It came up in my Runelords (and my friends CotCT)campaigns where a player wanted to take an attack action to do nothing to gain the fighting defense or the combat expertise bonus's to AC.
Both times there was nothing attacking the player, the fight had moved on, they just wanted to have a higher AC just in case.
The player was told that both fighting defense and Combat Expertise need to be part of an Attack Action. So he said I take an attack action to do nothing.
Thoughts?
It came up in my Runelords (and my friends CotCT)campaigns where a player wanted to take an attack action to do nothing to gain the fighting defense or the combat expertise bonus's to AC.
Both times there was nothing attacking the player, the fight had moved on, they just wanted to have a higher AC just in case.
The player was told that both fighting defense and Combat Expertise need to be part of an Attack Action. So he said I take an attack action to do nothing.
Thoughts?
They could always attack an apparently empty square. If there happens to be an invisible creature in that square they have a 50% chance of hitting them. And if they happen to "pick" the wrong square, well they still made an attack.
I just make people use a standard action to get the bonuses, as attacking empty squares is dumb, but the only way some people will allow someone to get the bonus.
|
The player was told that both fighting defense and Combat Expertise need to be part of an Attack Action. So he said I take an attack action to do nothing.
Hmmm. Off the top of my head, I'd allow it. A character only gets so many actions in a round and if a player wants to use a Standard action to activate something like Combat Expertise (that requires an attack action), I don't see a problem. They wouldn't get to use any other Standard actions that turn and the penalty to attacks from Combat Expertise would affect any AO's they received that round.
-Skeld
It came up in my Runelords (and my friends CotCT)campaigns where a player wanted to take an attack action to do nothing to gain the fighting defense or the combat expertise bonus's to AC.
Both times there was nothing attacking the player, the fight had moved on, they just wanted to have a higher AC just in case.
The player was told that both fighting defense and Combat Expertise need to be part of an Attack Action. So he said I take an attack action to do nothing.
Thoughts?
Yes, they can. Note this is different from using full defense as the player still can make attacks of opportunity(with the full penalties applied).
Also, is the player is flat-footed or denied dex, they will still lose these bonuses, so they cannot used this against opponent they do not know about(hiding, invisible, etc). If a new creature entered the fight, I would give the player a perception check against a DC of 0(plus other modifiers) to notice them, otherwise, their first attack counts as an attack from hiding. So the player can't just declare they are ALWAYS fighting defensively or with combat expertise.
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
That gets into an ugly and iffy position, what if I have blindfighting, and I am trying to attack an invisible opponent? Do it get the bonus only if I attack the correct square?
Also, you interpretation doesn't let archers fight defensively, which they are able to do.
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
That gets into an ugly and iffy position, what if I have blindfighting, and I am trying to attack an invisible opponent? Do it get the bonus only if I attack the correct square?
Also, you interpretation doesn't let archers fight defensively, which they are able to do.
I agree it's ugly, but the system is ugly. That's where interpretation begins. After all, it's been said a thousand times, but if Paizo tried to account for all variations of situations, the Core Book would be a Core Tome of Infinite Pages... +5.
Leave it up to the DM in that specific situation, Char.
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
That gets into an ugly and iffy position, what if I have blindfighting, and I am trying to attack an invisible opponent? Do it get the bonus only if I attack the correct square?
Also, you interpretation doesn't let archers fight defensively, which they are able to do.
I agree it's ugly, but the system is ugly. That's where interpretation begins. After all, it's been said a thousand times, but if Paizo tried to account for all variations of situations, the Core Book would be a Core Tome of Infinite Pages... +5.
Leave it up to the DM in that specific situation, Char.
Also, take note that it's a dodge bonus to AC, so in that situation, you wouldn't get the AC boost against that enemy anyway because it's invisible and you are denied your dex to it and lose any dodge bonuses to AC.
Also, take note that it's a dodge bonus to AC, so in that situation, you wouldn't get the AC boost against that enemy anyway because it's invisible and you are denied your dex to it and lose any dodge bonuses to AC.The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
That gets into an ugly and iffy position, what if I have blindfighting, and I am trying to attack an invisible opponent? Do it get the bonus only if I attack the correct square?
Also, you interpretation doesn't let archers fight defensively, which they are able to do.
I agree it's ugly, but the system is ugly. That's where interpretation begins. After all, it's been said a thousand times, but if Paizo tried to account for all variations of situations, the Core Book would be a Core Tome of Infinite Pages... +5.
Leave it up to the DM in that specific situation, Char.
But you would get it against any other foes, or if the foe made multiple attacks but became visible after the first one.
I would equate combat expertise, fighting defensively, or even power attack to be combat styles, that can be implemented at any time using a standard action or as specified by the feat or maneuver. Otherwise, you get into meta-gaming issues.
I would equate combat expertise, fighting defensively, or even power attack to be combat styles, that can be implemented at any time using a standard action or as specified by the feat or maneuver. Otherwise, you get into meta-gaming issues.
That's fine as a house rule, but isn't supported by RAW.
All you have to do is attack a square. You don't have to be aware of any foe in that square. All that is required is to make an attack.
RAW, the player may always attack an empty square.
RAW, the player may always attack an empty square.
+1
|
|
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
Going strictly by RAW, a player only has to declare an attack. If it said "make an attack roll" or something similar, that would be different...
In the case of this question though, what's important is spending the action. That's the commodity.
-Skeld
|
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
None of this is in the rule, there is nothing about threatening, you don't even need to be holding a weapon. There is no mention of an attack action. You choose to fight defensively as your standard action and all your attacks (Normal and AoOs) that round are at -4 and your AC is at +2.
"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."
I don't see anything in there which implies they intend anything beyond the fact that you sacrifice your ability to attack for a defensive boost.
Edit: That applies to Fighting defensively only.
I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.
I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.
How does attacking Joe increase your chances of dodging Bob's attacks?
The intention of the abilities are that the character is threatening the opponent to gain a boost in AC. Just standing next to an opponent is threatening, but by putting an attack out there (albeit haphazardly because of the penalties to attack,) the character is making it more difficult to attack him/her.
If there isn't something to attack, this effect is lost. So I would rule, from a RAW and RAI standpoint, that you cannot get the boost to AC without an opponent to attack.
None of this is in the rule, there is nothing about threatening, you don't even need to be holding a weapon. There is no mention of an attack action. You choose to fight defensively as your standard action and all your attacks (Normal and AoOs) that round are at -4 and your AC is at +2.
"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."
I don't see anything in there which implies they intend anything beyond the fact that you sacrifice your ability to attack for a defensive boost.
Edit: That applies to Fighting defensively only.
So if you never do anything than do you always get the +2 ac?
Player: I have +2 AC because I'm fighting defensivly.
GM: But you haven't attacked anythin.
Player: But when I do I'll have a -4.
Wouldn't it make sense that you have to have the penalty (in both cases the reduction to attack) before you get the bonus's (the increase in ac)?
Otherwise a PC that doesn't attack, get's the bonus without the penalty.
I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.How does attacking Joe increase your chances of dodging Bob's attacks?
You tell me. Regardless of what answer I give it will no doubt be shot down by the majority, so what do you (and in turn the majority) think?
|
|
So if you never do anything than do you always get the +2 ac?
Player: I have +2 AC because I'm fighting defensivly.
GM: But you haven't attacked anythin.
Player: But when I do I'll have a -4.Wouldn't it make sense that you have to have the penalty (in both cases the reduction to attack) before you get the bonus's (the increase in ac)?
Otherwise a PC that doesn't attack, get's the bonus without the penalty.
First, you have to be in combat so it's not always. If you are flat footed you cannot fight defensively.
Second, why not? You say he's doing nothing but that's not true, he is spending a standard action to get a boost to AC. He can similarly forgo his attack of opportunity and use the total defense action and get a +4 to his AC all the time.
|
|
You tell me. Regardless of what answer I give it will no doubt be shot down by the majority, so what do you (and in turn the majority) think?I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.How does attacking Joe increase your chances of dodging Bob's attacks?
You don't get a bonus for attacking bob, or an empty square, you get a bonus for assuming a defensive posture that makes you less effective offensively.
You don't get a bonus for attacking bob, or an empty square, you get a bonus for assuming a defensive posture that makes you less effective offensively.You tell me. Regardless of what answer I give it will no doubt be shot down by the majority, so what do you (and in turn the majority) think?I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.How does attacking Joe increase your chances of dodging Bob's attacks?
Then why does Combat Expertise require an attack by that logic?
Then why does Combat Expertise require an attack by that logic?You don't get a bonus for attacking bob, or an empty square, you get a bonus for assuming a defensive posture that makes you less effective offensively.You tell me. Regardless of what answer I give it will no doubt be shot down by the majority, so what do you (and in turn the majority) think?I concede the majority's standpoint from a RAW perspective. But can someone explain to me the RAI of both? How does attacking a blank space increase your chances to dodge an opponent's attack? That just doesn't make sense.How does attacking Joe increase your chances of dodging Bob's attacks?
Because Combat Expertise says you must declare an attack or full attack action to use. I think its a bad rule personally though, as people have pointed out you can just attack air if you have no one to attack.
Because Combat Expertise says you must declare an attack or full attack action to use. I think its a bad rule personally though, as people have pointed out you can just attack air if you have no one to attack.
Then why does Combat Expertise require an attack by that logic?
I think you missed the intention of my question. I was asking RAI, not RAW. How does swinging a weapon into a blank space increase your ability to dodge incoming attacks?
If it's because you take up a defensive posture, why the attack?
If it's because you are threatening an area with an attack, how do you get the dodge to AC from all incoming attacks (you can perceive)?
Basically, how the hell does the logic behind this ability (Combat Expertise) work?
This silliness again? We yammered about this just a month ago. And here we are, attacking the empty space to get a bonus to our AC again...
My response today is the same as it was a month ago this thread .
Because Combat Expertise says you must declare an attack or full attack action to use. I think its a bad rule personally though, as people have pointed out you can just attack air if you have no one to attack.
Then why does Combat Expertise require an attack by that logic?
I think you missed the intention of my question. I was asking RAI, not RAW. How does swinging a weapon into a blank space increase your ability to dodge incoming attacks?
If it's because you take up a defensive posture, why the attack?
If it's because you are threatening an area with an attack, how do you get the dodge to AC from all incoming attacks (you can perceive)?Basically, how the hell does the logic behind this ability (Combat Expertise) work?
I think the RAI is summed up by the "you increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy" in the feat description. You are more timid in your attacks, so you know when to pull back. You are more cautious than normal.
Now, why that means you can't be more timid when not attacking, I do not know. Personally, I think if you are fighting defensively or going full defensive you should still get combat expertise.
First, I would say that yes, you could attack an empty square, regardless of your intent to fight defensively. You just swing at the air with your sword/axe/dagger/fist/whatever.
Second, In most cases where you don't plan on hitting anything, taking a "full defense" would be preferable to fighting defensively.
Third, you have to look beyond the mechanics to the "spirit" of the rules. Think of the type of actions you perform in combat as the amount of effort you put into offense vs. defense. How badly do you want to hurt someone vs. how badly do you want to stay alive.
On one extreme we have rage attacks. This is a determined attack with a whole bunch of offensive effort and very little defensive effort. You are willing to take a few hits to make sure that you make your opponent pay with blood.
Slightly more defensive is a standard attack. You're trying to kill your opponent quickly, but you're not going to be reckless about it.
With a little more defensive effort, you have fighting defensively. You are still trying to hurt your opponent, but some of your sword/axe/whatever swings are reserved for parrying. Or perhaps you are not making as many swings/maneuvers, so your guard is down less often.
Finally, when you absolutely HAVE to avoid getting hit, you take the full defense. When doing this, you are parrying/blocking/dodging with as much effort you can muster.
|
|
I think you missed the intention of my question. I was asking RAI, not RAW. How does swinging a weapon into a blank space increase your ability to dodge incoming attacks?
If it's because you take up a defensive posture, why the attack?
If it's because you are threatening an area with an attack, how do you get the dodge to AC from all incoming attacks (you can perceive)?Basically, how the hell does the logic behind this ability (Combat Expertise) work?
These are game rules and don't necessarily have to have logic behind them. In particular since they are always going to make poor models of reality.
My feeling is the two rules are both built around the same basic idea, sacrifice offense for defense under a given set of circumstances. Combat expertise has a better benefit and requires a greater expenditure of effort.
This silliness again? We yammered about this just a month ago. And here we are, attacking the empty space to get a bonus to our AC again...
My response today is the same as it was a month ago this thread .
My response would be, if you can sacrifice a standard action every six seconds of the day you are conscious, then I don't really have a problem with it.
Also, take note that it's a dodge bonus to AC, so in that situation, you wouldn't get the AC boost against that enemy anyway because it's invisible and you are denied your dex to it and lose any dodge bonuses to AC.
If only there were some feat(blindfight) or ability(uncanny dodge) that let you keep your dex bonus against invisible opponents.
In short, you have to burn at least a standard action to get the bonus, and any AoO you make will have the penalty to hit.
My response would be, if you can sacrifice a standard action every six seconds of the day you are conscious, then I don't really have a problem with it.This silliness again? We yammered about this just a month ago. And here we are, attacking the empty space to get a bonus to our AC again...
My response today is the same as it was a month ago this thread .
Thats how I feel too. Good luck kicking down that door with a move action. And your friends will really be mad at you if you only move half their speed because you are too nervous of being attacked. Instills a lot of confidence, that.
I would say what the player in question is doing is readying an action to attack a surprise/latecoming attacker, and they will be fighting defensively at the time the event they are preparing for occurs. They could probably "ready the action" indefinitely until they choose to move on and do something else.
Attacking a blank square doesn't make you any better at dodging an attack.
However, you are trying to find a Rules answer to a question that doesn't have a hard line answer. i.e. can a player who isn't actively engaged in combat receive the bonuses.
The answer is- by RAW- they can activate them by 1) declaring their use then 2) attacking an empty square.
They gain the benefits because despite the odd logic, the Doing of those two events meets the requirements of triggering those abilities.
RAI: The character shouldn't be made to attack the empty square. they *should* Be able to just say they spend a standard action simply to keep the bonuses going. it is *effectively* the same thing as attacking the square.. it just doesn't sound as metagamey or silly.
("hey bob, why are yuo attacking the floor?" "so if an archer comes out ahead they can't hit me as easily" "wha?").
The rules should have provided for it, but didn't.
It Needs to cost a standard action to do though otherwise half the wizards in D&D will start taking some of these feats and just declaring them always active when they are in combat- and thus receive a substantial benefit for nothing.
my .02
-S
Attacking a blank square doesn't make you any better at dodging an attack.
However, you are trying to find a Rules answer to a question that doesn't have a hard line answer. i.e. can a player who isn't actively engaged in combat receive the bonuses.
The answer is- by RAW- they can activate them by 1) declaring their use then 2) attacking an empty square.
They gain the benefits because despite the odd logic, the Doing of those two events meets the requirements of triggering those abilities.
RAI: The character shouldn't be made to attack the empty square. they *should* Be able to just say they spend a standard action simply to keep the bonuses going. it is *effectively* the same thing as attacking the square.. it just doesn't sound as metagamey or silly.
("hey bob, why are yuo attacking the floor?" "so if an archer comes out ahead they can't hit me as easily" "wha?").
The rules should have provided for it, but didn't.It Needs to cost a standard action to do though otherwise half the wizards in D&D will start taking some of these feats and just declaring them always active when they are in combat- and thus receive a substantial benefit for nothing.
my .02
-S
Thank you, Selgard. You answered my question.
Attacking a blank square doesn't make you any better at dodging an attack.
However, you are trying to find a Rules answer to a question that doesn't have a hard line answer. i.e. can a player who isn't actively engaged in combat receive the bonuses.
The answer is- by RAW- they can activate them by 1) declaring their use then 2) attacking an empty square.
They gain the benefits because despite the odd logic, the Doing of those two events meets the requirements of triggering those abilities.
RAI: The character shouldn't be made to attack the empty square. they *should* Be able to just say they spend a standard action simply to keep the bonuses going. it is *effectively* the same thing as attacking the square.. it just doesn't sound as metagamey or silly.
("hey bob, why are yuo attacking the floor?" "so if an archer comes out ahead they can't hit me as easily" "wha?").
The rules should have provided for it, but didn't.It Needs to cost a standard action to do though otherwise half the wizards in D&D will start taking some of these feats and just declaring them always active when they are in combat- and thus receive a substantial benefit for nothing.
my .02
-S
But it's not a standard action to maintain Combat Expertise, it's an attack action. An action action is a standard action, but a standard action is not an attack action.
An attack action is a specialized standard action that requires you to be actively attacking something, swinging your weapon in front of you isn't attacking, anymore than chopping wood is.
From everything I've read this is really a matter of opinion and I know what mine is, I just wanted to know if there was anything that specifically said you could declare and attack action and do nothing.
An attack action to do nothing is a just a standard action, which doesn't get you the benefits.
Interestingly enough, the description in 3.5 stated you actually had to be in melee to gain the bonus ("When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee"), which I think settles it. Attacking nothing isn't melee.
|
As far as combat expertise goes, since it requires an attack and boosts ac, I'd say what you're doing is swinging your weapon more defensively, fighting more cautiously. You're less likely to hit because you're giving your target fewer openings to get through your whirling blade.
Thus, the ac bonus there comes from using the weapon almost as a shield. Whereas the bonus from fighting defensively is a posturing issue.
But it's not a standard action to maintain Combat Expertise, it's an attack action. An action action is a standard action, but a standard action is not an attack action.
An attack action is a specialized standard action that requires you to be actively attacking something, swinging your weapon in front of you isn't attacking, anymore than chopping wood is.
From everything I've read this is really a matter of opinion and I know what mine is, I just wanted to know if there was anything that specifically said you could declare and attack action and do nothing.
An attack action to do nothing is a just a standard action, which doesn't get you the benefits.
Interestingly enough, the description in 3.5 stated you actually had to be in melee to gain the bonus ("When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee"), which I think settles it. Attacking nothing isn't melee.
and thats exactly the problem. You can't maintain it as a normal standard action, so you do something stupid like attacking the air to get the bonus. Mechanically, they forgot to add in a way for you to just get the bonus without having to do something dumb.
In 3.5 they required you to be in melee. Pathfinder does not have this restriction though.