combat expertise love

[chodelord]

the combat expertise feat currently sucks and needs to be decoupled from the 3e baggage

1. remove the spell casting penalty, it was never necessary, so what if a caster has 5 more ac, it cost them a feat - if some kind of penalty is absolutely necessary it should be a fixed penalty of say 10 mana extra, having metamagic costs double is absurd

2. remove the int requirement, tank builds who could potentially use the feat don't have the build points to spare, let them have more useful stats, instead couple some CE effects to int

3. make CE (active or passive) give an additional 20% bash chance if you have shield mastery, this would trivially increase the pew pew of all 2 dedicated shield users out there

4. make CE (active or passive) have the following effect: use either int or str, whichever is higher, to determine DC for combat feats - this one change would give it potential for rogues, melee artificers, monkwiz pale masters, and also really fit the theme of the "smart warrior"

5. make CE (when active) add positive int bonus to melee critical hit damage before multiplier, again this would make the feat attractive to rogues and be in line with the "smart warrior" flavor

[MRMechMan]

The fact that combat expertise gives a STACKING 5 AC makes it already worth it for any AC build. 5 AC in and of itself makes it worth the very very slight extra int you need....you have some interesting suggestions but CE isn't underpowered as it is.

[Ravoc-DDO]

no

We don't need even more roles fullfilled by casters.

[azrael4h]

no

We don't need even more roles fullfilled by casters.

See very many 110+ AC Wizards have you?

[scottmike0]

See very many 110+ AC Wizards have you?

meh, if they move that penalty i would carry it on my ac type wizard so fast it wouldn't be funny xD..
60 ac on a wizard with combat expertise isss SOOO nice..
and i would not always look at wizards with it, but in fact a favored soul or cleric can obtain extreme ac with that feat to . there is a reason why they made it cast double spell points...

[sephiroth1084]

meh, if they move that penalty i would carry it on my ac type wizard so fast it wouldn't be funny xD..
60 ac on a wizard with combat expertise isss SOOO nice..
and i would not always look at wizards with it, but in fact a favored soul or cleric can obtain extreme ac with that feat to . there is a reason why they made it cast double spell points...

The problem with the penalty is that it severely penalizes paladins and rangers who want AC and who use spells often, and in particular those paladins and rangers who choose to gain some self-healing through their self-cast Cure Serious Wounds via stuff like Maximize and Empower Healing.

I really don't think clerics, favored souls or wizards having CE is going to break anything. They are already clobbering content with 0 effective AC, and gearing up to meaningful AC late in the game means not carrying as many spellcasting enhancements on their gear. The trade-off is there.

[scottmike0]

The problem with the penalty is that it severely penalizes paladins and rangers who want AC and who use spells often, and in particular those paladins and rangers who choose to gain some self-healing through their self-cast Cure Serious Wounds via stuff like Maximize and Empower Healing.

I really don't think clerics, favored souls or wizards having CE is going to break anything. They are already clobbering content with 0 effective AC, and gearing up to meaningful AC late in the game means not carrying as many spellcasting enhancements on their gear. The trade-off is there.

true, but how much is that opinionated.
*remember there is something called abshais piece and more other ac gear items.. and swapping out gear for when healing & soloing...

[Aesop]

the combat expertise feat currently sucks and needs to be decoupled from the 3e baggage

1. remove the spell casting penalty, it was never necessary, so what if a caster has 5 more ac, it cost them a feat - if some kind of penalty is absolutely necessary it should be a fixed penalty of say 10 mana extra, having metamagic costs double is absurd

2. remove the int requirement, tank builds who could potentially use the feat don't have the build points to spare, let them have more useful stats, instead couple some CE effects to int

3. make CE (active or passive) give an additional 20% bash chance if you have shield mastery, this would trivially increase the pew pew of all 2 dedicated shield users out there

4. make CE (active or passive) have the following effect: use either int or str, whichever is higher, to determine DC for combat feats - this one change would give it potential for rogues, melee artificers, monkwiz pale masters, and also really fit the theme of the "smart warrior"

5. make CE (when active) add positive int bonus to melee critical hit damage before multiplier, again this would make the feat attractive to rogues and be in line with the "smart warrior" flavor

I like the idea of changing the casting penalty to 10SP as that makes sense to me. I wouldn't remove it completely.

I'd leave the Int Requirement. Its only a 13 and can be gotten to with little pain.

Its a defensive Feat so I wouldn't have it increase Bash but I would have it add 5% Mitigation 10% if used with a Shield (power attack doubles THF effect shield can d othe same for this)


Aesop

[AMDarkwolf]

i kinda just wish it wasn't a pre-req for improved trip :P

[voodoogroves]

3e didn't have a spellcasting prohibition.

One of the more funky but really effective builds at lower levels was the CE-having ray caster. Rays in PNP are ranged-touch attacks - they require an attack roll ... but against touch AC. It was a niche, but a ray-caster could be pretty darn harsh esp. in lower level play.

[Angelus_dead]

3e didn't have a spellcasting prohibition.

Nope. In D&D 3.5, to use Combat Expertise required you to perform an attack action. Casting a spell meant you weren't doing an attack action, so you weren't using Combat Expertise.

(There are some spells which include an attack roll, but they are not an attack action)

[voodoogroves]

Nope. In D&D 3.5, to use Combat Expertise required you to perform an attack action. Casting a spell meant you weren't doing an attack action, so you weren't using Combat Expertise.

(There are some spells which include an attack roll, but they are not an attack action)

3.5 FAQ clarifies that it needs not be an attack action, but any action requiring an attack roll (including, say, a grapple)

[sephiroth1084]

3.5 FAQ clarifies that it needs not be an attack action, but any action requiring an attack roll (including, say, a grapple)

What FAQ? The SRD says:

Combat Expertise [General]

Prerequisite

Int 13.
Benefit

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.
Normal

A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise

That wording disallows the use during spellcasting, charging, Spring Attack, and many other abilities that have attack rolls but aren't attack actions.

[voodoogroves]

What FAQ? The SRD says:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise

That wording disallows the use during spellcasting, charging, Spring Attack, and many other abilities that have attack rolls but aren't attack actions.

Check the FAQ, p 39 (ish)

That's one of those things like "Complete Warrior p 16" that are a reference point.

[bigolbear]

CE is there to make the distinction between the smart fighter and the big dumb grunt.

13 int isnt hard to plan for.

what ddo is lacking for CE is the other feats that spool off it.

we have imporved trip but are lacking improved disarm, and various other tactical feats.

Im not averse to improveing combat expertise - as MOST meles curently go with PA. Id suggest -5 to hit, +5 ac, +5 tactics DC's, +5 intimidate. Couple this with sheilds granting benefits to 'trip' and 'stun' - as they very much do in real life.

As a core feat it is also somehting that could be added to with enhancements - which is something for the enhancements thread.

Personaly Id change the 'casting' penalty as follows. No spellcasting of spells lvl 5+ when using combat expertise. That means it wont detrimentaly effect pallies/rangers but prevents abuse by true casters doting and blocking. For those that dont know combat expertise in pen an paper can only be used if you have made a mele attack that round, or gone full defence - it completely prevents spell casting. DDO is being nice to us.

[chodelord]

Actually that is an even better idea remove the caster penalty have CE apply a 6 second +5 AC buff every time you make a melee hit roll.

Melee toons won't lose anything other than occasionally 5 ac vs archers, the feat won't apply to casters or ranged who hang back, and it fits the flavor for "expert in combat".

[Sidewaysgts86]

Actually that is an even better idea remove the caster penalty have CE apply a 6 second +5 AC buff every time you make a melee hit roll.

Melee toons won't lose anything other than occasionally 5 ac vs archers, the feat won't apply to casters or ranged who hang back, and it fits the flavor for "expert in combat".

I actually like this idea a lot- Should also apply if youre blocking though I think.

Now its time to think of a way to make shield-mastery not a "works better for casters" feat.

[Bacab]

kinda sorta related...

A duelist could apply their INT mod to there AC. That would be a neat PRE that could use combat expertise.

You can kinda imagine a Dualist with a monk splash hitting a good high AC. Only thing is, a duelist could not wear more than light armor and they could not wield a shield.

Soooo, maybe they could incorporate that?

I.E. Combat Expertise allows you to add INT for AC. Or maybe have a feat named Improved Combat Expertise that allowed that (INT to ac when in light or no armor and when you DONT have a shield).

I am sure some meta gamer would find a way to break that pretty easily though.

[sephiroth1084]

the combat expertise feat currently sucks and needs to be decoupled from the 3e baggage

1. remove the spell casting penalty, it was never necessary, so what if a caster has 5 more ac, it cost them a feat - if some kind of penalty is absolutely necessary it should be a fixed penalty of say 10 mana extra, having metamagic costs double is absurd

Honestly, I don't think it needs any penalty at all, but...

Actually that is an even better idea remove the caster penalty have CE apply a 6 second +5 AC buff every time you make a melee hit roll.

This sounds excellent! It accomplishes basically everything intended by the SP penalty tacked onto this, but without hurting the characters most likely to both have this and spells. The buff duration should be shorter, though. A caster could conceivably cast, cast, cast, cast, swing, cast, cast, cast, swing. With, say, a 3 second buff, that becomes almost cast, swing, cast, swing, which is pretty painful.

Not sure whether I'd want this to apply while blocking. On the one hand, blocking shouldn't reduce your AC, but on the other, the feat really is supposed to be an active thing...something that you use while attacking.

2. remove the int requirement, tank builds who could potentially use the feat don't have the build points to spare, let them have more useful stats, instead couple some CE effects to int

Agreed. Right now, the requirement causes fits for paladins and monks that want it, and dissuades tactics fighters, barbarians and some others that would otherwise be interested in Improved Trip from taking it (aside from the 2-feat cost for just +4 to trip).

If it is felt that it should have some sort of requirement, make it Dex 13; Int 13 or Dex 13; or BAB +6.

3. make CE (active or passive) give an additional 20% bash chance if you have shield mastery, this would trivially increase the pew pew of all 2 dedicated shield users out there

Eh. Kind of weird having interlocking feat chains like that. I'd be in favor of it adding an additional 20% bash if you also have Improved Shield Bash, maybe, or adding 5% damage mitigation that stacks with Shield Mastery, Improved Shield Mastery and Earth Stance.

4. make CE (active or passive) have the following effect: use either int or str, whichever is higher, to determine DC for combat feats - this one change would give it potential for rogues, melee artificers, monkwiz pale masters, and also really fit the theme of the "smart warrior"

Eh. I'd rather not see wizards that can toss out DC 38 trips and stuns in addition to everything else they're doing. Melee artificers seem like a trap, and rogues really shouldn't be putting that much into Int if they aren't using a crossbow, and if they are, they aren't using tactics feats.

5. make CE (when active) add positive int bonus to melee critical hit damage before multiplier, again this would make the feat attractive to rogues and be in line with the "smart warrior" flavor

If you wanted it to unlock a feat that did this, sure, but shouldn't in and of itself. It's a defensive feat.

I like the idea of changing the casting penalty to 10SP as that makes sense to me. I wouldn't remove it completely.

I'd leave the Int Requirement. Its only a 13 and can be gotten to with little pain.

Aesop

It depends what you mean by "little pain". On a 28 pt build, that's a lot of build points. If you have only access to +2 tomes, 3 build points isn't huge, but given how stat-intensive AC characters of all varieties are, that's still a fairly significant hardship, and I really don't feel like reasonable access to a feat should be determined by the level of gear your character has. ITWF and GTWF have this, and I'm not thrilled about it, but I feel like the Dex requirements there are at least keeping TWF a little bit in check, sort of. What's being kept in check here?