| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling it should be (and will be in games I am the GM of) this
If a combat encounter has begun, and you have not acted for the first time, yet, you are not doing anything, you are flat footed (which can be mitigated, to some degree by specific class features or feats).
Once you have acted for the first time in the encounter (on your initiative count) you are, for the next six seconds, doing something. Maybe you are moving around the area, maybe you are standing still, maybe you are attacking with uncontrolled rage, and maybe you are being cautious and waiting for the right opportunity to strike a blow.
Whatever it is you decide your character is doing, this is true: How you are holding your weapon (with one or both hands) is not changeable to be convenient for you when you need it to be. If you want the benefit of a damage enhancement provided by using two hands, then you are using two hands. If you want to be able, at any time to use a free hand to defend yourself (with anything, feat, item, or otherwise) then you have a free hand.
I’m going to play it this way because I feel that it is counterintuitive to imagine that characters and monsters are in fact “waiting their turn” and the way I imagine it is that over the course of the combat round, everyone involved is doing something, and probably they are all doing it at the same time. We use initiative to help us resolve what is going on, not to demonstrate how things are actually happening, and to let a player (or a monster) declare that “well, when I need to be using both hands I will be, but when I need to have a hand free I will be doing that instead” sort of takes away from the flavor of a six second period of time in which “stuff” happened, either you put everything you’ve got into that blow (using two hands) or carefully watched out for an attack with a hand free in case you needed to deflect a blow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack.
This is certainly incorrect.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.
|
How bout changing the feat to something similar to the Swashbuckler class:
Opportune Parry (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –4 penalty on her attack roll. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature’s attack is announced, but before that attack roll is made.
|
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.Attacks are always resolved sequentially the fact that you can see if a monster dies mid full attack and move(if after one attack) or resolve the remainder of your attacks against other monsters supports this fact.
In which case slam him with 3 or 4 non grab attacks first if he ignores them he takes damage maybe for nothing since you don't necessarily land the hay maker anyways and if he doesn't then you get to use the monster's trick. Seriously smart play by the DM really is a huge counter for CW.
True, but it seems weird and metagame-y for an unintelligent monster to suddenly realize that the enemy is adopting a Crane Style stance and adjust their tactics. If I need to resort to metagame knowledge to deal with a problem, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In a game where typical combat only lasts a few rounds, spending the first round to realize that the opponent can block hits is a bit of a waste.
Like I said, I was not entirely opposed to the concept of Crane Wing, but its in-game application was out of line with the general power of feats.
|
|
You mean if monsters can't do all of their cool things to this one PC.
I think it's more of a "if monsters can't do their cool thing."
I suppose, but monsters don't always get multiple "cool things," and they can't always Acrobatics past the beefy tank-man to get to the sweet, juicy wizard meat. I just wanted to point out that I think Marthkus is misinterpreting a lot of arguments against CW as GMs wanting to restrict players from doing cool things. It's more about the fact that Crane Wing restricts other aspects of gameplay for the GM.
...I think. I might be putting words in their mouths.
I have a feeling it should be (and will be in games I am the GM of) this
If a combat encounter has begun, and you have not acted for the first time, yet, you are not doing anything, you are flat footed (which can be mitigated, to some degree by specific class features or feats).
Once you have acted for the first time in the encounter (on your initiative count) you are, for the next six seconds, doing something. Maybe you are moving around the area, maybe you are standing still, maybe you are attacking with uncontrolled rage, and maybe you are being cautious and waiting for the right opportunity to strike a blow.
Whatever it is you decide your character is doing, this is true: How you are holding your weapon (with one or both hands) is not changeable to be convenient for you when you need it to be. If you want the benefit of a damage enhancement provided by using two hands, then you are using two hands. If you want to be able, at any time to use a free hand to defend yourself (with anything, feat, item, or otherwise) then you have a free hand.
I’m going to play it this way because I feel that it is counterintuitive to imagine that characters and monsters are in fact “waiting their turn” and the way I imagine it is that over the course of the combat round, everyone involved is doing something, and probably they are all doing it at the same time. We use initiative to help us resolve what is going on, not to demonstrate how things are actually happening, and to let a player (or a monster) declare that “well, when I need to be using both hands I will be, but when I need to have a hand free I will be doing that instead” sort of takes away from the flavor of a six second period of time in which “stuff” happened, either you put everything you’ve got into that blow (using two hands) or carefully watched out for an attack with a hand free in case you needed to deflect a blow.
Interesting houserule, and I can see the logic behind it. Just keep in mind, you're going to be influencing a lot with this (here's two off the top of my head):
1) Your paladins can't use two-handed weapons if they want to use their Lay on Hands.
2) Your musket gunslingers can never take a full attack action
As long as you're OK with this kind of thing, I'd say it looks like your houserule would work well for your group.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im really annoyed by this errata.
1. you can't say we nerfed the feat because of complaints by PFS and then say we didnt do it because of PFS.
2. whats even more aggravating is that the feat is not that strong or as good as power attack. The feat can easy be oversome by enounter design, but because enounter desgin is so basic in PFS, that's not an option.
3. which is why i'm really infuriated by this, the whole point of this game is players make characters and the GM's creates the game. In a normal home game it is very easy for a gm to balance crane wing. give the big bad a henchmen, you more duel wielders, nothing difficul.
4. rules for the general game should not be dictated by PFS. Jason can say it didnt happen because of PFS but the evidence does not support that claim. the vast majority of the people that had the problem were in PFS and that's because of how the system is set up. i have heard or seen very little complaints from people who play at home.
5. the content of the hundreds of dollars i spent should not be determined by a group of others, who are playing what really is in effect a different game. PFS has different rules, this should have been no different.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a PFS GM who has GM'd games that have "invincible" characters with Crane Wing, and who has a so called "invincible" flowing monk with crane wing (he gets a 47 AC), I am convinced that the impact of crane wing is highly exaggerated.
I'll agree that deflecting natural 20's is a little overboard (and I'm happy with the errata making it impossible to do so), but the thing about these "invincible" characters is that they're so invested in their defense that their offenses are lacking. While they can certainly live through almost anything, they often cannot deal enough damage to be a meaningful threat. As a result, they get ignored.
Obviously, if you can't hit somebody, ignore them and move on to someone else. It's kind of a no-brainer. There's at least 3 other players at the table that are participating in combat. Go try and kill them!
And really, PFS scenarios are designed to be a challenge that the PCs ultimately win.
I can understand that people want it to be balanced and I think an errata was a good thing to do, but I don't understand the blind hate against the original Crane Wing. It's not like these players were were OHKOing the BBEG by using Crane Wing.
|
|
I posted this on the other Crane Wing thread, but I wanted to restate it here on the main thread. I completely withdraw all my complaints about this erratta. With the fix they added to Crane Riposte, I feel this feat tree is now actually better than it was before. In a standard module, my CW fighter would probably use CW maybe 2-3 times against a main enemy and almost never versus regular combatants. Now, I can designate my CW every round against the lowest bonus attack and practically guarantee an AoO every round. I get hit slightly more often, but not significantly so, but my offensive output is greatly enhanced. I can't wait to try this :)
|
|
Now, I can designate my CW every round against the lowest bonus attack and practically guarantee an AoO every round.
I'm somewhat nervous about that interpretation because I suspect a lot of GMs will want to rule that you only get Crane Riposte when you use Crane Wing on attack that would have normally hit you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted this on the other Crane Wing thread, but I wanted to restate it here on the main thread. I completely withdraw all my complaints about this erratta. With the fix they added to Crane Riposte, I feel this feat tree is now actually better than it was before. In a standard module, my CW fighter would probably use CW maybe 2-3 times against a main enemy and almost never versus regular combatants. Now, I can designate my CW every round against the lowest bonus attack and practically guarantee an AoO every round. I get hit slightly more often, but not significantly so, but my offensive output is greatly enhanced. I can't wait to try this :)
That is a fair perspective for anyone who took the style tree for offensive wishes. Snake or Panther style is still generally as good/better for generating AoO, however.
Some of us liked it for it's defensive application, though, which has unarguably suffered from the errata. So how are folks such as myself meant to view it as better? Presently, there is no good defensive style chain. Just a pair of mediocre ones when we already have several other good offensive style trees.
Interesting houserule, and I can see the logic behind it. Just keep in mind, you're going to be influencing a lot with this (here's two off the top of my head):1) Your paladins can't use two-handed weapons if they want to use their Lay on Hands.
2) Your musket gunslingers can never take a full attack action
As long as you're OK with this kind of thing, I'd say it looks like your houserule would work well for your group.
Okay, thank you, those are important situations, but, overall, yes, I think I would rule that, for instance, a Paladin in one round must decide if attacking with both hands with her weapon is more important or less important than being able to lay on hands (on herself only) during the round.
I typically do not allow gunslingers, but if I do, then I most likely will not use this interpretation at all (as I poorly understand gunslingers, I feel the issue is moot).
I played in a campaign before crane wing existed that had someone play a small monk. This monk had a huge AC. Most things needed a natural 20 to hit him. Eventually the GM started ignoring him. If he had crane wing, it would have been the same since without crane wing the GM couldn't damage this guy.
It comes to the point that if you build AC it doesn't matter if you take crane wing or not - your character is going to survive melee encounters in APs. I am playing a swashbuckler in kingmaker (AC37 at level 11; no crane wing) and I actually "cheated" on a parry roll so that the GM hit me instead of the attack being parried because my AC was so much higher than everyone else in the party (plus being able to parry all attacks). I could easily have an AC in the 40s now, but I stopped buying AC equipment.
In the last AP we finished, in the final encounter my druid took 177 points of damage in the first couple of rounds (I had 179 HP). If I had crane wing (and spent 4-5 feats), my AC would have been lower (it was AC41), I would have still taken around 150 points of damage, and I wouldn't have been able to kill the boss with my full attack.
So while I consider the original crane wing overpowered, I don't feel it's that out of place considering what most characters have to give up to get it.
Why would your monk take damage? Were his hands ever full when spamming natural attacks or UA? UA works awesomely with Crane Wing because that free hand is always free!
==Aelryinth
Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack.This is certainly incorrect.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.
It is absolutely correct.
Archer way over there: I go defensive fighting. I declare a ready action to attack anyone that comes in range.
Did I attack? No. Am I ready to attack? Yes. Did I spellcast? No. Do I get the AC bonus? Most assuredly.
If you really, really, really want to be anal about it, I attack my invisible friend in front of me with a casual backhand for no damage.
Defensive fighting is a mindset. Saying you can't be defensive fighting if you don't actually launch an attack means you can't be defensive against the arrows coming down at you as you charge the enemy.
Defensive fighting is not defender. It is an alteration of the default state of no bonus AC, no penalty to hit, that's all...it's defensive fighting because you have to spend the attack action to do it, even if you don't attack. This makes it impossible to use with spellcasting.
Otherwise spellcasters would be defensive fighting all the time for the free AC bonus.
==Aelryinth
EDIT: @MrSin: I am so tempted to try to find a way to make a Whale Tossin' encounter work, now.
I played in a game once where the summoner kept summoning celestial orca at a fiendish Hydra. They would smite, get one rounded, then the summoner would rinse / repeat. Needless to say, it didn't take what we dubbed the orca cannon long to demolish that poor hydra.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack.This is certainly incorrect.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.It is absolutely correct.
Archer way over there: I go defensive fighting. I declare a ready action to attack anyone that comes in range.
Did I attack? No. Am I ready to attack? Yes. Did I spellcast? No. Do I get the AC bonus? Most assuredly.
If you really, really, really want to be anal about it, I attack my invisible friend in front of me with a casual backhand for no damage.
Defensive fighting is a mindset. Saying you can't be defensive fighting if you don't actually launch an attack means you can't be defensive against the arrows coming down at you as you charge the enemy.
Defensive fighting is not defender. It is an alteration of the default state of no bonus AC, no penalty to hit, that's all...it's defensive fighting because you have to spend the attack action to do it, even if you don't attack. This makes it impossible to use with spellcasting.
Otherwise spellcasters would be defensive fighting all the time for the free AC bonus.
==Aelryinth
No, you are incorrect. This rules question has been answered before. You do not get any bonus from fighting defensively until AFTER you have attacked and taken the penalty to hit. You must attack to fight defensively. Only the total defense option gives you AC when announced. Fighting defensively follows the same rules as Combat Expertise (again, the bonus AC does not apply until after an attack with the penalty).
Example: I move up to someone and attack and declare I'm fighting defensively. Until I actually roll my attack, the AC bonus does not apply. So if I provoked an AoO while moving, or the target had a readied attack, I do not get the FD bonus. That is both RAW and RAI and has been ruled such previously.
|
stuffmore stuffIt is absolutely correct.
Archer way over there: I go defensive fighting. I declare a ready action to attack anyone that comes in range.
Did I attack? No. Am I ready to attack? Yes. Did I spellcast? No. Do I get the AC bonus? Most assuredly.
If you really, really, really want to be anal about it, I attack my invisible friend in front of me with a casual backhand for no damage.
Defensive fighting is a mindset. Saying you can't be defensive fighting if you don't actually launch an attack means you can't be defensive against the arrows coming down at you as you charge the enemy.
Defensive fighting is not defender. It is an alteration of the default state of no bonus AC, no penalty to hit, that's all...it's defensive fighting because you have to spend the attack action to do it, even if you don't attack. This makes it impossible to use with spellcasting.
Otherwise spellcasters would be defensive fighting all the time for the free AC bonus.
==Aelryinth
Readying an action is not an attack action.
Only when the specific conditions occur of that readied action and the character performs the stated attack, is there an attack action taking place.If, in your second example you attack the air or your 'invisible friend', then, you ARE performing an attack action.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action.
however you want to look at it, in order for a character to receive bonuses for fighting defensively, they must first expend a standard or full-round action.
The player in my group, who was previously distraught at how the Crane Wing errata destroyed his monk trip build (his favorite character to date), is now actually kind of excited at the Crane Riposte changes. He thinks it's even MORE powerful now. As he put it, "wait, you mean I can riposte on a miss now--I don't have to wait for them to hit my nigh-untouchable AC? I'm going to be bashing faces left and right!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player in my group, who was previously distraught at how the Crane Wing errata destroyed his monk trip build (his favorite character to date), is now actually kind of excited at the Crane Riposte changes. He thinks it's even MORE powerful now. As he put it, "wait, you mean I can riposte on a miss now--I don't have to wait for them to hit my nigh-untouchable AC? I'm going to be bashing faces left and right!"
Yeah, it does seem that Paizo prefers characters to be all offense. Playing a defensive character seems to be a big no-no, even if that's the 'whole point' of the character.
Have you ever seen that old national Geographic film of two large sage hen Roosters squaring off at each other, wings spread, waiting, waiting, and just circling each other, yeah, that's what I'm seeing now.
The player in my group, who was previously distraught at how the Crane Wing errata destroyed his monk trip build (his favorite character to date), is now actually kind of excited at the Crane Riposte changes. He thinks it's even MORE powerful now. As he put it, "wait, you mean I can riposte on a miss now--I don't have to wait for them to hit my nigh-untouchable AC? I'm going to be bashing faces left and right!"
This leads into the same problem as the Swashbuckler's Riposte. The mechanic is not very good at actually stopping attacks. So you use it on the enemy's last iterative attack, to use it as a fiddly way of getting an extra attack.
Then again, if you just wanted to punch someone every time they missed you, it costs fewer feats to use Snake Style instead.
The player in my group, who was previously distraught at how the Crane Wing errata destroyed his monk trip build (his favorite character to date), is now actually kind of excited at the Crane Riposte changes. He thinks it's even MORE powerful now. As he put it, "wait, you mean I can riposte on a miss now--I don't have to wait for them to hit my nigh-untouchable AC? I'm going to be bashing faces left and right!"Yeah, it does seem that Paizo prefers characters to be all offense. Playing a defensive character seems to be a big no-no, even if that's the 'whole point' of the character.
Unless I'm missing something this is not the case. You only get the Riposte from the attack that you declare your AC bonus against or if you go total defense the attack you deflect.
Crane Riposte: With the changes made to Crane Wing, how does Crane Riposte work?
While the feat still reduced your penalty when fighting defensively, there is a change to the text the follows. From the FAQ.
Update: Page 93, in the Crane Riposte feat, in the benefits paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).
|
|
Stuff
Yeah, so RAW, you can apply Crane Wing to any attack, and if it misses you can Riposte it even if that attack would have missed normally. This is different than the old wording, and makes it significantly easier to get Crane Riposte to trigger than before. This is because you couldn't Crane Wing (and therefore could not Riposte) unless the attack would have hit you normally.
Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack.This is certainly incorrect.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.It is absolutely correct.
Archer way over there: I go defensive fighting. I declare a ready action to attack anyone that comes in range.
Did I attack? No. Am I ready to attack? Yes. Did I spellcast? No. Do I get the AC bonus? Most assuredly.
Can you cite a source? Your interpretation obviously flies directly in the face of the wording from the Combat section - and that wording is in no way unclear - but perhaps there is something in some other book? I freely admit to not having read every piece of Pathfinder material ever published.
Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack.This is certainly incorrect.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.It is absolutely correct.
Archer way over there: I go defensive fighting. I declare a ready action to attack anyone that comes in range.
Did I attack? No. Am I ready to attack? Yes. Did I spellcast? No. Do I get the AC bonus? Most assuredly.
If you really, really, really want to be anal about it, I attack my invisible friend in front of me with a casual backhand for no damage.
Defensive fighting is a mindset. Saying you can't be defensive fighting if you don't actually launch an attack means you can't be defensive against the arrows coming down at you as you charge the enemy.
Defensive fighting is not defender. It is an alteration of the default state of no bonus AC, no penalty to hit, that's all...it's defensive fighting because you have to spend the attack action to do it, even if you don't attack. This makes it impossible to use with spellcasting.
Otherwise spellcasters would be defensive fighting all the time for the free AC bonus.
==Aelryinth
No, you are incorrect. This rules question has been answered before. You do not get any bonus from fighting defensively until AFTER you have attacked and taken the penalty to hit. You must attack to fight defensively. Only the total defense option gives you AC when announced. Fighting defensively follows the same rules as Combat Expertise (again, the bonus AC does not apply until after an attack with the penalty).
Example: I move up to someone and attack and declare I'm fighting defensively. Until I actually roll my attack, the AC bonus does not apply. So if I provoked an AoO while moving, or the target had a readied attack, I do not get the FD bonus. That is both RAW and RAI and has been ruled such previously.
No, I'm not.
You're citing the rules for the Defender Weapon Enhancement, which requires you to attack with it. there's no such rule for defensive fighting. You are perfectly free to declare an attack, an attack action, and not attack anyone.
And declaring defensive fighting lasts until the beginning of your next turn, even if you attack no one. If you ready an attack action, you are in 'attack mode'.
The main reason the rule is in there is to prevent spellcasters from Defensive fighting, since you cannot spellcast and do an attack action at the same time (normally).
And no, there's absolutely nothing in the Combat section more then the one line to suggest what you are trying to argue. There's PLENTY in the errata on the Defender enhancement to reflect what you are saying, i.e. wielded in combat. That's not defensive fighting.
By your reading of the rules: You can't charge a wall and not attack it.
You're not attacking if you have weapons out and run at someone prepared to do battle, but don't reach him. You can't walk around in a defensive posture, ready for a foe to leap out at you, because you aren't attacking someone.
See where this is going?
The argument has moved to trying to nerf defensive fighting because you can't nerf Crane Wing. Sorry, but those meanings just don't hold water.
==Aelryinth
So, if Readying an Attack counts as 'attacking', does that mean Readying breaks Invisibility? Likewise when Charging before the actual attack occurs?
It counts as readying an attack action. You're now drawing a straw man. Does preparing to cast Fireball break invisibility before you actually start casting the spell?
Bad logic! (slaps wrist)
==Aelryinth
No, I'm not.
Again, pls cite a source. I did some searching through the PRD for non CRB stuff, and did see anything allowing you to fight defensively without attacking (but I might not have found it, my search is far from exhaustive). The Combat section of the CRB plainly does not make allowance for such. What's your source?
Did you see any rules requiring you to make an attack roll to be defensive fighting (okay, I swing at the air)?
There are none. There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it. What you do with your attack action is your own business. You can attack. You can not attack. You're in the attack action regardless of what you do.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if Readying an Attack counts as 'attacking', does that mean Readying breaks Invisibility? Likewise when Charging before the actual attack occurs?
Readying is an action unto it self.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_ready
It does not count as an attack, a move or anything else. It is a ready.
Edit: Man, I just swooped in from no where. I don't even know why. I'm sorry, please continue. =D
It counts as readying an attack action. You're now drawing a straw man. Does preparing to cast Fireball break invisibility before you actually start casting the spell?
Bad logic! (slaps wrist)
==Aelryinth
Well neither of those are "attacking" on their own, obviously.
If/when the Readied Action triggers, then you take your Standard Action that actually counts as attacking, and can use Fighting Defensively,after which point the FD benefits and CW benefits contingent on that will apply. Not before then.
Trying to claim that readying itself counts as 'attacking' (except not for Invisibility purposes) as you seem to have just seems a dead-end road.
But I think all of this is tangential to the original point re: "CW works if fighting defensive while having 1 hand free".
Many people seem to be parsing that sentence as that you must have 1 hand free while making the attack needed for fighting defensively.
But an attack is over after the standard/full round action it uses, while fighting defensively persists until your next turn.
Nothing in the rule says you must have 1 hand free "while beginning to fight defensively".
You can begin fighting defensively (2Handed) and then change grips (or be disarmed by an AoO, etc) to end up with a free hand, while still 'fighting defensively': the AC bonus of FD is still in effect even though you changed grip/were disarmed/etc. That AC bonus doesn't exist unless you are "fighting defensively".
The action to begin fighting defensively is distinct from fighting defensively's actual duration -> until your next turn.
I think people are over-literalizing the sequential init/action system, which is really meant to describe simultaneous events, not literally sequential events. You may continue to be "fighting" even "after" your mechanical action resolves. A dubious literal visualiation of mechanics does not have precedence over the actual mechanics themselves, whereby 'fighting defensively' persists beyond the duration of the action used to initiate it.
If you take the attack action, you're attacking. If there's nothing to attack, you can't attack, therefore you can't take the attack action.
Also--if you can take a two-handed attack, then remove the hand and have Crane Wing available, can the Magus two-hand a long-sword, and then remove the hand, so he has a hand free while wielding a one-handed weapon and use Spell Combat? Can I two-hand a longsword, then remove my hand and make an Unarmed Strike?
You can always attack the ground, or empty space on the chance there is an invisible creature there.
Attacking doesn't require success or effectiveness. It does require dedicating an attack via whatever action used,
in this case it must be a standard or full-round action (not AoO's or Swift Action attacks).
@Revan: Spell Combat's duration is only the F-R action it comprises, while Fighting Defensively's duration is until your next turn after it has been triggered by some Standard/F-R action. When you cease to fulfill SC's requirement then you stop being able to use SC. They just aren't comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it. What you do with your attack action is your own business. You can attack. You can not attack. You're in the attack action regardless of what you do.
This is crazy logic, and not even necessary to reach your desired conclusion.
You are not 'in the attack action' before taking an actual attack action. An enemy can Ready vs you taking the Attack Action. If you then Ready an Attack Action vs. the Sky Falling, that doesn't immediately trigger the enemy's Ready. Only when the Sky Falls does your Ready cause you to actually take the Attack Action, at which point the enemy's Ready vs. an Attack Action is triggered. Same logic goes re: breaking invisibility, which doesn't occur until an ACTUAL attack, not just "Readying" an attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you see any rules requiring you to make an attack roll to be defensive fighting (okay, I swing at the air)?
There are none. There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it. What you do with your attack action is your own business. You can attack. You can not attack. You're in the attack action regardless of what you do.
==Aelryinth
The attack action IS an attack, if you don't attack, you didn't take an attack action, that is obvious. In addition, an attack is defined as an attack vs. an opponent. You can't "attack the ground" or the air, you must attack an opponent. Again, this ruling has been made previously by the design team, and in PFS. It still amazes me that something so obvious is still being twisted.
You can certainly Sunder unattended objects, which aren't 'opponents' = dirt (even if there is no HP/AC stats for that).
And I'd REALLY REALLY rather not have a 100% fool proof method of determining which square an Invisible opponent ISN'T in,
by the GM intervening to prevent you attacking those squares UNTIL you choose the square the enemy actually is in.
So, does anyone think the new version is balanced?
I was going to build a Crane Wing Dwarf monk (based on Warhammer's Troll-Slayers, none the less. Punkie monks for the win :P).
This was last week, before the Nerf. I'm not going to change my planned character because of this, so there I go. I'd be testing it this Sunday.
My Character will be built at 6th level (we wiped last sunday in Rise of Runelords being undermanned -3 guys- and rolling *horrible* against The Skinsaw and his retinue of ghasts).
Right now it has, assuming 1 hour self-buffs, AC 32 (10 base, +2 Dex, +3 Wis, +1 Monk, +2 Luck, +1 Natural Armor, +3 Enhancement Natural Armor, +1 Deflection, +5 Dodge, +4 Armor) and 36 vs a single attack per round. Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round. That's potentially 44 AC vs the strongest attack from the BAB, if such number would be needed. At level 6, that's fine enough I think. It's worth two feats (I don't have Riposte yet)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Man, I just swooped in from no where. I don't even know why. I'm sorry, please continue. =D
No worries, Aelryinth can have that effect on people. I've had to hold back from doing some swooping here as well :)
Total defense is a standard
Ah, my goof. Fighting Defensively does have the benefit of still allowing AoO's, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no you can certainly Sunder unattended objects, which aren't 'opponents' = dirt.
And I'd really really rather not have a fool proof method of determining which square an Invisible opponent ISN'T in,
by the GM intervening to prevent you attacking those squares UNTIL you choose the square the enemy actually is in.
When attacking an invisible opponent, you are attacking an opponent even if swinging blindly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for that insight...
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC... Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow.
Suffice it to say: there's a difference between attacking a square you believe an invisible enemy is in, and attacking a square you have every reason to believe is empty to activate an ability triggered by attacks.
There's a difference between taking a hand off a longsword to use Lay on Hands on yourself, and taking a hand off a longsword to be able to use an ability which gives a benefit in exchange for having a hand free, without actually taking the penalties that entails.