There was an old thread debating if it was possible to Fight Defensively without actually attacking, with valid arguments to both points. However, with the adition of the antagonize feat, I believe this question should be brought to light again, as it was not resolved officialy the first time.
Basically, is it possible to use antagonize while fighting defensively? If so, the benefit is obvious. Force an ennemy to come over and attack you AND benefit from a +2 to AC.
By RAW, such a thing does not seem possible. From a logical standpoint, it should be. From a game balance point of view, it only makes antagonize even more powerful. Unless maybe you apply the -4 to hit to the antagonize skill check. Not so menacing behind that shield are we?
Well, if you can combine it with ANY action, why wouldn´t you do it with Spellcasting also?
Maybe I wouldn´t force anybody to ACTUALLY attack, but they would have to do it by spending an action that COULD do so, i.e. declare Fighting Defensive Attack Action but don´t take the attack roll you´re allowed.
Well, if you can combine it with ANY action, why wouldn´t you do it with Spellcasting also?
Maybe I wouldn´t force anybody to ACTUALLY attack, but they would have to do it by spending an action that COULD do so, i.e. declare Fighting Defensive Attack Action but don´t take the attack roll you´re allowed.
But then why not simply go for full defense? (Other than the fact that full defense is a dodge bonus, which you won't always benefit from).
As for spellcasting, from my understanding it would be mutually exclusive since there is already the notion of casting defensively. But then I guess a caster could be adopting a defensive stance to cast defensivelier...
Anyways, I'm trying to think of other actions (probably mostly skills) which could (or could not) be done on the defensive. First Aid on the defensive? Maybe Tumble defensively?