Darpeh's page

It is a bit ridiculous that if you cast a Quickened Scorching ray while fighting defensively you suffer a -4 to hit, but if you do so while using Total defense you don't suffer any penalty.

Surrendering your Standard Action in exchange for AC seems like cost enough at first glance... The extension of this though, assuming Bodyguard is allowed during Total Defense, does seem a bit odd that you could have multiple Bodyguard "attacks" (AC10) that do not have the penalty they would have from Fighting Defensively (AC14). While simultaneously granting more AC. It's not... wildly off cost wise? But it does feel weird that all it costs is a Standard Action.

Well Darpeh, it looks like you disagree with the folks who are responding here and no one is convincing anyone to change their minds. But good news! We aren't at the same table, and we don't need to agree.

This wasn't even toward you? Unless you're referring to me calling the attack penalty somewhat trivial to consider? AC10 vs AC14 doesn't seem that bad... but maybe I missed your point and you're saying the same thing as Diego.

Just trying to keep the conversation on topic as we're getting a little off in the weeds to other disagreements people want to have about swashbucklers and fighting defensively - which is objectively a different rules interaction. I actually don't have a firm opinion one way or the other on my original question - which is kinda why I asked.

My take-away so far from this thread is that it seems to be a GM decision. Because it comes down to whether or not this...

You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

...means your pool of AOOs is 0 due to taking Total Defense (as Diego states), or if it means that you have your standard pool of AOOs but simply can't make AOO actions with that pool. Which would seem to mean that Bodyguard would be allowed because it is an Aid Another action (which is what Stranger was talking about).

Unfortunately that seems very open to interpretation. Sounds like my GM will be ruling the former situation.

This brings back the debate of swashbuckler's "swift action fight defensively" problem that was never handled with errata from dizzying defense at level 15. Do you get a single attack as a bonus attack with the swift or are you just spending the swift action to gain the bonuses of fighting defensively after you full attack in the round?

I actually don't see how this is relevant in the slightest. You are referencing confusion between the standard action and full round action version of *Fighting Defensively* which is its own entity. Completely separate from Total Defense.

Total Defense absolutely allows for swift actions and immediate actions per RAW. There is no language that precludes this at all. Nor, as I see it, is there any connected ability that would give that impression. Total defense surrenders your standard action to defend yourself rather than attack (with your standard action). Fighting defensively is carefully attacking. Let's not conflate them please.

Since the feat does not require you make an AoO it should not matter if you can make one. The wording of the feat sates you use up one of your AoO, it does not say you make one or even spend one. Not being able to do something does not reduce the value to 0, it simply means you cannot utilize it. Going with the spending example if I have money but cannot spend the money does not mean I lose all the money. The money could be taken without me actually purchasing something.

The real question is can you use any attack while you are using total defense? Aid another requires you to make an attack roll. Total defense specifically states you cannot make an AoO while using it, so how are you making the attack roll? If the attack roll is not a AoO despite using one, what type of attack is it and how are you making it while using the total defense? Besides AoO or the free attack you get when using a touch spell, I am not aware of any other attacks that do not require using some other action. Total Defense is a standard action which means you cannot use a normal attack action, or a full attack action.

The FAQ clarifies that it is in fact spending AOOs from a resource pool and is NOT making an AOO in a literal sense. It is, in fact, an Aid Another action that consumes an AOO charge. So the question that follows is whether or not your AOO "pool" is 0 at the start of that round.

Also, total defense *only* precludes AOOs not all forms of attack. There is no language about all attack rolls (even though that kind of makes sense).

Let's step back a couple, while fighting defensively the attack roll to activate body guard would suffer the -4 penalty, would it not? So while doing full defense shouldn't the attack roll to activate bodyguard suffer the full defense attack penalty? And that penalty is prohibition.

It absolutely would but it's against AC10 to activate aid another so somewhat trivial to even consider the penalty in terms of whether or not bodyguard is allowed during total defense.

Pretty much subject line. The official FAQ here states that you are not making an AOO: https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9uws

Does this then mean that bodyguard can be used while taking the total defense action? I have found a previous post from Jason Nelson (the author of that feat) that says you cannot but it was about 4 years before the FAQ was issued. I could see an argument being made for "your AOO pool is not available when taking total defense" I guess?

Some clarity on this would be rad.

Not to necro this too hard but if this is the design intention for Oracle. Why is a spell component pouch not included in the Oracle's kit? It is for druids for example.

2. The DC to catch fire is the spell's DC (so 15, in this case. 10 + spell level 2 + Charisma 3)

What about on subsequent rounds when they get another save? Is it still the spell DC or does it default over to environmental rules (which would be 15)?

Darpeh wrote:

Kurald, out of curiosity what would be your opinion of Dervish Dance + Combat Reflexes + Flamboyant Arcana + Bodyguard? I'm becoming rather fond of the idea myself but I could use a second opinion.

I've found bodyguard and the helpful trait a very effective combo in protecting your allies. Flamboyant is a nice addition, but even without it the Magus can have one of the best defenses in the party (due to Mirror Image or Displacement) so bodyguard can leave enemies with no good options left.

Another nice addition here is the Shake It Off teamwork feat, since you'll be standing next to each other anyway.

Would you say bodyguard is still worth it without the helpful trait? I see your point regarding Flamboyant... perhaps I'll consider a familiar instead.

I might also mention I don't see bodyguard anywhere within the guide.

Kurald, out of curiosity what would be your opinion of Dervish Dance + Combat Reflexes + Flamboyant Arcana + Bodyguard? I'm becoming rather fond of the idea myself but I could use a second opinion.

Actually I just re-read Close Range and it only works on Ray spells. So disregard all of the above, I guess.

Might these be your work-around for that issue?

Three times per day, the gloves allow the wearer to treat a ranged magus spell as a spell with a range of "touch," allowing him to deliver the spell with his spellstrike ability. The glove can only affect spells that normally affect one or more creatures at a range greater than "touch" (such as slow), not rays or other created effects.

Hey! I wanted to say thank you for this awesome tool, and I would like to contribute some insight since I know that it's come up before.

I currently have CombatManager 1.5.5 running on Ubuntu 13.10 using playonlinux and wine 1.6.

I had to jump through a couple hoops since ubuntu likes to default to wine 1.4, but it really wasn't terribly hard:
- Install playonlinux
- Add ppa:ubuntu-wine/ppa to your ubuntu software repositories
- run "sudo apt-get install wine1.6" in terminal (purge previous versions as needed)
- playonlinux: install a non-listed program
- When you come to the screen with checkboxes: check use another version of wine (just to be sure) and install some libraries
- Use the system version of wine (which should be 1.6 unless you botched that part)
- Install dotnet40 (which I think is listed as POL_dotnet40_something, just check that)
- Select the CM installer file

The end! Really happy I got it working. I haven't done much in the way of extensive testing yet, but it seems to do everything I need it to. I'll update if I have any problems with it during my game next week.

Proof: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8244471/combatmanager-ubuntu.png