with those two specific actions (although some effects modify those specific actions, so could stack with CE - Cleave isn't one of them).
To be honest it'd be nice for Paizo to bring out a table of all the combat-related Feats with exactly what action or action type or modifier they are listed on it - it'd make all this stuff a lot easier to comprehend!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
... for that to mean 'any attack with a melee weapon' or 'a full-attack action' there'd need to be a comma after the first use of the word 'attack'... and there isn't. The bit about a full-attack action would also be redundant.
It is possible the Full Attack Action bit is there to prevent the scenario you suggested earlier in the thread about using the last attack of a Full Attack Action (which is likely to miss) to gain the benefits of Combat Expertise for later in the round.
To be honest it'd be nice for Paizo to bring out a table of all the combat-related Feats with exactly what action or action type or modifier they are listed on it - it'd make all this stuff a lot easier to comprehend!
I agree, but to think that a player could use Power Attack while AoOing, Charging, Cleaving, Ride-by Attacking, Spring Attacking, etc and that a player could not use Combat Expertise in the same instances is quite troublesome. That doesn't sound much like any kind of Expertise that I would want.
Therefore, I can only return to my original position and advocate that Paizo opens up Combat Expertise's usefulness because it is now very limited.
Power attack resolves all the penalties and benefits within the attack itself. It applies between the attacker and the target. As stated earlier, it's "self contained".
Combat expertise resolves the penalty within the attack, but provides the bonuses for a full round. It applies between the attacker and everyone else who wants to attack the "combat expert" for the next round.
Applying PA on an AoO all applies within the AoO itself, between the Power Attacker and the AoO provoker.
Applying CE on an AoO applies beyond the AoO itself, affecting combat for every possible opponent who may attack the combat expert for the next round. This persistent, widespread effect may be grounds for not allowing CE to activate on an AoO.
Consider someone with CE and Combat Reflexes, with a reach weapon. Suppose three foes provoke AoOs. The first AoO, he applied CE. Now it's benefits are in effect for the round. The other two, he chooses not to take the penalty, and strikes true.
Even if CE penalties had to apply for the remainder of the benefits, he could still strike all-out for AoO #1 and #2, and apply CE on the last AoO, gaining the AC benefits against the 43728 other attackers.
CE, if allowable on an AoO, can be milked and exploited for an uneven benefit-to-penalty tradeoff.
Personally, I houserule that CE can be activated with a standard action, an attack action, or a full-attack action. I see no reason not to allow it to be used like a "defensive kata".
Consider someone with CE and Combat Reflexes, with a reach weapon. Suppose three foes provoke AoOs. The first AoO, he applied CE. Now it's benefits are in effect for the round. The other two, he chooses not to take the penalty, and strikes true.
You realize that the Benefits and Penalties associated with CE last until your next turn, lowering your chance to hit on all Attacks going forward.
Just like power attack. The benefits and draw backs appear once you invoke the feat.
Even if CE penalties had to apply for the remainder of the benefits [which they do], he could still strike all-out for AoO #1 and #2, and apply CE on the last AoO, gaining the AC benefits against the 43728 other attackers.
Yes, this is the benefit of Combat Expertise... I fail to see how using a feat as it was intended is "overpowered".
The Person has dedicated their character to making AoOs with CE and CR so you're not letting them use their abilities. Also, they'll be gambling that they'll get 3 AoOs if they wait until the third to activate Combat Expertise.
CE, if allowable on an AoO, can be milked and exploited for an uneven benefit-to-penalty tradeoff.
As CE (penalty & benefits) scales with your BAB, I disagree. I don't think that + 6 (Max with +20 BAB) AC is gamebreaking. There are many ways to ensure you do not provoke an AoO anyhow.
Personally, I houserule that CE can be activated with a standard action, an attack action, or a full-attack action. I see no reason not to allow it to be used like a "defensive kata".
So even in your game, a spring attacker would not receive the benefits of Combat Expertise.
Since we're splitting hairs, I'll amend it to "any full-round action or standard action which involves a melee attack, or alternately a dedicated standard action sans attack."
As an aside, I was simply answering your question,
However, is there a reason to not allow Combat Expertise on an Attack of Opportunity?
My answer is based on the idea that you can decide the timing, by AoOs, as to when to apply CE. This level of choice opens doors for min-maxing in combat which someone (game designer, DM) probably finds unbalancing.
Me, personally? I'm on the fence, but leaning toward allowing it on an AoO. However, I'm willing to renege that view if I see a nasty exploitation in practice.
My answer is based on the idea that you can decide the timing, by AoOs, as to when to apply CE. This level of choice opens doors for min-maxing in combat which someone (game designer, DM) probably finds unbalancing.
Hm, an excellent point. But again, since the bonus scales with your BAB it should not be a disproportionate amount of AC gained during your provoked AoOs. Especially since DM/GMs will be applying appropriate CR challenges for the group.
I don't think it would be too bad on the AoO, especially since the existence of the 5ft step and defensive casting, etc.
A lot of the benefits you're speaking of are dependent on a few variables (multple AoOs, high BaB, getting provoked) etc. If you don't get an AoO attempt, then you can't activate Combat Expertise (assuming your turn has passed), then you don't benefit at all that round.
Thanks for fowarding the discussion of the topic.
My answer is based on the idea that you can decide the timing, by AoOs, as to when to apply CE. This level of choice opens doors for min-maxing in combat which someone (game designer, DM) probably finds unbalancing.Hm, an excellent point. But again, since the bonus scales with your BAB it should not be a disproportionate amount of AC gained during your provoked AoOs. Especially since DM/GMs will be applying appropriate CR challenges for the group.
I don't think it would be too bad on the AoO, especially since the existence of the 5ft step and defensive casting, etc.
A lot of the benefits you're speaking of are dependent on a few variables (multple AoOs, high BaB, getting provoked) etc. If you don't get an AoO attempt, then you can't activate Combat Expertise (assuming your turn has passed), then you don't benefit at all that round.
Thanks for fowarding the discussion of the topic.
The point of CE is that you dedicate yourself to defensive rather than offensive fighting. You take a penalty on ALL attack rolls to hit for an entire round. In exchange, you get a bonus to your AC against ALL attacks for that round. If you allow it to trigger on an AoO then the CE player is not actually dedicating their character to a defensive style that round.
Consider a team with a rogue and two fighters. The rogue goes TWF, one fighter goes sword-and-board. Every fight, they coordinate their initiative using held actions so that the generic fighter goes first, then the rogue, then the sword and boarder.
Rogue takes CE, Gang Up, and Combat Reflexes.
On generic fighter' turn, he closes with the enemy and fights.
On rogue's turn, he closes and fights normally.
On sword-and-board's turn, he closes and fights normally. As he goes past the rogue, he actually provokes an AoO. Nobody ever takes the AoO against their own ally, but he provokes nonetheless. The rogue knows he has no chance of hitting his heavily armored ally, so he takes the AoO and turns on CE (further reducing the chance of friendly fire damage). Sword-and-boarder then bull-rushes the enemy back 5 feet, following with him.
Now the rogue has much higher AC for the rest of the round.
Next round, generic fighter closes and fights.
Then the rogue closes, turns off CE, and does a TWF full attack with flanking from Gang Up.
Then the sword-and-board bull rushes again. When he follows his opponent's movement, he provokes once more from the rogue, who safely turns on CE.
Rinse and repeat.
Is it a lot of work? Sure. But it is an extreme example to show how someone can abuse CE triggering off of AoO.
Bascaria, thanks for adding input!
On sword-and-board's turn, he closes and fights normally. As he goes past the rogue, he actually provokes an AoO. Nobody ever takes the AoO against their own ally, but he provokes nonetheless. The rogue knows he has no chance of hitting his heavily armored ally, so he takes the AoO...
This is not possible... not only would a GM not allow you to do this, but you can't do it under RAW.
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.[...]
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.Moving
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
So, I think your concern of Allies provoking AoOs to get combat expertise in effect is already addressed in the rules. I do, however, appreciate your efforts in looking at balance aspects of the proposal.
Bascaria, thanks for adding input!
On sword-and-board's turn, he closes and fights normally. As he goes past the rogue, he actually provokes an AoO. Nobody ever takes the AoO against their own ally, but he provokes nonetheless. The rogue knows he has no chance of hitting his heavily armored ally, so he takes the AoO...This is not possible... not only would a GM not allow you to do this, but you can't do it under RAW.
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.[...]
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.Moving
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.So, I think your concern of Allies provoking AoOs to get combat expertise in effect is already addressed in the rules. I do, however, appreciate your efforts in looking at balance aspects of the proposal.
So declare your allies your enemies for the duration of that turn. There is no meaningful rules difference between "ally" and "enemy." Spells which target enemies (bane, for example) can just as easily be turned to target allies or everyone within their burst radius so long as you have the CL to hit everybody. Same is true for Bless in reverse.
Even without this admitted bit of ridiculousness which is a bit of a sidetrack, the entire scenario remains viable so long as the bull-rusher has greater bull rush. If he does, then the enemy's movement provokes attacks of opportunity, which means that the rogue can still do his CE-turn-on-attack on the turn of the person acting immediately after himself, gaining full benefit of the AC boosting without taking the commensurate penalty to hit on the vast majority of his attacks (the TWF full-attack routine), which is clearly what the feat is supposed to require.
Hey there, hi there, ho there!
Just had a bit of a vacation, but I'm back now to debate further (much to the excitement of my fans).
So declare your allies your enemies for the duration of that turn. There is no meaningful rules difference between "ally" and "enemy." Spells which target enemies (bane, for example) can just as easily be turned to target allies or everyone within their burst radius so long as you have the CL to hit everybody. Same is true for Bless in reverse.
I'll agree with your statement that this is a bit rediculous, most GM's would deny you this Attack of Opportunity without a really great explaination. But, using strictly RAW mechanics - and no GM input - you're correct.
I'd allow it though, you'd blow one of your AoOs and you have a 5% (minimum) chance of slapping your friend across the face, all in the name of 1-6 AC.
which means that the rogue can still do his CE-turn-on-attack on the turn of the person acting immediately after himself, gaining full benefit of the AC boosting without taking the commensurate penalty to hit on the vast majority of his attacks (the TWF full-attack routine), which is clearly what the feat is supposed to require.
Is it without penalty? You're still taking a penalty to the attack roll on your AoO. You're gaining the AC bonus, true, but based on your initative count and situation, it may or may not be beneficial.
Furthermore, you're having your Bull Rusher use his Standard Action to push the enemy so you can have exactly one AoO. Now he doesn't attack or full attack. The group's damage output has been reduced significantly just because you wanted to activate CE.
Did I mention you're requiring 7 feats across the party to achieve this? Add combat reflexes for 8 feats!
CE, TWF, ITWF, GTWF, PA, Improved Bull Rush, Greater Bull Rush
This is a lot of legwork to exploit a negligible amount of AC gain.
Finally, you've failed to address why CE can't be used with a Charge, Cleave or Spring Attack (to name a few). These are all on-turn attacks.
Here's the latest update on my stance for the repurposing for Combat Expertise:
What I would like to from CE see is:
Combat Expertise (As Currently Worded):
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
1. Combat Expertise expanded to work with things like Charge, Cleave, Ride-by Attack, Spring Attack et al.
*As written it currently can't be used with these.
2. Combat Expertise expanded to work with an AoO attack.
*AoOs made at your Highest attack bonus, if you willfully take negatives to your AoO you are both expending a valuable resource as well as passing the opportunity to strike a character that provokes for an AC bonus.
3. Retain the idea that Combat Expertise has to be declared at the start of a Full Attack action.
*without this clause Combat Expertise can turn into a cheese feat.
I think everyone is overlooking the most obvious exploit with combat expertise could you activate at any time- nevermind the craziness with AoO.
You can take the trade with power attack at any attack, because the effective 'trade' is that as soon as I do, my attacks are more powerful but less likely to hit.
Both cost and benefit affect the attack.
With combat expertise, the trade is my attacks are less likely to hit, but my defense goes up.
If I was an 11th level fighter, and I could activate CE at 'any attack', I would have 3 attacks at BAB +11/+6/+1. I would so activate CE every time at the last attack (+1) should I full round attack, because I'll get that extra AC, and that last attack sucks anyway.
Unless I'm trippin' the dex with combat reflexes, I only have one attack of opportunity anyway. Even with the penalty, I'm a fighter- I'll still probably hit at my highest BAB even dropped a few points.
So the weirdness is caused by the fact that cost of CE affects attack, but the benefits go to defense.
Changing Combat Expertise
If you wanted it to be activated at any time, you'd have to have it so both the cost and the benefit occur simultaneously, like power attack. Otherwise it's just going to be opened up to metagame exploitation.
IE, some type of feat that dropped your AC, but gave you DR (rather than try and dodge the blow just take the hit somewhere less fatal). Or vice versa, some type of 'diving dodge' that increased AC but also the damage should an attack land.
I think everyone is overlooking the most obvious exploit with combat expertise could you activate at any time- nevermind the craziness with AoO.
Hey! Welcome to the discussion and thanks for your input! We actually hit upon that point a few posts ago, and I agree its a potentially big problem (and my closing point of the post above yours).
If I had to reword Combat Expertise it would be:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making a single melee attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
A simple, but important rules modification I think. It would include Charge, Spring Attack, Cleaves, AoO's, etc but at the same time limit the power of CE on Full Attack actions.
How to cheese-ify:
Attack normally.
Next ally in initiative order draws an AoO from you, which you use to activate CE and strike at -4 (going for non-lethal damage, with your gauntlet; 1d3).
Next round, attack normally.
Effectively, you swap out your AoO for AC.
How to cheese-ify:
Attack normally.
Next ally in initiative order draws an AoO from you, which you use to activate CE and strike at -4 (going for non-lethal damage, with your gauntlet; 1d3).
Next round, attack normally.Effectively, you swap out your AoO for AC.
If you wanted to use your Gauntlet to make an AoO you'd have to have one of your hands free at the end of your turn (ie not wielding your two-handed weapon, not wearing a shield) which would make your other AoOs (if any) pretty worthless.
I don't have too much of a problem with this trade, you trade attack for defense and burn your AoOs. As you are far more likely to obtain this feat as a front line fighter, burning your AoOs for minimal gain might not be worth it.
And you forget the most important Caveat, if a GM finds this to be abusive they can always not allow your ally to provoke an AoO. Personally, I think designating your Allies as Enemies for a single round to be cheese in and of itself.