Full defense vs. Combat Expertise

[Belminar]

Ok, so if I want to move along, slowly but safely, I can take a standard action to go full defense, and get a +6 AC bonus (I have 5 ranks in Tumble), which doesn't stack with Expertise. OR, I could fight defensively and take full Combat Expertise (+3 and +5 for a total of +8 AC), and have a -9 on my attacks.

Now, if I'm not actually attacking anyone (i.e. I'm moving across a field with many archers), can I still do the option with Expertise? Would I have to take an attack against an imaginary fly with a -9 penalty?

[Mirtos]

Originally Posted by Belminar

Ok, so if I want to move along, slowly but safely, I can take a standard action to go full defense, and get a +6 AC bonus (I have 5 ranks in Tumble), which doesn't stack with Expertise. OR, I could fight defensively and take full Combat Expertise (+3 and +5 for a total of +8 AC), and have a -9 on my attacks.

Now, if I'm not actually attacking anyone (i.e. I'm moving across a field with many archers), can I still do the option with Expertise? Would I have to take an attack against an imaginary fly with a -9 penalty?

Its an interesting question.

As a DM I would say no. Because Fighting defensively and expertise require you to be attacking (or at least, to 'declare an attack') in melee.

Initially this may seem to be unfair, but it actually makes sense. It means that a skilled fighter (and this only matters when you have a BAB of 2 or more) is better at causing enemies to miss if he is able to block their attacks and the like than if he is out in the open and doesnt have to worry about combat. IT represents a style of fighting.

Me and you? We would be better at not being in the melee in the first place, but i doubt either of us is a 2nd level fighter with 5 ranks of tumble. At least I know I'm not.

[Belminar]

Well you can take an attack action to strike an object, right? So technicly, your AC would be better if you put a wooden stake up every 30 feet and did your move then an expertise/defensive strike at one of those wooden posts?

That would be a military tactic I hadn't seen in a while.

"why do you keep hitting those posts?"
"They make us 10% less likely to be hit by an arrow."

[Jondera]

Since that doesn't really make sense from an IC perspective, and doesn't work if you haven't had time to "stake out" the field, you could instead do excersizes; advancing while doing practice routines. I would rule this as being allowable for the Combat Expertise benefit.

[jj_wolven]

Actually you must declare an attack action, basically to keep your weapon moving.

As a DM I would allow the attack action to be merely weaving your weapon through the air. This would "waste" a standard action but would keep the weapon moving as per the flavor of the feat.

-me

[Tristan]

If I where a dragon

I see a group of archers accompanies by a dude who is being careful and think "Well they are weaklings and I'll ignore them"

but then" Wait a minute, that guy is running around swinging around his sword like an idiot, I hate idiots"

smote

good thing Im not your DM

all comedy aside

Full defense is representative of using all your effort to avoid attacks

Combat expertise is a style of fighting where you let up on your attack to attack in such a way that it pushes back the opponent and makes it harder for him to get in a shot. If you have no opponent that, you aint got nothing.

Simular how in a movie I saw that when the guy had to shoot a target the normal way, he missed, but when he turned around and put his gun up, then spun around drew his gun and fired, he got a bullseye.

[loki_ragnarock]

If you have no opponent that, you aint got nothing.

And yet, if said archers were to take the same shot, but the character was fighting, oh, a pixie, then all those archers would still have to deal with th +x to AC derived from Combat Expertise...

It isn't against one opponent, it's against all attacks.

So why then must one have a pixie to swing at to gain the bonus?

[Darakonis]

Total defense: The fighter has his shield up, trying to dodge all arrows, or have them hit his shield.

Combat expertise: Every japanese movie in which the swordsman is actively cutting down the arrows flying towards him as well as dodging.

[JJeff]

I personally am a DM which would require you to attack an enemy to use the CE, but if you're not that kind of DM or a player that tries to push limits, you could always attack the spot of ground you are moving to....

[Ivarii Vlaskar]

I have a question about CE, so I thought I would post here to avoid clutter. Here goes:

Can someone use Combat Expertise instead of fighting defensively to take the benefits of feats such as two weapon defense. (because the two weapon defense bonus increases when fighting defensively)?

[Belminar]

Many things specificly say "or if taking the combat expertise feat" so based on the fact that some things specificly refference it (like the Quickstaff feat, or the broadbladed short sword), I'd say the absolute textbook answer is "no." A more pragmatic answer (per my view) is yes, if you take at least a -2 on attacks, you get the benefits as if fighting defensively.

[DrClaeys]

This is an intresting thread. This was always a very gray area for me. Thank you all for lending so much good comments.

[Mirtos]

Originally Posted by loki_ragnarock

And yet, if said archers were to take the same shot, but the character was fighting, oh, a pixie, then all those archers would still have to deal with th +x to AC derived from Combat Expertise...

It isn't against one opponent, it's against all attacks.

So why then must one have a pixie to swing at to gain the bonus?

You're absolutely, correct, but the guy must be swinging. And this doesnt mean flailing at air, keep in mind even a BAB of one is more than the common man. It means actively using your weapon to attack something, meaning the arrows that are coming. And as JJ said, this would slow things down significantly. If said archers were X number of feet away from you, it would take you twice as long to reach them - allowing them to get off twice as many shots as they would be able to normally, though you would be actively attacking at those arrows, slings, or whatever.

Of course I would argue (as a DM) that its dependent. An attack must really be an attack. Flailing at the air must be an attack, and if it isn't it might be practice, but its not an attack.

Example: I see an archer with a bow, I can plan my attack to go against arrows would be different than a giant with a boulder. If I see a spellcaster, I might or might not have any idea on how to defensively attack against that.

Obviously, if I really AM in combat, then my dodge bonus would be against everyone. This idea is NOT perfect, but allows a little bit of compromise without making the feat overly silly.

[Loozer]

OR, I could fight defensively and take full Combat Expertise (+3 and +5 for a total of +8 AC), and have a -9 on my attacks.

Wait,

I always thought that Combat Expertise replaced Fighting Defensively. In other words you can either fight defensively and take -4 to BAB and get +2 to AC (or +3 with 5 ranks in Tumble), OR you can use your Combat Expertise to take up to -5 penalty to BAB and gain +5 to AC. As far as I read the rules you can do one or the other, NOT both.

Am I the only one who reads it this way?

[Belminar]

Player's handbook
page 140
left-hand column.
under the bold letters fighting defensively
"This bonus stacks with the AC bonus granted by combat expertise (page 92)."