Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Does Fighting Defensively improve your CMD?


Advice

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does Fighting Defensively improve your CMD? What about Total Defense?

RAW, it doesn't appear to, but RAI, I would think so.

from d20pfsrd:

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action

You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Hmm, that's actually tricky. In the rules for fighting defensively as a Standard Action, the AC bonus is untyped, and so wouldn't apply to CMD. But in the rules for fighting defensively as a Full-Round Action, and for Total Defense, it's a Dodge bonus, which does apply to CMD. So it looks like it was perhaps an oversight in the rules to leave the first one untyped. I'd probably rule that it applies for all of those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That looks like the wording for Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action. What's weird is how the wording for Fighting Defensively as a Full Round Action is different:

Fighting Defensively as a Full Round Action:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

And it states earlier that all dodge bonuses stack, and that dodge bonuses apply to CMD, so...

Probably someone just missed it on the standard action, for I see no reason why the AC bonus would be different for the two

edit: ninja'd


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lack of dodge type for fighting defensively AC bonus in Combat section is almost certainly an omission. Total defense grants dodge bonus to AC and what's more description of Acrobatics skill states:

Quote:
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.

Also, if the fighting defensively AC bonus wasn't dodge bonus it would be kept while under effects that would prevent you from defending effectively (e.g. Fighter declares fighting defensively and is later hit with hold person - despite being completely immobile he still would get bonus to AC because he defends himself... which would not be the case with dodge bonus).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

OK, thanks for the quick replies!

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Ah, that's a good point. So pretty certainly an omission.


I would actually say the RAW is correct. Here's why:

Fighting defensively as a standard action = no move action possible. So you can't move, dance, dodge, sidestep or retreat. So it's untyped.

Fighting defensively as a full round action = move action possible.
Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and.....dodge. So it's a Dodge Bonus.

Standard action doesn't add to your CMD, Full round would. Makes sense to me.

However, interpret and homebrew as you will.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barry Armstrong wrote:

I would actually say the RAW is correct. Here's why:

Fighting defensively as a standard action = no move action possible. So you can't move, dance, dodge, sidestep or retreat. So it's untyped.

Fighting defensively as a full round action = move action possible.
Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and.....dodge. So it's a Dodge Bonus.

Standard action doesn't add to your CMD, Full round would. Makes sense to me.

However, interpret and homebrew as you will.

...except you're making a full attack while fighting defensively as a full-round action.


@ Barry Armstrong

See Drejk's post 3 above yours. Makes it pretty clear that the untyped bonus for the standard action is an accidental omission.

However, interpret and spit in the face of the intention and spirit of the rules as you will :)


Barry Armstrong wrote:

I would actually say the RAW is correct. Here's why:

Fighting defensively as a standard action = no move action possible. So you can't move, dance, dodge, sidestep or retreat. So it's untyped.

Fighting defensively as a full round action = move action possible.
Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and.....dodge. So it's a Dodge Bonus.

Standard action doesn't add to your CMD, Full round would. Makes sense to me.

However, interpret and homebrew as you will.

Total Defense Action is a standard action:

Total Defense Action:
Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

In this instance, since total defense grants you a dodge bonus to your AC, and since dodge bonuses also go to CMD as well, "this" standard action applies to CMD. Don't see why Fighting Defensively as a standard action would not apply as well.


Serum wrote:
Barry Armstrong wrote:

I would actually say the RAW is correct. Here's why:

Fighting defensively as a standard action = no move action possible. So you can't move, dance, dodge, sidestep or retreat. So it's untyped.

Fighting defensively as a full round action = move action possible.
Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and.....dodge. So it's a Dodge Bonus.

Standard action doesn't add to your CMD, Full round would. Makes sense to me.

However, interpret and homebrew as you will.

...except you're making a full attack while fighting defensively as a full-round action.

Hmm, good point. Can't move while making a full attack either.

@ lilhewy: I spit in the face of nothing. I'm all about RAI over RAW in cases such as this. I just saw it from a certain perspective and I was enlightened otherwise by Serum, above. No need for snarky comebacks.


Barry Armstrong wrote:
.@ lilhewy: I spit in the face of nothing. I'm all about RAI over RAW in cases such as this. I just saw it from a certain perspective and I was enlightened otherwise by Serum, above. No need for snarky comebacks.

Sorry, was more of a cheeky comeback, not snarky, that's what the smiley face was for. Not intended to offend.

Your "interpret and homerule as you will" line did come across to me as insufferably arrogant, though, as if with the complete presumption that you were correct, and thus it was a foregone conclusion that those who disagreed would need to houserule to play that way. Which may have been not your intention at all, of course, but is why I felt a cheeky response was appropriate :)

Grand Lodge

Not sure if the 'apology' was any better than the initial 'snark'


Helaman wrote:
Not sure if the 'apology' was any better than the initial 'snark'

Well, then I'll apologise again. But if people are coming across in a way they're not aware of, then I think of it as helpful to point it out. Am I the only one that thinks ended a post in a rules discussion with any of the variants of "...but houserule/interpret it how you like..." is kind of, you know, arrogant-sounding? If Barry didn't know he came across that way, at least now he knows of my incorrect assumption, and why I thought it permissible to be cheeky.

And if Barry's intention was to sound like that, then I'm not too fussed anyway :) But I can't imagine he did, seeing his further posts.


What's the difference between cheeky and snarky?

And no, my intention was not to sound arrogant.

"However, intrepret and homebrew as you will" means, simply, if you have a different interpretation than I do, or you are a DM and your players disagree with your interpreation, you can play it as you wish or declare a house rule to shore up any confusion.

I did not mean to come off as "my way is correct and yours is not".


Yep, well, apologies, that's just how I took it from that first post.

Also, in Australia, being cheeky means to jest with a mischievous, non-malicious intent. I don't know what it means elsewhere..

;)


Isn't that the same thing as snarky?
*shrugs*


I always thought snarky came from a place of anger, or at least irritation.

Cheekiness is delivered with a smile and a wink. It takes the sting out of things.

*sigh* an Aussie would understand me...

Grand Lodge

OiOiOi?


Don't get snarky with me, Helaman!


Postjacking Panda is Postjacking. Although I suppose the question has been answered...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think snarky is from being an underwater wannabe smurf.

;-)

Anyways, the GM let me apply it to my CMD. And I lost. But it was just a friendly little match with a drunk monk.


i'm pretty sure that untyped AC bonuses should also apply to CMD, since they apply to Touch AC.
CMD was errata'd once to include several bonus types that apply to Touch AC,
i would guess that Untyped was overlooked since it isn't a type per se.
here's hoping the next Core Rules printing/Errata rectifies that.


Would the attack penalty applied by fighting defensively not apply to your CMD?

Normally I'd guess that if you fight defensively with high acrobatics but no other modifiers that apply your CMD would increasy by your dodge bonus (+3) but decrease by your attack penalty (-4)

Am I wrong?


it sounds like you are mixing up CMB and CMD?
attack penalties or bonuses don't apply to CMD, period, CMD is a target DC not an attack roll.
all attack penalties apply to CMB checks, most bonuses do as well (weapon specific ones requiring weapon usage)


Quandary wrote:

it sounds like you are mixing up CMB and CMD?

attack penalties or bonuses don't apply to CMD, period, CMD is a target DC not an attack roll.
all attack penalties apply to CMB checks, most bonuses do as well (weapon specific ones requiring weapon usage)

I thought they applied to both.

Perhaps because I often calculate CMD by using CMB
Thanks for clearing that up.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Does Fighting Defensively improve your CMD? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.