|
Can a character take the Fighting Defensively action during combat without making an actual attack? For example, if the character has no targets within reach and decides not to move to engage, can he declare that he is fighting defensively and boost his AC in the event that something attacks him that round?
This came up at my last game, and as GM, I ruled that my player had to make an attack in order to fight defensively and gain the bonus. My reasoning is that he had to take an attack action with the penalty to gain the bonus, otherwise he should use the Total Defense action. As I usually do, I assured my players I would get an official ruling before the next session. The relevant rules text is below.
What does everyone think?
From the PRD:
Fighting Defensively
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 for the same round.
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.
|
Can a character take the Fighting Defensively action during combat without making an actual attack? For example, if the character has no targets within reach and decides not to move to engage, can he declare that he is fighting defensively and boost his AC in the event that something attacks him that round?
This came up at my last game, and as GM, I ruled that my player had to make an attack in order to fight defensively and gain the bonus. My reasoning is that he had to take an attack action with the penalty to gain the bonus, otherwise he should use the Total Defense action. As I usually do, I assured my players I would get an official ruling before the next session. The relevant rules text is below.
What does everyone think?
From the PRD:
Fighting Defensively
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 for the same round.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.
You're correct you can only fight defensively when making an attack, otherwise you are taking a total defense action.
I think you ruled appropriately - the -4 to attacks seems to be a mandatory loss in order to receive the +2 AC gain. The fact that you can't combine fighting defensively with total defense (which one can DEFINITELY use without actually fighting) also supports your decision.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. pg 184 and pg 187 of pathfinder.
Fighting defensively as a standard action: Specifies when attacking.
Fighting defensively as a full round action: Specifies making a full-attack action.
pg 186 total defense:
you can defend yourself as a standard 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.
The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.
That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.
The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.
That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.
By RAW it sounds ok, but to me it looks cheesy...
Would everyone allow total defense used in this manor??? Especially with a ranged melee weapon you would nearly have no drawback against non-reach combatants: AoO, +4 AC and next round you can make a 5ft step and full attack before your opponents second turn - ouch.
The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.
Smart action, or rule exploit?
|
|
Depends -- his ready action makes him lose his attacks, his ability to cast spells, so on and so forth. He automatically goes into defensive mode if attacked. Plus, attacks of opportunity *in my opinion* rarely come up anymore. Players and creatures are too careful about giving people one.
I don't see what the additional benefit this provides is beyond leaving him open to react until he's attacked.
IMO I don't consider that an exploit since, even using the action in this way, 99% of the time the player won't get that attack of opportunity.
If you're seeing a lot of aoo's in your combat scenarios, then maybe you'll decide to houserule it out.
Unless I'm missing something in the rules which disallows this or makes it more exploitable -- which is entirely possible :)
|
|
Readying an action to Total Defense against an attack is fine by me. The only drawback is that the readied action is not triggered by unseen opponents (invisibles, traps, stealth, or while fighting in the dark scenarios). If you want the +4 AC during the whole round, don't ready an action. If you don't think there's invisible/stealthy dudes around, you can ready for Total Defense...
The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.
Smart action, or rule exploit?
My take on this subject. The player should declare if he is Fighting Defensively or Total Defense on his turn, regardless if he can actually make any attack. The difference is that;
1- Fighting defensively gives +2 to AC but allows AoO (-2 to attack due to fighting defensively).2- Total defense gives you +4 to AC but no AoO.
It also prevents the silliness of the Readied Action changing your initiative order.
Basically the character communicates whether he is fighting half-arse, but will try to make cheap shots, or he communicates that he is doing nothing but defend himself.
If you don't think there's invisible/stealthy dudes around, you can ready for Total Defense...
If there's someone unseen attacking you, Total Defense won't help anyways (it's a dodge bonus, and you lose those whenever you lose your Dex bonus).
|
|
If you don't think there's invisible/stealthy dudes around, you can ready for Total Defense...If there's someone unseen attacking you, Total Defense won't help anyways (it's a dodge bonus, and you lose those whenever you lose your Dex bonus).
Correct. Thank you Hogarth!
So, in the end, the only drawback to readying a Total Defense is that you cannot move... you just stand there and get hit.
(i.e. usually, you can total defense AND move, which helps getting out of tight spots; but since you can only ready a standard OR a move, all you can do is get your +4 AC and take it like a man... :) )
Can you fight defensively when using combat maneuvers?
This came up in a recent game where my pc's had to pass through a corridor with spears jutting out from the walls at certain intervals. There was eight spears at each interval and each pc passing through got attacked by 1d8 spears which moved on mechanical gears behind the walls. The pc's decided to attack the spears which I ruled was a sunder attempt. They also fought defensively and used combat expertise to maximize their armor class while passing through the spear traps.
Can you fight defensively when using combat maneuvers?
I would say "yes" for the ones that substitute for an attack (e.g. sunder, disarm) and "maybe, maybe not" for the ones that are their own type of action (e.g. bull rush, overrun).
Well he could have elected to make an 'attack' action, not hitting anything while fighting defensively. He would use a standard action for this, suffer the penalty on AOOs for the round and gain the listed dodge bonus for the round.He doesn't need to make an attack at any given foe, but he needs to make an attack.
DM: How are you using "fighting defensively?" There's nothing to attack here.
Player: Ah-... I'm attacking the darkness!____________________________________
As per RAW, I think that you got it right, Rodger. Technically you can't use fighting defensively without attacking something (even if it is the darkness). But honestly, I think that Duncan and Dragon's nailed it on the head. Both are just fighting stances that happen as a part of a standard action. One let's you go completely on the defensive while the other lets you continue to attack- albeit defensively.
Now if fighting defensivly was written so that you only get a bonus against the person you attacked (since you are pushing them back, making it harder for them to fight)- then it would make sense. But fighting defensively give you an AC Bonus against everyone who would attack you. In light of this, I really don't see why it is necessary require a person to make an attack on his turn, instead of just taking a defense posture and preparing for AoO.
I would probably allow fighting defensively without making an attack, but would require the player to spend a standard action to do so - that way they aren't getting the bonus for "free".
I don't think it's "free" at all, he is CHOSING not to attack, when he could. AND he is getting half the bonus he would if he didn't attack anyway. I would allow it normally.
For what it's worth, the v3.5 game designers explicitly said you could fight defensively without attacking anything, using the same logic James Maissen stated.
The only real problem I have with that is that everyone should do it, every round, their whole life (or at least their whole adventuring lif).
From the moment my fighter wakes up in the morning he begins fighting defensively. Not total defense, of course - that's a dodge bonus that I will lose if I'm flatfooted or unaware.
When we walk into the dungeon, I'm fighting defensively. Walking down the hall, I'm fighting defensively. Kicking open the door, I'm fighting defensively.
When the spear trap goes off, my AC is +2 because I'm fighting defensively. When the orcs hiding in the shadows shoot their crossbows at me, I am +2 AC because I am fighting defensively. When I fall in the spiked pit, the spikes have to hit my AC at +2 because I'm fighting defensively.
When the goblins charge, I drop the fighting defensively because I want my best attack bonus to kill them, but as soon as they're all dead, I begin fighting defensively. While I am looting the dead goblins, I am fighting defensively...
Heck, when I'm sitting on the latrine, I'm fighting defensively.
In fact, I'll just write a permanent +2 on my character sheet right now since I am always fighting defensively.
If the DM asks what I am attacking, I will say I am attacking the dorkness.
[sic]
A bit over the top?
It's just as over the top to swing your sword at the empty space just for an arbitrary bonus of +2 AC. It's equally over the top to houserule that you don't have to attack anything (the core rulebook says you must make an attack) - if you don't even have to attack, just tell all your players to add a permanent +2 to their AC at the start of the next session.
Come on people. Adventurers are always as defensive as they can be. They are always in danger and they always know it, so they always protect themselves as much as possible.
Fighting defensively is a trick that deliberately screws up your chances of landing a good attack in exchange for keeping yourself just a bit too far out of reach of your opponent. Without an opponent there to use it against, it's a meaningless +2 bonus to your AC that you might as well activate all the time, even when you're looting the dead goblins or sitting on the latrine.
When we walk into the dungeon, I'm fighting defensively. Walking down the hall, I'm fighting defensively. Kicking open the door, I'm fighting defensively.
SNIP
Come on people. Adventurers are always as defensive as they can be. They are always in danger and they always know it, so they always protect themselves as much as possible.I disagree. "Fighting Defensively" is an attitude as much as anything. Some people do it most or all of the time and others don't.
Patton never Fought Defensively. It just wasn't his thing. OTOH, he'd always Charge or Power Attack if given the opportunity. That was just his personality.
So maybe some people want Defensive to be their default position. Fine. It just means they're a little more guarded in their day-to-day movements. The Patton's of the world think they are either paranoid or wusses {sp?}.
Point is, I'd buy it if someone pushed it.
FWIW, I'd say that I fight defensively all the time by default in RL.
But I whole-heartedly disagree that all adventurers are that way all the time. Plenty just stumble forward and charge into whatever slaughter they face.
R.
You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the actual combats themselves. I was talking about all the rest of the non-combat adventure.
You're right, in combat, some people prefer to go balls-to-the-wall offense, others don't.
Still, if you can use Fighting Defensively every second of every day, then you can just write the +2 AC on your sheet. Then when you get in combat, you can decide to keep your normal AC (and accept the penalty on your attacks), or you can take a -2 penalty to your AC to gain +4 to hit this round.
Then, when the combat's over, your AC is automatically at the Fighting Defensively level again (it's written that way on your sheet) as you constantly battle the darkness around you or the air beside you while you loot the enemies and move on to the next room.
Not sure but doesn't FIGHTING defensively require, you know... Fighting?
Not sure but doesn't FIGHTING defensively require, you know... Fighting?
You might think so, but this thread has a different take on it, for the most part.
Fighting defensively is a trick that deliberately screws up your chances of landing a good attack in exchange for keeping yourself just a bit too far out of reach of your opponent.
I would agree with everything you said if that's how fighting defensively actually worked. But it doesn't work that way. You get a +2 bonus to AC against everyone- not just the enemy you attempted to attack.
Fighting defensively is a stance, a change in posture that let's you use your weapons to parry and deflect blows from anyone in exchange for not being able to strike back as well this round. I don't understand why someone can't gain this same bonus without trying to attack a single opponent first.
You've also set up a ridiculous straw man here. No DM in their right mind would let someone run around the game like the way you suggested.
The only situation we are talking about letting this in is when a PC can't attack anybody, and wants to go on the defensive- but he also wants to retain his option to opportunity attack. So, instead of getting a +4 bonus to AC, he get's a +2 bonus to AC and the ability to still make AoO- albeit at a -4 penalty.
This seems like a perfectly legitimate use of the ability to me- after all, we would still be calling it a Standard Action. So do you have any legitimate complaints that can be applied to the scenario we were actually proposing it's use in? And not some ridiculous fantasy world run by a brainless DM?
Not sure but doesn't FIGHTING defensively require, you know... Fighting?
Nope just an attack action (ie, at least a standard action) made to attack something.
"Ah! Dandelion!"
*smites flower*
Fighting defensively is a trick that deliberately screws up your chances of landing a good attack in exchange for keeping yourself just a bit too far out of reach of your opponent.I would agree with everything you said if that's how fighting defensively actually worked. But it doesn't work that way. You get a +2 bonus to AC against everyone- not just the enemy you attempted to attack.
Fighting defensively is a stance, a change in posture that let's you use your weapons to parry and deflect blows from anyone in exchange for not being able to strike back as well this round. I don't understand why someone can't gain this same bonus without trying to attack a single opponent first.
You've also set up a ridiculous straw man here. No DM in their right mind would let someone run around the game like the way you suggested.
The only situation we are talking about letting this in is when a PC can't attack anybody, and wants to go on the defensive- but he also wants to retain his option to opportunity attack. So, instead of getting a +4 bonus to AC, he get's a +2 bonus to AC and the ability to still make AoO- albeit at a -4 penalty.
This seems like a perfectly legitimate use of the ability to me- after all, we would still be calling it a Standard Action. So do you have any legitimate complaints that can be applied to the scenario we were actually proposing it's use in? And not some ridiculous fantasy world run by a brainless DM?
I think my point was quite valid.
Your (collective "your" here) pretext is that I can stand in the middle of a battlefield and "adopt change in posture that let's me use my weapons to parry and deflect blows from anyone in exchange for not being able to strike back as well". I can do this even when there is nobody for me to strike at all because all the other combatants are out of my reach at this time.
This makes sense.
But my pretext is that if I can stand in this battlefield and do this while battle rages around me, albeit out of reach, then I can also stand in the same field and do this when I am all alone and there is no battle in sight.
And I can stand anywhere else and do this, anywhere, on a farm, in my living room, in a dungeon, wherever I want, even when there is nobody in sight, battling or otherwise.
And since Fighting Defensively doesn't prevent me from moving, I can do this while I'm walking down the street, or walking down a dungeon hallway, or shopping at the local markeplace, all without any combat in sight.
And since you can fight from prone or seated positions, I can also Fight Defensively when I'm sitting down or lying down, even when there is no battle in sight.
Essentially, if we allow people to adopt this "posture" that makes them hard to hit, even when there are no enemies they can reach, then we must allow them to adopt this posture when there are no enemies at all.
There is no difference at all. A defensive posture with nothing immediately threatening is either always going to work, or always not - the proximity of potential threats seems to be irrelevent in your example, so the nearest potential threat might be 20' away or 20 miles away; it makes no difference.
Which means anyone can Fight Defensively all the time.
Which is why my initial position is not a "straw man" at all (wow, what an over-used and prentious term that is - I absolutely detest the term and its frequen use, abuse, and misuse throughout every forum known to man; why does everyone seem to think they can win any debate by arbitrarily calling the oppsing argument a "straw man"?).
|
To the comments about "Fighting Defensively" all the time I say the following:
In order to take a posture/technique/etc to better defend against incoming attacks, you have to be aware of those attacks. This is why those bonuses are dodge bonuses. Walking around "Fighting Defensively" at all times gains the person nothing but a paranoid demeanor as the only time it would be useful is if they're not flatfooted, which implicitly means that they have had at least a standard action which would have been used to fight defensively. In other words, without uncanny dodge it's pointless and you just have a character that looks paranoid. Have the DM have fun with that. In fact, I'd say the increase stress starts to cause health issues and start throwing fatigue at them for exhausting themselves looking for a threat that isn't there.
If an unusual situation sounds silly but is technically allowed it means that it's up to the DM to either find a plausible explanation (if one exists) or to have the DM change the rule for that situation. That's why the DM is there.
In this case, requiring one to have a target to attack to take the "Fighting Defensively" action is silly as they could simply say they were striking at air (and if you don't like that, call it "an invisible creature"), a feign if you will. BUT, allowing the person to say they are always fighting defensively is also silly and should either be disallowed or punished in some manner (I prefer the latter).
The only real problem I have with that is that everyone should do it, every round, their whole life (or at least their whole adventuring lif).
From the moment my fighter wakes up in the morning he begins fighting defensively. Not total defense, of course - that's a dodge bonus that I will lose if I'm flatfooted or unaware.
When we walk into the dungeon, I'm fighting defensively. Walking down the hall, I'm fighting defensively. Kicking open the door, I'm fighting defensively.
As long as you're using a standard action every round to do it, as has been suggested in this thread, that's fine IMO. That means you can't double-move, you can't cast spells, you can't ready non-attack actions, etc etc. You're being paranoid-level cautious, which restricts your actions and grants a bonus. Where's the problem?
I'm coming into this halfway thru, but in response to the 'fighting defensively constantly' argument, i thought you could only take 'actions' ie ready an action etc. in combat.
If you can't ready an action before combat's started, i'm thinking that you can't take standard actions either.
You can certainly use standard actions outside of combat, or else traps would be impossible to find short of triggering them (as Perception checks to find traps are standard actions).
Actually, they're move actions. but regardless, has the 'no readying actions outside of combat' been changed in PF?
Which means anyone can Fight Defensively all the time.
Which is why my initial position is not a "straw man" at all (wow, what an over-used and prentious term that is - I absolutely detest the term and its frequen use, abuse, and misuse throughout every forum known to man; why does everyone seem to think they can win any debate by arbitrarily calling the oppsing argument a "straw man"?).
I'm sorry you don't like the term "straw man." But your entire arguments are based solely upon a scenario where a powergaming meta-gamer runs around completely unopposed in a campaign run by a truly awful and spineless DM.
StabbityDoom says how he would use fatigue as a detriment. Trying to use Fighting Defensively all the time? Well it's going to wear you out. I'd probably borrow the hustle rules, and say you can't do it for more than 1 hour straight.
Zurai brings up the fact that you wouldn't be able to cast spells and how you'd never be able to run- I hope you are never in a hurry.
Oh and you mentioned going into a shop whilst Fighting Defensively? I'd give you a -5 to all social checks (except intimidate), and lower the disposition of anyone who sees you walking around in your hostile fighting posture- even if you try to quit the posture while making the check.
And depending on the character, and the exact situation, there are so many possible penalties that could come about. Maybe you can't move as quietly. Maybe you are easier to track since you are making so much unnatural movement. Maybe because you have so much focus on defending against fighting, your perception checks take a hit to notice other things. So while you have +2 AC to survive that spear trap, you get -2 perception to notice it in the first place!
So once again, I reiterate. There is no way I can ever see a campaign going on as you described it DM_Blake.
You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the actual combats themselves. I was talking about all the rest of the non-combat adventure.Actually, you missed my point.
No, I got your point and granted it. You and I both agree: IN COMBAT everyone behaves according to his or her own nature. Some will defend, others will attack. Everyone is different. I agree. I've said so before.
Taking it all the time because it offers a "vs. First Strike" AC bonus is meta-gaming.
Of course it is. This isn't a thread about the ethics of metagaming. This was, right from the start, a thread about the best way to metagame.
The personality of most adventurers is probably to cut loose the rest of the time. Hard-drinking, hard-fighting like most soldiers. But then again, I'm in the camp that believes adventurers remove their armor outside the dungeon.
Still, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option for some personality types. There are people who live their lives more cautiously and aware. People whose first reaction to an attack won't be to punch back full force but rather just enough to slow or fend-off their attacker and give themselves time to evaluate the situation while buying distance and safety for themselves. Those types could be Full-time Fight Defensive.
There you go again, talking about combat. Proving you haven't read my posts, or that you read them carelessly and missed the point.
I was talking about NON-COMBAT the whole time.
I'm talking about a guy standing in the middle of a field, without an enemy in sight, choosing to Fight Defensively so he has +2 AC in case there is some ambush he didn't expect.
I'm talking about a guy walking down an empty corridor in a dungeon, Fighting Defensively, so that he can have that +2 AC if there is an ambush or a trap.
I'm talking about a guy shopping for apples in a town marketplace, Fighting Defensively, just in case some unseen assassin takes a shot at him from a rooftop.
These guys are not in combat. They're just being cautious. It's a dangerous world out there, and they know it, so they constantly adopt a defensive posture in case something goes wrong.
Completely the opposite of what you keep replying back to me.
To the comments about "Fighting Defensively" all the time I say the following:
In order to take a posture/technique/etc to better defend against incoming attacks, you have to be aware of those attacks.
Maybe.
That would make sense. But there is nothing in the rules about it. In fact, as written, if you are in the middle of a fight you can choose to Fight Defensively, poke an orc with your lowered attack modifier, and then stand around until your next turn enjoying +2 AC - even if nothing attacks you at all.
Nothing in the rules says that you must be attacked in order to Fight Defensively.
So, it's possible to take this posture when nothing is attacking you. The rules allow it.
Which means it's possible to take this posture when there isn't anything in sight that could possibly attack you, like when you're standing all alone in an empty room.
This is why those bonuses are dodge bonuses.
No, Total Defense is a dodge bonus. Fighting Defensively is an untyped bonus.
Walking around "Fighting Defensively" at all times gains the person nothing but a paranoid demeanor as the only time it would be useful is if they're not flatfooted, which implicitly means that they have had at least a standard action which would have been used to fight defensively.
Predicated upon this being a dodge bonus, which it isn't.
Besides, if they are "Fighting Defensively" they they are already fighting, even before the suprise round, so not flatfooted, right? ;)
In other words, without uncanny dodge it's pointless and you just have a character that looks paranoid. Have the DM have fun with that. In fact, I'd say the increase stress starts to cause health issues and start throwing fatigue at them for exhausting themselves looking for a threat that isn't there.
Nah, Fighting Defenisively uses the untyped bonus, so it always applies. That paranoia might just save your life.
If an unusual situation sounds silly but is technically allowed it means that it's up to the DM to either find a plausible explanation (if one exists) or to have the DM change the rule for that situation. That's why the DM is there.
I totally agree.
In this case, requiring one to have a target to attack to take the "Fighting Defensively" action is silly as they could simply say they were striking at air (and if you don't like that, call it "an invisible creature"), a feign if you will.
That's what I have been saying all along.
Look, if they can "strike at air" in the middle of a raging battle when nothing is within attacking range, and the result is getting a +2 AC bonus, then they are perfectly able to "strike at air" in the middle of an empty room and get the same +2 AC. Or in an empty prairie. Or walking down an empty dungeon corridor. Or shopping for apples in a village market. Or anywhere they want to get a +2 AC bonus.
Striking at air in a battlefield (when you can't hit anything and nothing is attacking you) is either going to work or it's not. But if it works, then it works on and off that battlefield - in both cases you have no target in reach and nothing attacking you, so both cases are equal.
Both work, or both do not work.
BUT, allowing the person to say they are always fighting defensively is also silly and should either be disallowed or punished in some manner (I prefer the latter).
Again I toally agree.
It's not like I am actually advocating this behavior. I am simply equating the silliness of "striking at air" when there is a combat nearby (but out of reach) to being equally silly as "striking at air" in an empty room, or anywhere else, with no combat.
They're both silly, for the equal reason that neither one of them make sense.
That is why the rules stat that Fighting Defensively is part of an Attack action - if you're not attacking something, then you're not Fighting Defensively. And "striking at air" just doesn't cut it for the reasons I've discussed.
The fighting defensively action is a 'standard action'.
The heading of the descriptions of standard actions is 'Actions in Combat'.
Which means anyone can Fight Defensively all the time.
Which is why my initial position is not a "straw man" at all (wow, what an over-used and prentious term that is - I absolutely detest the term and its frequen use, abuse, and misuse throughout every forum known to man; why does everyone seem to think they can win any debate by arbitrarily calling the oppsing argument a "straw man"?).
I'm sorry you don't like the term "straw man." But your entire arguments are based solely upon a scenario where a powergaming meta-gamer runs around completely unopposed in a campaign run by a truly awful and spineless DM.
StabbityDoom says how he would use fatigue as a detriment. Trying to use Fighting Defensively all the time? Well it's going to wear you out. I'd probably borrow the hustle rules, and say you can't do it for more than 1 hour straight.
Zurai brings up the fact that you wouldn't be able to cast spells and how you'd never be able to run- I hope you are never in a hurry.
Oh and you mentioned going into a shop whilst Fighting Defensively? I'd give you a -5 to all social checks (except intimidate), and lower the disposition of anyone who sees you walking around in your hostile fighting posture- even if you try to quit the posture while making the check.
And depending on the character, and the exact situation, there are so many possible penalties that could come about. Maybe you can't move as quietly. Maybe you are easier to track since you are making so much unnatural movement. Maybe because you have so much focus on defending against fighting, your perception checks take a hit to notice other things. So while you have +2 AC to survive that spear trap, you get -2 perception to notice it in the first place!
So once again, I reiterate. There is no way I can ever see a campaign going on as you described it DM_Blake.
Absolutely right on all counts. I can't see that going on either.
My whole point has been to show just how ridiculous it is for any DM to make any ruling that says you can stand near some combat and adopt some kind of defensive posture that gives you +2 AC, but you don't need to attack anything (except the air, or the darkness, or a dandelion), and you don't need to be attacked.
If you can do that, then you can do it any time, anywhere. Exhausting, noisy, disturbing, and NPC-frighting as it is, you could still do it, and reap the rewards of that +2 AC around the clock, in and out of combat, whenever you want it.
It's worth noting that all these houserules, such as fatigue, easier to track, NPCs afraid of you, Perception penalties, and all the other suggestions to punish the forever-devensive guy could be eliminated by not houseruling that he could Fight Defensively without actually fighting.
So the first (silly) houserule that lets him bend the rules as written, lets him swing his sword at the air in order to get a free +2 to his AC even when there are no enemies around to attack, or to threaten him, is somehow creating an avalanche of other silly houserules to punish him for creative use of the first houserule.
Silliness, right from the start.
|
|
Fighting defensively IS a dodge bonus! Listed in the long text on p184 of the core rulebook it says "... and gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round." This means that the half of my argument you completely threw out IS valid.
In reference to the need to attack, I see no reason why it would be harder to move and defend yourself at the same time when you aren't attacking versus when you are. This is DM fiat, sure, but it makes sense and I doubt any players would fight it.
Oh, and "cutting at air" HAS to be allowed for an attempt to fight defensively (if you even require the attack) because of situations where there is one invisible creature and one creature that is visible. If you use your attack against the invisible creature (guessing as to its position) you are still keeping defense in mind against the visible one.
Most of your arguments about the silliness of its out of combat use require that one maintains the DODGE bonus to AC when flat-footed (for reasons I mentioned earlier), which for most characters just isn't true. I don't disagree its silly, I just disagree it's an issue.
Let me clarify just one more thing: I am NOT advocating striking nothing in order to get a +2 AC bonus. I agree, that's stupid, and it IS gaming the system.
However, my thought is this: It is also stupid that I must strike the adjacent goblin so that I can get a +2 AC bonus to the orc that isn't even within my reach yet.
I simply don't understand how striking one creature is necessary to grant a defense bonus against every other enemy in the encounter. This makes about as much sense to me as striking the air.
What makes sense to me is that the character is simply taking a defensive posture that's not quite as good as total defense, but still allows him to make attacks with a -4 penalty. He shouldn't have to make an attack to assume this defensive posture.
So, as a HOUSE RULE, I think it's a fine idea to let someone take Defensive Fighting as a standard action during combat without having to make any attack. He is simply adopting a different stance that is more conducive to defense- that is all.
My whole point has been to show just how ridiculous it is for any DM to make any ruling that says you can stand near some combat and adopt some kind of defensive posture that gives you +2 AC, but you don't need to attack anything
But you already CAN do that with Total Defense- and it grants a +4 AC instead of +2...
Fighting defensively IS a dodge bonus! Listed in the long text on p184 of the core rulebook it says "... and gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round." This means that the half of my argument you completely threw out IS valid.
Huh. We must have different versions of the book then.
Mine says:
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 for the same round.
And the Pathfider SRD says the same thing here.
Neither one mentions dodge bonus.
Even if there is some Errata that I am missing, there are still classes, and maybe other aiblities, that are never flatfooted and can always benefit from dodge - one merely has to assume the guy in my examples had such an ability and the examples remain fully valid.
In reference to the need to attack, I see no reason why it would be harder to move and defend yourself at the same time when you aren't attacking versus when you are.
It woud not be any harder. You are correct. If you can do this when an opponent is putting you in immediate danger, then you can do this when there is no opponent. Your point is valid.
If you use that to justify the "swing at air" homebrew version of Fighting Defensively, then, well, there is air everywhere, so you can swing at air everywhere and enjoy the +2 bonus everywhere, in or out of combat, all the time. No enemy required. No combat required. The only requirement is air. Heck, you can even swing at the air with no weapon, just your empty fist, though you might provoke an AoO from the air if you don't have Improved Unarmed Combat. It's still good for +2 AC - all the time.
This is DM fiat, sure, but it makes sense and I doubt any players would fight it.
I would.
It is not the intent of the rule.
If you rule it this way, then you could also rule it like this:
Everyone add +2 to your AC. Write it on your sheet. This represents being defensive all the time. Also write -4 to hit on your sheet. If you do decide to hit something more dangerous than the air, we will roll an attack roll and this -4 will be applied. Now, you can choose to Fight Offensively, in which case you will suffer a -2 penalty to AC but gain +4 to hit. These bonuses last for just one round, after which you automatically resume your permanent defensive posture. Any time you wish to Fight Offensively, just declare it before making an attack roll. The rest of the time, you're in your defensive posture enjoying that highened AC.
Quite frankly, both rulings look identical to me.
Oh, and "cutting at air" HAS to be allowed for an attempt to fight defensively (if you even require the attack) because of situations where there is one invisible creature and one creature that is visible. If you use your attack against the invisible creature (guessing as to its position) you are still keeping defense in mind against the visible one.
Yes, I know that the rules specify attacking a square when your enemy has total concealment relative to you. (see, I used the actual game terminology there to prove I am acquainted with this rule). I never denied that attacking the air is a valid combat technique when it's needed. I merely stipulated that it's a silly justification to claim that you're Fighting Defensively.
Most of your arguments about the silliness of its out of combat use require that one maintains the DODGE bonus to AC when flat-footed (for reasons I mentioned earlier), which for most characters just isn't true. I don't disagree its silly, I just disagree it's an issue.
I remain unconvinced that it's a Dodge bonus. No text that I have available to me seems to convirm that. As I said, even if there is an errata of which I am unaware, my position that demonstrates the silliness of this "DM fiat" is still fully valid if the guy attacking the air has the right class ability (Uncanny Dodge).
|
|
Okay, you MUST have a different version of the book because the third line of the quoted section ends with "+2" on my book and the fourth line begins with "dodge bonus".
You want rule justification for it being a dodge bonus? It's total defense lite, and total defense is a dodge bonus. Same source, same bonus. Pretty easy to adjudicate that.
I don't know why it's not listed as a dodge bonus in yours or the PFSRD, but it doesn't make sense that it would be anything else and I will use the print of my book because it makes more sense.
EDIT: I have the first print of the book, so its possible it's supposed to be fixed, but it's not listed in any errata I've seen.
Hey, DM_Blake, I think we are using the same book. If you go to Acrobatics in the Skill section, and find Special: at the end of the entry, they make a reference to it being a dodge bonus there.
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.
And seriously, if we are going to talk about classes that retain their dodge bonus, then once again, Total Defense for +4 AC is much more broken. All we were trying to do is allow the option of activating Defensive Fighting in the same way as Total Defense.