I'm glad we are starting to see each other eye to eye. I guess my only question left is why do you think modifying Defensive Fighting would make it exploitable when the change is modeled after Total Defense?
Do you think Total Defense is broken and exploitable? After all (even if we assume Defensive Fighting isn't a dodge bonus), an 8th level rogue can do all the things you went on about- but with a +4 bonus to AC instead of just a +2.
I've never, ever had any problems with Total Defense in the way you were talking, so I have no problems letting players use Defensive Fighting in similar circumstances.
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.
Actually, the rules are inconsistent on this point. Consider the following wording from the Acrobatics skill description:
"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."
Emphasis mine. Certainly as a GM, I would rule it to be a dodge bonus.
Here's how I always imagined fighting defensively to work, and why I consider it necessary to actually be able to attack something. I see it as sacrificing your base attack in order to move around your target a bit, or move in or take cover behind him in a manner that helps you defensively. So for instance you have two goblins, you attack one defensibly, you might be briefly pushing him into the path of the other goblin. Or you might be occasionally doing a broad strike that gets in the other creatures way. Can't get hang up on the way combat seems to us with our handy 5ft squares, if they were really fighting they would be moving about more vigorously than what are grid maps show us.
It could also work against ranged attacks the same way as it might represent you hiding behind your other melee combatants better.
Also, since Total Defense is a standard action, I believe you can now move and still go total defense. Unless I'm mistaken.
The fighting defensively action is a 'standard action'.
The heading of the descriptions of standard actions is 'Actions in Combat'.
So by that token you can never cast any non-quickened spells outside of combat? I guess that really does cut down on Scry And Fry.
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.
I have the first print, too, and the 'dodge bonus' sentence is there. However, I also have the PDF version (which shows 'second printing'), and the sentence is not there.
Time to show it in the errata...
EDIT: I've made a post in the Errata thread, since there is definitely a difference between first and second printing regarding Fighting Defensively - and, as hogarth said above, having the Acrobatics special rule still present and unchanged leads to the conclusion that the second printing has the error, not the first one.
I have the first print, too, and the 'dodge bonus' sentence is there. However, I also have the PDF version (which shows 'second printing'), and the sentence is not there.
Time to show it in the errata...
EDIT: I've made a post in the Errata thread, since there is definitely a difference between first and second printing regarding Fighting Defensively - and, as hogarth said above, having the Acrobatics special rule still present and unchanged leads to the conclusion that the second printing has the error, not the first one.
Good to know, and it's good that you've added it to the errata.
Me, I believe that the bonus should be a Dodge bonus. It makes sense for it to be, since that is the evident intent of the rule - deliberately moving/posturing to make it harder for your enemy/enemies to hit you. Sounds like dodging to me.
So, if I could edit my previous posts to make them all reference a barbarian with Uncanny Dodge, I would do so. But I can't edit them, so I will errata those posts here in this one.
My point still stands.
If a barbarian with Uncanny Dodge could swipe his sword at the air beside him to gain a +2 AC bonus when he's standing near a battle, even when no enemies are within reach and even thoguh no enemies threaten him at all, then that same barbarian could swipe his sword at the air in an empty room, on an empty road, or on a lonely mountain peak, or even in an apple-vendor's shop in a village somewhere - all of which should give him +2 AC for the same reason it would when he's standing near a battle.
If we're going to house-rule this, then it seems to me that we should go "all-in".
Or, better yet, we should ralize the silliness of it, and look at it from a point of view of game mechanics. In either case, we recognize that Fighting Defensively is a trade-off. Lost attack ability to gain better defense ability. Allowing the benefit of the increased defense without the trade-off of lost attack ability creates an imbalance in the game system, and was never the intent of the rule.
I, for one, do not relish the idea of arbitrating on this mechanic in such a way as to create exploitable loopholes whereby clever players can argue in favor of an unwarranted and mechanically unbalanced bonus of +2 to their AC whenever they want it.
Instead, I plan to use this mechanic exactly as written and presumably exactly as the game designers intended: when attacking something that you threaten and which is a threat to you, you can decide to Fight Defensively, taking a -4 penalty on a very real attack that you must make against a very real foe, but in return, gaining +2 AC until the start of your next round.
Fair, balanced, and less silly than the alternative.
As for fighting defensively out of combat.
You are flat-footed until you have the chance to act in combat.
Flat-footed makes you lose dodge bonuses.
fightning defensively gives you a dodge bonus.
So, you can fight defensively out of combat all you want, but you don't get the dodge bonus until you get the chance to act in combat, you don't get to bonuses of fighting defensively.
So, if I could edit my previous posts to make them all reference a barbarian with Uncanny Dodge, I would do so. But I can't edit them, so I will errata those posts here in this one.
My point still stands.
If a barbarian with Uncanny Dodge could swipe his sword at the air beside him to gain a +2 AC bonus when he's standing near a battle, even when no enemies are within reach and even thoguh no enemies threaten him at all, then that same barbarian could swipe his sword at the air in an empty room, on an empty road, or on a lonely mountain peak, or even in an apple-vendor's shop in a village somewhere - all of which should give him +2 AC for the same reason it would when he's standing near a battle.
Sure. And when I'm walking around at work, I could be doing somersaults down the hall and whipping around corners like I'm a S.W.A.T. team member. I'd look like a crazy person (assuming that terrorists weren't attacking the building), but I could do it. So what's the problem?
Note the variety of scenarios:
• No threat visible and any threat unlikely but possible.
• No threat visible but threat possible if unlikely.
• Threat visible and highly possible but not currently engaged in combat.
In all cases, these "defensive" actions are being taken outside of initiative actions and combat. In all cases, I'd allow the character in question to "Act Defensively" in combat. The key, being, of course, that they need to make a Perception check to notice the actual attack coming to react appropriately. Otherwise they're flat-footed.
A whole bunch of good examples there.
Now combining with my errata that all the characters in your scenarios are barbarians with Uncanny Dodge, then all these guys get a permanent +2 to their AC, right?
Sure, in combat, they might just decide to drop the AC bonus and get a +4 to their attacks (reversing the permanent -4 they suffered by always being defensive). But the rest of the time their AC is really +2.
All of which is by way of pointing out that taking Fighting Defensively out of its natural habitat (combat with real enemies and real threats and real attacks made by the guy who is using the tactic), we create weird loopholes in the game mechanics. Loopholes that can be exploited. Loopholes that shouldn't exist at all.
Loopholes that would not exist if we limit Fighting Defensively to actually being used according to the words in the rulebook, and to the evident intent of those words.
A whole bunch of good examples there.
Now combining with my errata that all the characters in your scenarios are barbarians with Uncanny Dodge, then all these guys get a permanent +2 to their AC, right?
Sure, in combat, they might just decide to drop the AC bonus and get a +4 to their attacks (reversing the permanent -4 they suffered by always being defensive). But the rest of the time their AC is really +2.
All of which is by way of pointing out that taking Fighting Defensively out of its natural habitat (combat with real enemies and real threats and real attacks made by the guy who is using the tactic), we create weird loopholes in the game mechanics. Loopholes that can be exploited. Loopholes that shouldn't exist at all.
Loopholes that would not exist if we limit Fighting Defensively to actually being used according to the words in the rulebook, and to the evident intent of those words.
You're right, I guess. If we did change Fighting Defensively to become a stance, instead of it being based on an attack, it could possibly be exploited by a Barbarian with uncanny dodge to gain a +2 AC all the time.
So for now, I guess Barbarians with uncanny dodge will just have to settle for taking the standard action of Total Defense every second of their lives to only gain a +4 AC all the time. Oh wait...
Seriously though, this houserule wouldn't create a loophole. If you think this change is exploitable, then you have to concede that the loophole already exists with Total Defense. Because our houserule is simply changing the requirements of Fighting Defensively to mirror those of Total Defense.
And since I have never heard or seen any Barbarian with uncanny dodge attempting to try a ridiculous exploit of constantly staying on Total Defense, I have no worry that it would occur if I modified Fighting Defensively to behave similarly.
|
You are flat-footed until you have the chance to act in combat.Yep ... I hate this rule with a passion. We HRed it out immediately.
If you are Surprised you are flat-footed.
Otherwise, you probably aren't, particularly if you have a reasonable expectation that a fight is going to occur.
Regardless of initiative, all Actions in a Round ... even the first one ... are assumed to happen more or less simultaneously. No one stands around unprepared until it's "their turn".
Suppose two people are walking across a field towards one another with swords and preparing to fight. They both know a fight is coming and they are both prepared for it. Both are standing light on their feet and ready to avoid the oncoming attacks of the other.
Per RAW, one of them will win initiative and the other will stand there like an unprepared idiot even though he knows the attack is coming.
This rule is one of the silliest things in the game. You can be prepared for combat before it begins. Ask anyone who's ever stood on the line in a sparring match. This rule does not at all simulate reality or else professional boxing matches would routinely end with first-punch knock-outs.
I realize this change somewhat nerfs Rogues ... sorry. You'll just have to actually sneak to Sneak Attack. Either gain flanking or surprise an opponent. But giving you free damage against someone who knows you're there and is prepared to defend against you simply because you rolled a little higher on a d20 is ridiculous.
/mini-rant.
R.
The rule is based on the assumption that the opponent DOESN'T know you're there and thus hasn't prepared to defend against you. If they do and have then the flat-footed rule doesn't apply.
|
Seriously though, this houserule wouldn't create a loophole. If you think this change is exploitable, then you have to concede that the loophole already exists with Total Defense. Because our houserule is simply changing the requirements of Fighting Defensively to mirror those of Total Defense.
And now you see the point. There already exists a means within the rules for upping your AC when not actively engaged in combat, and it's name is Total Defense. It would seem that players that want to "attack the ground" to keep a +2 AC and the ability to make AoO are gaming around the restrictions of Total Defense. There already exists 3 ways in the Pathfinder Core Rules to increase your defenses like this, Fight Defensively, Total Defense, and Aid Another. There is no need to metagame some cheese by attacking the ground ("Hey, under splash weapons, it says I can target any grid intersection! Take THAT, flagstone floor!") for a +2 AC when by RAI you should only be eligible for the Total Defense modifier.
In either case, we recognize that Fighting Defensively is a trade-off. Lost attack ability or a lost action to gain better defense ability.
FTFY.
Allowing the benefit of the increased defense without the trade-off of lost attack ability creates an imbalance in the game system, and was never the intent of the rule.
But when you examine the actual cost instead of the half-truth cost you originally provided, you see that we are not gaining a benefit without paying for it.
Seriously though, this houserule wouldn't create a loophole. If you think this change is exploitable, then you have to concede that the loophole already exists with Total Defense. Because our houserule is simply changing the requirements of Fighting Defensively to mirror those of Total Defense.And now you see the point. There already exists a means within the rules for upping your AC when not actively engaged in combat, and it's name is Total Defense. It would seem that players that want to "attack the ground" to keep a +2 AC and the ability to make AoO are gaming around the restrictions of Total Defense. There already exists 3 ways in the Pathfinder Core Rules to increase your defenses like this, Fight Defensively, Total Defense, and Aid Another. There is no need to metagame some cheese by attacking the ground ("Hey, under splash weapons, it says I can target any grid intersection! Take THAT, flagstone floor!") for a +2 AC when by RAI you should only be eligible for the Total Defense modifier.
Yes indeed.
The original poster had stated his ruling about Fighting Defensively, and responses were about that tactic, so I mainly stuck with it for that reason.
Well, that reason and the fact that Total Defense identifies itself as a Dodge bonus and my text, and the PRD, do not state that Fighting Defensively is a Dodge bonus, and I was trying to avoid Dodge bonuses.
But you're exactly right. Everyone should be walking down the empty dungeon hallways using Total Defense. Everyone should be apple shopping in the village while using Total Defense. Except, as a Dodge bonus, it will do them very little good without Uncanny Dodge or a similar ability.
In normal 3.5, the AC bonus for fighting defensively is a dodge bonus. For whatever reason, Pathfinder turned it into an unnamed bonus. If it retained its original bonus type, then the question wouldn't be so debated, because fighting defensively < total defense when you aren't attacking anything.
|
|
If they [know your are there] and have [prepared to defend against you] then the flat-footed rule doesn't apply.Please provide a PRD quote. I've never read such a thing.
However, the PRD explicitly says:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.
There is no caveat about "unless you are prepared for your opponent's attack and know it's coming" nor "when following a Surprise Round".
Unless you have Uncanny Dodge, if you haven't acted you are flat-footed against your opponent's first-Round attacks if they beat you on initiative.
Illogical ... yes ... hence my mini-rant as well as my House Rule and my opinion about "being defensive".
R.
If you have taken an action to prepare to be attacked, then you have taken an action related to that (maybe) impending combat and aren't flat-footed. The only way someone can catch you flat-footed at that point is to hit you before/as you see them, which is flat-footed for an entirely different reason that can happen mid-combat.
The logic may seem somewhat weird and it isn't stated directly in the SRD, but it fits with the "catch them with their guard down" mentality of attacking someone when they don't expect to be attacked.
Being in a fighting defensively mode would be obvious, tiring, and look damn strange. You'd be jumping at every little sound and motion as you prepared to defend against it, every bit as tense ALL THE TIME as if you were in the middle of an actual fight ready to duck an arrow!
So that Senator shopping defensively for apples would be scuttling from vendor to vendor, tensed and on the balls of his feet, constantly looking around, ready to attack someone, jumping away from people to keep his threat space clear, etc et cetc. They'd start calling him Senator frightened rabbit.
Nobody can live that way. The DM would be perfectly in his rights to start adjudicating the campaign from round to round, never skipping to minutes, turns, hours or days, until getting anything done became just as tedious as being in defensive mode...at which point you'd relax, try and stretch the kinks out of your neck, and hope nobody jumps you.
As for the combat example of two people walking towards one another, remember that combat begins when a foe is SPOTTED, not when they are in combat range of one another. Once the foe is spotted, there's a chance for suprise (none in the open field) and you roll initiative. IN that open field, both warriors are basically advancing on their initiative, combat has begun, they just have to reach one another and engage. If they had bows, the example would be more easily understood...just because you haven't reached the enemy doesn't mean combat has not started!
Outside of suprise, what initiative is is simply reflexes. One guy responds/reacts faster then the other, by training, chance, luck, or just being jumpy.
This 'Fight Defensively' all the time simply doesn't work. First of all, all it does is impose a -4 TH on your AoO's, it doesn't give the dodge bonus until your initiative...at which point you determine how to fight, anyways. If you try it with Uncanny Dodge, it basically means you NEVER leave combat mode. And being ready to hit someone, even at -4, is completely obvious as it persists from round to round.
There's a blaring sign of body language from someone getting ready to attack something else.
===Aelryinth
My 2 cents: Attack the ground, or the air, nobody cares, the point is that you must be able to attack.
If i'm correct Fighting Defensively is very similar in 3.5, and IIRC the 3.5 (or 3erEd) FAQ said that you could just waste your attacks attacking your square in order to get benefits from Fighting Defensively or Expertise. Makes sense to me and doesn't break the rules. And I can't think of many situations where you wouldn't want to try and hit an enemy while you figth defensively.
Dredging this thread from its tomb...
The idea that fighting defensively could be abused by someone doing EVERYTHING "defensively" seems absurd. The act implies that the character can't do any other standard action: His standard action has to be an attack, or he forfeits it entirely. If he does anything else, he's not fighting defensively.
It doesn't make sense that a character could go full defense, but can't "split the difference" and retain the ability to take AoOs (with a -4 penalty).
In several PFS games, I've been told that I can't gain the benefits of fighting defensively until I actually make an attack. My character just wanted to get past some foes, and pummel the "squishies" behind them.
Dredging this thread from its tomb...
The idea that fighting defensively could be abused by someone doing EVERYTHING "defensively" seems absurd. The act implies that the character can't do any other standard action: His standard action has to be an attack, or he forfeits it entirely. If he does anything else, he's not fighting defensively.
It doesn't make sense that a character could go full defense, but can't "split the difference" and retain the ability to take AoOs (with a -4 penalty).
In several PFS games, I've been told that I can't gain the benefits of fighting defensively until I actually make an attack. My character just wanted to get past some foes and pummel the "squishies" behind them.
This entire thread is not worth reviving. It's just a bunch of back and forth about $#!+ that doesn't matter.
It's not a big enough bonus one way or another to argue about.
This thread died a decade ago, was touched on briefly 8 years ago, and now today it resurfaces with not an ounce of new anything to add.
You can't be in a Style stance all the time, you probably can't "fight" defensively when you're not fighting.
Even if you can, and do, literally nobody cares.
Your AC went up? Cool story, bro... the enemies now have Weapon Focus and masterwork weapons. Why? Because I can... just like you can do your dumb $#!+, I can do mine.
Yes, but the topic of this ancient discussion was about Fighting Defensively... which involves an attack to be, umm, fighting.
You are talking about a hypothetical Paranoid Stance that is a move action. Which is cool and all, but it doesn't exist.
And it's not how Fighting Defensively, the topic of discussion, works. You can attack an empty square, but you still need to attack something, literally anything, to gain the benefits of Fighting Defensively.
I built an entire character around Fighting Defensively with all the Crane crap to go with it. I didn't receive the bonuses from Fighting Defensively unless I attacked something. I didn't have a problem with it. The character was completely functional and I never felt the need to have my guard up shopping for apples in the market, or whatever other stupid examples are in this thread. I wasn't a superhero. I wasn't even that "powerful"... the character was a Swashbuckler, of all things, with four whole levels of CORE Monk (eww).
Usually there is a price for each option you use. If you use the Dodge feat for +1 AC, you pay with one of your precious feats. If you use fighting defensively, the ability to do so comes for free (every creature can), instead the price is the AB penalty. And if a player tries to get around the price (without paying another price), that can be perceived as breaking an implicit contract.
I know it's tempting to search for loopholes, one of my players enjoys that too. They make nice little topics to discuss, but they don't belong onto actual gaming tables IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for necroing, how was I supposed to know? Digging around fine print somewhere ?
As a thank you for this sale... The date is right over the reply button. ^-^