So I dislike the way combat expertise/fighting defensively/all out defense currently work. My complaints are thus.
- fighting defensively/total defense don't scale as you level makeing them really good at level 1, and almost worthless at level 20
- Combat Expertise is a separate mechanic from fighting defensively
- Combat Expertise is generally considered a subpar feat in most builds.
- You can combine combat expertise and fighting defensively, which makes that combination of the two better than total defense once you have a BAB of 4 or better.
- None of these abilities account for other defensive options like shields. I would think that fighting defensively with a sword and board would be more effective than fighting defensively with a two hander.
So with that, here are my proposed house rules for fighting defensively and total defense.
1. Remove Combat Expertise from the equation. Make it into something more fitting as a pre-requisite to improved trip/disarm.
Combat Expertise(Combat)
Your quick wits aid you when performing and defending against combat manuvers.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: Add half of your intelligence modifier(minimum of 1) to you CMB and CMD.
2. Fighting Defensively - Take a -1 to hit plus an additional -1 per 4 BAB gain an equal dodge bonus to AC. In addition, multiply your shield bonus to AC by 1.5 when fighting defensively.
3. Total Defense - You gain a +2 to dodge bonus to AC plus an additional +2 dodge bonus to AC for every 4 BAB. You cannot make attack of opportunity, and cannot fight defensively. In addition, multiply your shield bonus by 2 when using total defense.
4. Acrobatics - You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC for every 3 ranks in acrobatics when using total defense. You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC for every 5 ranks in acrobatics when fighting defensively.
As I see it is: (a closure which needs to be added to most statements any body makes)
Anybody can choose to fight defensively. You decrease your attack bonus by a little to gain a small AC bonus. Which is fine.
You need the Combat Expertise Feat to be able to take that to the next level. (Combat expertise is also a requirement for a host of feats)
Combat expertise is also imo the opposite of power attack. I think they are on exactly the same growth as well.
Fighting defensively without the increased penalty to attack works fine for all those non full BAB classes out there, who really couldn't afford the extra price every few (4-5) levels.
Look its an old system. and anything thats been around since 3.0 DnD is rather solid. I will admit that Pathfinder tends to overpower abilities, but the basics is very important. As I constantly hear in kung fu class :)
As I see it is: (a closure which needs to be added to most statements any body makes)
Anybody can choose to fight defensively. You decrease your attack bonus by a little to gain a small AC bonus. Which is fine.
You need the Combat Expertise Feat to be able to take that to the next level. (Combat expertise is also a requirement for a host of feats)
Combat expertise is also imo the opposite of power attack. I think they are on exactly the same growth as well.
Fighting defensively without the increased penalty to attack works fine for all those non full BAB classes out there, who really couldn't afford the extra price every few (4-5) levels.
Look its an old system. and anything thats been around since 3.0 DnD is rather solid. I will admit that Pathfinder tends to overpower abilities, but the basics is very important. As I constantly hear in kung fu class :)
The problem with comparing Combat Expertise with Power Attack is that.
1. The are not on the same growth track. Power attack has different growth rates based on whether you are using a two-hander/two-weapon fighting vs a single weapon. Fighting defensively should be the same way. A guy with a +4 heavy shield should be better at fighting defensively than a guy with two-handed weapon. The guy with the +4 heavy shield should be better at fighting defensively than a guy with a buckler.2. In pathfinder, offense is almost always better then defense. For example, I have 3 attacks. If I use normal attacks, all 3 attacks hit, my enemy barely lives, attacks me, and hits me twice. If I use power attack, and 2 attacks hit, my enemy dies. I use combat expertise, I land 2 attacks, my enemy lives, attacks me, and hits me once. Power attack prevented more damage than Combat Expertise by taking my enemy out of the fight.
3. In pathfinder, your enemies are as intelligent as your DM makes them. This means if you make a character with an AC a really high AC that hits for little to no damage, the DM will have the enemies go after someone who is more squishy than you are.
Combat expertise is not a good feat. There are only 2 reasons people take the feat. Either they are trying to get Improved Disarm/Trip, or they are running a hyper optimised AC build where they are trying to get as much AC as possible. Even in the second case, combat expertise is about 4th on the list of feats to get if you want to max out your AC as there are other feats that give you bonuses to AC without taking a penalty.