| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is it possible to fight defensively or make use of the Combat Expertise feat even when there is nobody available within range to strike?
I see no reason why it must be tied to an attack. Even if it must be, couldn't I just attack a lump of grass or "shadow-box" or something to get the benefits? After all, it's still eating up my action.
Please FAQ if you're curious to know too, or better yet, provide an answer if you know one to exist.
Fighting defensively requires you to make an attack (that's part of the reason the Crane Wing issue seemed a bit overblown). You can fight defensively "when attacking" or "when taking a full attack action".
If you're not attacking, that's what total defense is for. Since you cannot combine total defense and combat expertise (and based on the language of the feat), it stands to reason that you must attack when using combat expertise.
EDIT: Don't forget, you can fight defensively while using a ranged weapon.
As far as I know you must actually attack to get the benefits, but I suppose it's legal to attack the ground as your attack for it.
You've been down this path before, almost exactly 5 years ago.
You've been down this path before, almost exactly 5 years ago.
Well given that,by RAW, you can attack a square where you think an invisible opponent is, what is to stop someone from attacking imaginary invisible opponents to gain the benefits of Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively? By RAW, it seems legit, but it does feel very meta-gamey.
Edit: Of course, this is really all a side effect of fighting defensively + combat Expertise bonuses outpacing full defense bonuses. If fighting defensively and all-out defense were made to actually scale with level, then there would be no real reason to try these gimmicks.
Make no mistake, mechanically you're still making an attack; conceptually, it's probably more something like a defensive stance. I'm just asking if it matters if you don't have a traditional target within reach.
Thanks for reminding me of my previous post DM_Blake. Did we even have a FAQ system 5 years ago? Now we do. We should make good use of it.
Is it possible to fight defensively or make use of the Combat Expertise feat even when there is nobody available within range to strike?
I see no reason why it must be tied to an attack. Even if it must be, couldn't I just attack a lump of grass or "shadow-box" or something to get the benefits? After all, it's still eating up my action.
I recall discussing this issue with Aelryinth some time ago. I believe we were, at the time, debating the nuances of fighting defensively, Crane Wing, and the point in the round at which the fighting defensively bonus kicks in (before or after you rush the t rex)
The upshot was that it is definitely tied to an attack, per the rules. Sorry about that one. (This meant 'not till after the t rex eats you with an AoO' for purposes of our old discussion). However, as to your second question, I don't see any reason why that attack would have to be against an actual foe. You can shadow box, attacking an empty space - we know that from the invisibility rules - you can stomp the ground (adjust your footing), etc.
As long as you're spending the action each round.
However, it's worth noting that if you aren't aware of an opponent, in most cases you won't get to use your defensive/expertise bonus against them even if you had it active. So the merits of keeping defensive fighting up, without a foe to use it on, can be low - and it will halve, at best, the speed at which you can do things like walk down the road, since you spend a standard action every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that Combat Expertise does you no good in this case, since the opponent's invisibility negates dodge bonuses.You've been down this path before, almost exactly 5 years ago.Well given that,by RAW, you can attack a square where you think an invisible opponent is, what is to stop someone from attacking imaginary invisible opponents to gain the benefits of Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively? By RAW, it seems legit, but it does feel very meta-gamey.
Though that is certainly true of opponents you are unaware of, you could still have opponents outside your melee reach which would still have to contend with your dodge bonuses when they shoot at you with ranged attacks or charge into melee range with you. There is a lot of validity to my question.
|
Attacking an object, is still an attack.
You could attack the grass.
You could even attack an object, that is immaterial, or non-existent(such as an illusion).
So, you could have a Dancing Lights spell going, and then continuously attack the glowing spheres of light.
Nothing about Combat Expertise notes that you must attack, a corporeal creature, that truly exists.
Can you imagine one ruling that you could not Sunder, and benefit from Combat Expertise, or attack a Silent Image, and not benefit?
|
It would seem that per RAW you could attack object and receive benefits of it. Personally, I think it's dumb. That's what total defense is for, but the RAW seems clear at the moment. Invisible opponents will however ignore the dodge bonuses against you, unless you have some special class feature or spell currently active.
It would seem that per RAW you could attack object and receive benefits of it. Personally, I think it's dumb. That's what total defense is for, but the RAW seems clear at the moment. Invisible opponents will however ignore the dodge bonuses against you, unless you have some special class feature or spell currently active.
The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOsFighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.
At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
Because they don't need to spend 3 attribute points and a Feat to use Total Defense.
|
|
The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
Because attacking air to gain higher AC is illogical?
Because attacking air to gain higher AC is illogical?
The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
As illogical as giving up all your attacks and movement to gain less AC?
As far as I am aware, you don't need to have a valid target to make an attack. However you absolutely do need to spend the action (either standard or full attack) to get have an attack to be using with combat expertise.
Since you are mostly wasting an action, I don't see any problem with it, and would as a GM, certainly allow the 'use expertise' action to substitute (basically the same thing, but without having to look silly by swinging at nothing)
For those that find it illogical, think of it as being similar to taking a stance for a style feat or performing a kata. By performing the actions of defensively fighting, even though you have no one to strike, you are centering yourself and adopting a more defensive posture.
Because attacking air to gain higher AC is illogical?
The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
As illogical as blocking things with your invisible turtle shield after doing some cool unarmed moves? (Snapping Turtle Style)
EDIT: Dave Justus is thinking like i was. Totally like a style.
The problem is this...
Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
You wouldn't, but why should you?
Ravingdork, if you're interested in developer opinions, you might find this thread, that arose out of the discussion I referred to earlier, to be helpful. It should cover your first question, about the benefits being tied to an attack to begin with.
But nobody is forcing you to give up your attacks? You could simply ready your action, withdraw, etc. There is tons of actions to take. Striking air to get higher AC doesn't make sense, at least not to me.As illogical as giving up all your attacks and movement to gain less AC?
You are entirely correct that it doesn't really make sense, hence my earlier comment about it being metagamey. The problem is that if you are looking at RAW, it is simply the best way to temporarily boost your AC.
As an example, lets look at a level 20 warrior type(20 BAB + 3 ranks in acrobatics).
Total Defense gives you +6 AC, but you give up all movement and attacks except for a 5 foot step, and you cannot make AoOs.
Readying an attack action will not give you an AC boost.
Withdrawing will not give you an AC boost.
Attacking the air as a standard action allows you to use combat expertise and fight defensively. This give you a +9(+6 from combat expertise + 3 from FD) AC with a -10 to hit. You can still take a move action, and you may make attacks of opportunity.
One great example of when you might want to do this. I want to move past an enemy in a 10 foot wide hallway so I can be flanking him and prevent his retreat. I already have mobility. If I "attack the air", I can claim CE and FD bonuses to AC until my next turn, so when I take my move action to move past him I have a +13 AC against his AoOs, and because I can still make AoOs, I begin giving my allies flanking bonuses immediately.
It's not always safe to be constantly attacking the bushes or the air or whatever in a world full of invisible pixies and fairies and stuff, I will note. There are a few potential downsides ;).
What about using Combat Expertise or Fighting Defensively while Feinting?
That came up at our table the other day when a poor Sniper Rogue got caught in melee by herself, and realized she had no way to do damage without Feinting first.
What's your question? If your question is whether you can feint as a standard action and still get either of those, the answer is no, the benefits do not kick in until you make a standard or full attack with the penalty.
|
|
For those that find it illogical, think of it as being similar to taking a stance for a style feat or performing a kata. By performing the actions of defensively fighting, even though you have no one to strike, you are centering yourself and adopting a more defensive posture.
I am all for re-fluffing the use of this activity, in fact, I can't imagine it looking like anything else besides "taking a defensive posture", but you literally have to make an "attack roll" against "something" to gain benefits of it. You are attacking ground and getting higher AC. It's illogical however you put it.
That on side, it's not something what I wouldn't allow. The penalty on attacks while doing so is fairly big already and like you said, person is wasting entire action on it.
|
|
You are entirely correct that it doesn't really make sense, hence my earlier comment about it being metagamey. The problem is that if you are looking at RAW, it is simply the best way to temporarily boost your AC.
That's true, but only at higher levels. A level 1 character might not profit too much from it and needs to have a feat to use it after all.
Readying an attack action will not give you an AC boost.
I am not sure this is correct. As long as you strike sooner then the enemy, you should receive the benefits of CE and fighting defensively.
One great example of when you might want to do this. I want to move past an enemy in a 10 foot wide hallway so I can be flanking him and prevent his retreat. I already have mobility. If I "attack the air", I can claim CE and FD bonuses to AC until my next turn, so when I take my move action to move past him I have a +13 AC against his AoOs, and because I can still make AoOs, I begin giving my allies flanking bonuses immediately.
It's cool minor tactical trick. If we don't include the fact that you "attacked the air", there is nothing bad about using it. I am not against it in any way.
It's not meta gaming, it's not seriously attacking'invisible' opponents, it's defensive fighting using a kata like you see at every martial arts tournament or exhibition.
When talking about metagaming, remember that your mileage may vary. I don't have issues with it(my gripe is that Total Defense should be better), but I have played at tables where this tactic would be banned because it is considered metagaming.
Readying an attack action will not give you an AC boost.
I am not sure this is correct. As long as you strike sooner then the enemy, you should receive the benefits of CE and fighting defensively.
You are correct that you will get the AC bonus once the readied attack goes off, but your AC will not go up until then, so in a strict sense readying an attack in and of itself will not raise your AC. If your readied attack never goes off, you will not get the bonus AC and any attack made against you before the readied attack goes off, like ranged attacks against a melee character, will not get the benefit of the increased AC.
It's not meta gaming, it's not seriously attacking'invisible' opponents, it's defensive fighting using a kata like you see at every martial arts tournament or exhibition.When talking about metagaming, remember that your mileage may vary. I don't have issues with it(my gripe is that Total Defense should be better), but I have played at tables where this tactic would be banned because it is considered metagaming.
Still don't get metagamey. It gives a tangible benefit that's noticable. If paranoid old McDuff is always getting hit less because he makes sure there are no hidden faries in ever bush vs the guy that just hides behind their shield, people are going to think old McGuff is on to something...