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 Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Dizzying defence - how is it meant to work?

Rules Questions

I've looked around the Rules Question board and elsewhere online and I've yet to find anything that properly explains what dizzying defence is actually meant to do.

Swashbuckler wrote:
At 15th level, while wielding a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon in one hand, the swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to take the fighting defensively action as a swift action instead of a standard action. When she fights defensively in this manner, the dodge bonus to AC gained from that action increases to +4, and the penalty to attack rolls is reduced to –2.

At first it seemed pretty straight forward - you get to make all of your attacks at a -2 penalty but get +4 to AC as a swift action (basically improved fighting defensively). However, looking at the fighting defensively as a standard action rules, the whole fighting defensively thing seems kinda weird; for reference, these are the fighting defensively as a standard action rules:

Fighting defensively as a standard action wrote:
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 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

For one, I'm not sure how this is meant to work as if you've spent your standard action to fight defensively then you can't attack besides AoOs; the rules (RAW) don't say you make an attack, just that your attacks are at a penalty and this costs you a standard action (a bit like the problem with monkey lunge).

With dizzying defence making it a swift action, couldn't you apply the penalties after you've attacked (meaning the penalties are just for AoOs)? I've also heard people say it gives you an extra attack as a swift action - I don't think this is right as fighting defensively never says it gives you an attack, but I'm not sure as it's suggested a lot that it does. Is it just improved fighting defensively?

An FAQ on this would have been really appreciated from Paizo.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seems like the swashbuckler ability lets you "turn on" an improved defensive stance that does not stack with fighting defensively. Since this is only a swift action, this would still leave you able to use a full attack action before hand. Your penalty to attack would only affect your attacks of opportunity, and you'd still have the full AC bonus during your foes' turns.

Fighting defensively normally consists of taking one attack as a standard action with the given penalty to hit and bonus to AC applied during that attack and until your next turn.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Dizzying defence - how is it meant to work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.