| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I understand a lot of people think Total Defense is not a viable option. A lot of people are under the impression that it is "selfish" and useless because they believe the user will just be ignored. If I tell you someone takes a defensive stance, you are really going to tell me your character blows past them to attack someone else? I think a lot of people are going against the spirit of the game when they do things like this. I don't consider myself strict or rigid but sometimes you can't look at things from a mechanics perspective. I've seen DMs that do this as well as players.
Now if you're in an encounter and an enemy is described as going total defense (in whatever way the dm chooses) and you attack him and your attacks get hopelessly deflected... you might hesitate after a round or two of doing this when there are other dangers. However, to automatically assume/know that when the gm describes a character being defensive that he can be ignored is, in my opinion, metagaming.
Thoughts?
Yeah I don't know why people seem to think total defense would look like the person is out of the fight. When I picture total defense I picture the character waiting intently to get out of the way or deflect attacks. Like a fencer standing en garde but rather than looking for openings to attack they are seeking to parry attacks coming at them. I would also consider someone who runs up to another character in a combat situation and taking the total defense action as a hostile. Unless something else happens to indicate the person isnt hostile, or is running from something else. Now if a character takes a move action out and total defenses in the corner thats another story. But as a player and a GM if something runs up to me and than takes the T.D. action I am NOT going to ignore it out of hand. I need some reason other than being defensive to disregard them.
As a player, the only time I use the total defense action is if I'm low on HP and can't afford to get hit before the Cleric can heal me. So if the GM ignores my character I consider that a win. On the other hand, I don't use total defense much.
As a GM, I never tell my players exactly what actions the NPCs are taking. If an NPC doesn't take it's turn, the players won't know if the NPC is using total defense, holding an action, or readying an action to trip (and take multiple AoOs against) the next opponent that tries to move past it.
I think i also has to do with it feels like a delaying tactic, or the bonus to AC is little compared to the lose of an action.
Total defense isn't useless, it has a lot of reasonable applications.
I would consider enemies ignoring the total defender, and running past them maybe a tad metagamey, but I have seen worse. (Had one GM who would make *ALL* enemies automatically focus fire on the PC with the lowest AC. Even 5-foot stepping away from the warriors to try and shoot a spellcaster behind cover, because they somehow know that even with cover, the spellcaster has one less AC than the lowest AC warrior...)
I guess it's that fine line between playing the tactical "game", and trying to be realistic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use it all the time. It's a great tactical tool and is basically free (excusing, of course, the 3 ranks in Acrobatics).
Adding a +6 Dodge bonus to your AC as a standard action is quite useful.
The prohibition on AOOs hurts, but it gives you a lot of flexibility.
Its value really comes from the options it creates for tactical movement.
My vanilla Fighter in PFS can 'turtle up' and do a ton of things that other characters usually can't survive.
Use it to get out of or through threatened squares (better by +1 than Dodge+Mobility)
Use it to plug a hallway while your allies heal/buff/strategize/shoot back.
Use it to wade through a group of enemies to draw out their AOOs so the rest of the party can move into position.
Use it to find out if a bad guy has Combat Reflexes.
Use it to set up or re-establish a flank, given certain initiative stream conditions.
Use it when your attacks are ineffective; sometimes you just have to wait for other party members to shine.
My personal favorite: The human mantlet.
Total Defense + heavy armor/shield up front, bow or reach weapon wielded by ally behind you. It's a great way to advance up stairs or in crowded hallways. +4 AC from cover goes both ways.
It's astonishing how often "just run up there and make it mad while we figure out how to kill it" can work if you have these tactics available to you.
|
|
I would consider enemies ignoring the total defender, and running past them maybe a tad metagamey...
I think this is definitely true, depending on the circumstances.
I have had a couple of GMs inappropriately try to meta away from this tactic when I used it; I thought it was kind of annoying. It's not too hard to reestablish your positioning/control with someone like that though. They tend to allow their bias against certain play styles to cloud their judgement.
I had one PFS GM flat out insult my choice of "turtle style" Fighter before a game. I didn't say anything back; I just controlled the field and didn't let him kill anything while smashing and shield-slamming stuff to bits.
Certain enemies would definitely break off of combat when presented with Total Defense; consider how a wolf or an intelligent humanoid might react. They're not going to go toe-to-toe with something that they can't hit. They're going for the squishies.
On the other hand, some bad guys are just not that smart or are actually mindless. They would be likely to continue attacking the threat until it runs away or dies. What would a Giant Wasp do? attack attack attack attack etc.
And as always, if they run past you when you have Total Defense up, the next round, you are behind them... and probably flanking.
|
Part of the key here is, how do you know if the person is going total defense, or just readying an attack, or what have you. Doesn't have to be blatantly obvious.
I used it quite a bit Saturday night with my Rogue, getting into position for attacks (he's not going to do a lot when he moves in single-handedly... since he can only really deal damage if he gets his flank (or gets the opportunity to get a Two-Weapon feint in). Either way, he's much better waiting for the rest of the party to move up, instead of going toe-to-toe outnumbered and getting surrounded. Granted, if he can survive the first round of that, and lands a sneak attack, he can get his AC up to 32 pretty easily (max of around 36 at 9th level).. but that requires a successful sneak attack.
It is definitely situational, though.
|
|
Yes. It definitely works great for Rogue/Ninja.
Combine with Dodge+Mobility and you can have a +11 Dodge to AC while moving to position. Not bad.
I agree with Beard that martial characters should easily recognize and avoid a PC in Total Defense. However, is there a consensus of what Total Defense looks like? There's nothing RAW about it.
I'd agree with a ruling that a Fighter or other martial class could know it right away.
But PCs don't exactly announce it in-character. I think that a fair GM would ask themselves "what would this bad guy do?" vs. "what do I want this bad guy to do?"
Here is why I don't like total defense, at least not beyond level 6 (as a PC of otherwise). Even if the opponent doesn't believe that I am unable to attack him, most enemies could still be going through this acceptable line of reasoning*
- He didn't attack me? Is he in total defense or just waiting for something?
- If he's in total defense, he can't attack me. If he isn't be can probably only take one AOO
- 1 attack < 2 attacks. I'll ignore him now and focus on the less armored thing shooting fireballs.
- If I attack them, he'll have to respond, so the people behind me are still safe.
*assumes intelligent enemy. Dumb animals don't attack the strong guy in armor
Of course this can be applied to almost any character who doesn't do large amounts of damage, or isn't mobile enough to blitz past the first line of defense. Using total defense just means that the enemy can get a completely free pass. A friend of moline playing a tower shield fighter was very frustrated when enemies constantly ran past him.
So I understand a lot of people think Total Defense is not a viable option. A lot of people are under the impression that it is "selfish" and useless because they believe the user will just be ignored. If I tell you someone takes a defensive stance, you are really going to tell me your character blows past them to attack someone else? I think a lot of people are going against the spirit of the game when they do things like this. I don't consider myself strict or rigid but sometimes you can't look at things from a mechanics perspective. I've seen DMs that do this as well as players.
Now if you're in an encounter and an enemy is described as going total defense (in whatever way the dm chooses) and you attack him and your attacks get hopelessly deflected... you might hesitate after a round or two of doing this when there are other dangers. However, to automatically assume/know that when the gm describes a character being defensive that he can be ignored is, in my opinion, metagaming.
Thoughts?
Maybe, maybe, for inexperienced non-martial enemies I'd believe that Total Defense is a non-obvious event. However, trained combatants and anything that fights for a living or to survive (demons, for example) are going to twigger onto it very quickly. Plus, honestly, how many ways do you expect total defense to look? It's focusing on defense to the point where you cannot attack at all. As a combatant, I gotta tell you, it only takes about one fight to figure out what that looks like, even from an observer's standpoint.
Total Defense is an option that you can take without needing to make any character build investment. Free options are never useless. Situational, sure, but useless? Never.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Total Defense is an option that you can take without needing to make any character build investment. Free options are never useless. Situational, sure, but useless? Never.
Exactly.
Some arguments against this tactic seem to assume that it's intended to be a primary fighting style. That's silly.This is something that you do briefly, in response to or in anticipation of enemy actions. I use it effectively all the time; I use Total Defense about once per combat encounter, maybe twice if things get really crazy. I'll swing a Greataxe the rest of the time.
Thinking you're clever for identifying and rapidly responding to Total Defense is usually foolish. Maybe I want you to run past me...
Go ahead and ignore me while I split your party up, block off your escape route, jam up your reinforcements, or outflank you.
An enemy Fighter with Greater Bull Rush, Shield Slam, and a Heavy Shield is not something that you want hanging out behind you, for example.
@Squirrel:
It is true that wielding a big shield in combat is, in most cases, unlikely to result in high damage output. Tower shields are especially bad about this because they cannot be wielded as weapons. Your friend can still use that tactic, but they need to use a little creativity. The character is still a fighter and can (hopefully) do other things besides lug that huge thing around.
Positioning in combat is almost as important as raw damage output. A tower shield is just a positioning tool. It's not a weapon.
It's not that hard to drop a shield and draw one-big-weapon (or a bow!) once you're in a good spot.
You can even set a tower shield up and leave it there to provide immobile cover, or to block line of sight/line of effect.
Tower Shields are used to get to places, get past danger, plug holes, and provide cover. Drop it and swing for the fences once the time is right.
|
I don't see it as metagaming imo. A intelligent monster seeing someone in or without heavy armor covering himself with a sheild or getting into a certain position to be harder to hit well the enemy would bypass that character. After all why target the person going out of their way protecting themselves. When their are targets that are easier to hit. Or to put it another way. Who would you shot the guy out in the open. Or the guy hidden behind some sort of cover. Usually the guy out in the open. The only time I would consider it metagamey is if say a Gelatinous Cube or similar creature with little or no intelligence avoids the character doing total defence. That creature is simply too unintelligent to avoid attacking the first creature it senses.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will make an observation, based on my real life experience for whatever that is worth.
While not a master by any means, I have had some martial arts training. I would say above level 1 monk rough equivalent (maybe even above level 2 depending upon how you judge such things). I have been in a few non-dojo fights (but not all that many).
I can not usually tell just by initial glance at someone if they are looking to knock me out as soon as they get a chance (standard type actions), mostly just blocking while looking for a good opening (fighting defensively), or just trying to keep me from hurting them (total defense). After a few seconds yes, then I can tell. But not immediately.
Total defense is not cowering in the corner behind a shield. That would actually make you very easy to hurt. Defense means concentrating on blocking attacks, dodging attacks, etc... Part of that is making feints back at the other person, changing your stance to look like you are getting ready to throw a powerful hook, pulling up like you are going to launch a kick, etc... If you don't keep the other person on their defensive toes, your defense doesn't work very well. If they would know they don't have to guard against counter blows at all and can concentrate exclusively on offense, it becomes easier to hit you. So a good 'total defense' will not immediately look significantly different from fighting while trying not to get hit.
Even then, when I have decided that someone is not seriously trying to hit me. There is no way they are so oblivious that I could just ignore them and walk past without them being able to change their mind and me getting walloped when I try it.
This is only possible due to the turn based approximation of this combat simulation's rules. Anyone taking advantage of an opponent's total defense to know they can waltz by someone without risk, is definitely metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I remember using total defence was in carrion crown 1 playing a martial without magic weapon in all those fights vs incorporeal enemies.
An no I don't think that was selfish because I didn't have anything meaningful to do. I could as well have gone home and done something fun.
On ignoring someone who's in full defence: Depends on the situation. There is a big difference between assuming that he's no threat and deciding that he's probably less of a threat than the guy wearing the dress and making strange gestures.
...
On ignoring someone who's in full defence: Depends on the situation. There is a big difference between assuming that he's no threat and deciding that he's probably less of a threat than the guy wearing the dress and making strange gestures.
Agreed, I often decide to absorb the AoO damage to get past/around the front line to stop the caster or archers in back. That is good tactics.
But most of these people are not really talking about that. It is the GM or players deciding "Oh, you're on total defense, so no longer a threat, and can't make AoO. So I will just walk by and kill the others." So it only became the tactics once they realized the character was on total defense.
The toughest dilemma:
Often I'll take the first attack on the total defense target. If it hits, continue full-attack. If it misses, use the opportunity to position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't cover it, so it's up to the GM to decide whether total defense is obvious, or something you can only deduce after a couple of rounds of attacking them, or detectable with a Sense Motive, or what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never thought about that, but I like it. Maybe you get the action type if your sense motive beats the defenders DC. The DC = to 10+(BABx2) or 10+bluff whichever is higher. Sound reasonable?
I never thought about that, but I like it. Maybe you get the action type if your sense motive beats the defenders DC. The DC = to 10+(BABx2) or 10+bluff whichever is higher. Sound reasonable?
No, but only because so many martial characters lack native access to Sense Motive and are kinda encouraged to dump Wisdom. What about Sense Motive or a BAB check?
I would assume a character in total defense is obviously doing so. The 'fencer pose' described above feels more like fighting defensively or perhaps using Combat Expertise. Total Defense strikes me as more of a cowering pose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree. Cowering and obviously not threatening makes you much easier to hit. It does not give you any protection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has led me to the belief that Total Defense should not prevent attacks of opportunity (perhaps penalize them slightly instead). It is enough to give up your ordinary attacks for this bonus, but all of the shenanigans associated with realizing that a foe is taking the total defense action sem to be tied to the loss of opportunity attacks.
It's metagaming to have foes just go "OH, he's going Total defense, thus I can walk by without incurring a AoO". But mind you, after a round or two of useless attacks, many foes will turn their attention else where, as darkwarriorkarg sez..
OTOH, it's is sorta a dick move to be doing that when you could be contributing.
Example 1. You're a Tank, you stand in front of the party going "Come at me, varlets!"= Legit, and pretty brave even.
2. You are in the back and get jumped by a whole passel of foes= legit.
3. The party is having a tough time, and maybe, you might just get attacked next round= selfish dick move.
The toughest dilemma:
Full attack on total defense target.
Single attack on other target. Often I'll take the first attack on the total defense target. If it hits, continue full-attack. If it misses, use the opportunity to position.
That's only legit if you play PCs & Monsters know how well they roll. I mean, how do they know they didn't roll a 2? Giving up after one try is a little specious. After a FAO, sure.
I would always play that PCs (and NPCs) know how well they roll. Wouldn't it be annoying to attack an enemy, roll a 19, miss, and then your GM tells you to keep attacking because your character doesn't know he rolled a 19? Where possible, player knowledge should synchronize with character knowledge.
Here we disagree. It's metagamey because it's only possible by breaking the 4th wall and knowing the tactical rules about movement. I can explain better at our next game. (In case anyone's wondering, he's my GM)
Now, if, after a round or 2 of not hitting someone blocking every move, the attacker moves on, fine. But there's no way it should be an automatic bypass unless the intent of the character is to ignore potential attacks of opportunity to target that one person. perhaps this calls for a bluff or intimidate vs sense motive as a compromise.
It's not metagamey for a character to recognize that Armor+Shield makes someone harder to hit than cloth, or to know that "when I run past a character, I get hit," or that "I can probably make it that far." That's not metagaming. To imply otherwise would be to imply that characters don't understand the rules that their universe operates on. If it's some commoner that we're talking about? Maybe. If it's a fighter, or a dragon, or a rogue, or any monster/class/character that would be expected to know how to fight? It's absurd to think that they wouldn't.
And honestly, D&D/PF combat isn't, and has never been roleplaying hour. It's always been tactical combat, which means that it has always been about characters being aware of the combat mechanics. There's a limited number of universal or near universal actions in combat, like power attack, rapid shot, total defense or charging, and it would be reasonable to expect that they would look similar. Unless we're describing combat in a way that is similar to how we saw it turn based video games, where characters are just standing around, almost dancing, it's not unreasonable to expect players or enemies to know what total defense looks like.
It's not metagamey for a character to recognize that Armor+Shield makes someone harder to hit than cloth, or to know that "when I run past a character, I get hit," or that "I can probably make it that far." That's not metagaming. To imply otherwise would be to imply that characters don't understand the rules that their universe operates on. If it's some commoner that we're talking about? Maybe. If it's a fighter, or a dragon, or a rogue, or any monster/class/character that would be expected to know how to fight? It's absurd to think that they wouldn't.Except those are not the situation as described. Those are obvious and are straw men. What's LESS obvious is: will he swing at me if I run past? Can he even swing at me if I run past? After all, you can only declare total defense on your own turn. If it makes you happier, if I have initiative "I ready myself for Total Defense against the first attacker coming at me". There. You'll only "Turtle Up" if someone takes a swing at you that round. Until then, you don't 'Look' defensive.
Here's the problem with that question. It's not the important question.
The question is: Would it be better for me to stand next to him and risk being hit multiple times, or run past him and risk being hit once? Unless I think he can successfully trip me, or somehow hinder my movement past him with a combat maneuver, running past the target is almost always the better option. Even if I am worried about being tripped, I'm going to gamble that I have a high enough CMD (especially if I'm a gargantuan monster), that it won't succeed most of the time. Besides, if they can trip, they're probably using combat expertise to fight defensively, anyway.
In the second situation you described, the character going into total defense made the worst mistake possible: He's sacrificing his initiative advantage for the entire combat, for the advantage of doing nothing that helps his team that round. He traded a chance to charge and possibly kill the enemy (who at the start of combat will be flat-footed), or at least force base to base/face to face combat, where almost any action would provoke an AOO, for the ability to be hit 20% less often.
Killing the enemy faster will prevent you and your friends from taking more damage, than you becoming harder to hit, and that's why it's bad.
Why run past him at all? It just sets you up to be flanked and surrounded. Armor/ Hey what with glamored armor, hat of disquise and monks, who know who has the high AC in the party?
However, i agree- unless you're a Knight or some similar class, Total defense on getting the Init is bad tactics.
Why run past him at all? It just sets you up to be flanked and surrounded. Armor/ Hey what with glamored armor, hat of disquise and monks, who know who has the high AC in the party?
However, i agree- unless you're a Knight or some similar class, Total defense on getting the Init is bad tactics.
Oh, it's probably gotten me in trouble a couple of times, and if you're fighting a final boss or similar situation, they might even use knowledge of that tactic against me with the means you bring up.
But honestly, how often is it a mistake to try and get into a melee with the monk? :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite: The human mantlet.
Total Defense + heavy armor/shield up front, bow or reach weapon wielded by ally behind you. It's a great way to advance up stairs or in crowded hallways. +4 AC from cover goes both ways.
Make sure you take Covering Defense to really help out your partner.
...Here's the problem with that question. It's not the important question.
The question is: Would it be better for me to stand next to him and risk being hit multiple times, or run past him and risk being hit once?
...
But it is the question the thread is about.
The OP was asking about a situation where a character (NPC or PC irrelevant) takes the option of total defense. (Not a question on whether that is a good tactic or not.)
The opposition, simply because he took that option, decides to ignore the defensive character because he is not a threat. Safely walks past him without getting an AoO, to attack the second line that he was trying to block from access.
That was not going to be his tactic all along. He had not decided to accept the AoO and go after the second line. It only became his tactic specifically because the first character took the option of total defense.
Many of us (myself included) believe that to be moderately serious metagaming.
This discussion has led me to the belief that Total Defense should not prevent attacks of opportunity (perhaps penalize them slightly instead). ...
Agreed. I think what I will propose for my group is that the character may, as an immediate action, chose to come out of Total Defense and take an AoO at a penalty of -4 to hit. He will no longer get the benefits of Total Defense for the remainder of the round until his next turn. Seem reasonable?
|
|
Make sure you take Covering Defense to really help out your partner.
Good call on Covering Defense. The Shield Focus requirement is too much for my Fighter at present, but that strategy is awesome.
@Kydeem
Agreed. It's kind of hard for a GM to avoid meta with things as they are.
A party really needs to work together to make this work.
I also think that AOOs should be available at a penalty, although thinking of the concept, I don't see why they are impossible in the first place.
Invisibility comes to mind. You cannot take AOOs against an invisible opponent; why can't you take one when you're able to see them just fine?
AOOs, especially Combat Maneuvers, should be perfectly reasonable when in Total Defense.
That's only legit if you play PCs & Monsters know how well they roll. I mean, how do they know they didn't roll a 2? Giving up after one try is a little specious. After a FAO, sure.The toughest dilemma:
Full attack on total defense target.
Single attack on other target. Often I'll take the first attack on the total defense target. If it hits, continue full-attack. If it misses, use the opportunity to position.
I'm sorry? Isn't that backwards? Their actions are entirely based on the result, not the roll.
Honestly, this backfires quite frequently - quite often they'll hit that first attack on a 19 or 20, and continue their full-attack, and another full-attack the next round - they hit them after all.
... Ahh... I think I see what you mean - you mean it's metagamy for the creature to assume the target is on total defense if they miss, not really anything to do with the roll. That's reasonable. However I think the sum of their action (notably, reduced offensive actions), plus an interaction with their defenses, is sufficient to hazard a guess. Plus, having this little routine helps me metagame less, and keep the pace up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Halfling cavalier uses Total Defense at least once a combat.
Why? He has Blundering Defense, so his adjacent allies all get +4 to AC when he uses Total Defense. He also has the Call for Help trait, so all his allies get +1 to Attack and Damage against anyone who's threatening him when he starts Total Defense.
Eventually, he'll get the feat that lets him take an AoO on a round he uses Total Defense, but that's still a few levels out.
Total Defense is an option that you can take without needing to make any character build investment. Free options are never useless. Situational, sure, but useless? Never.
Just wanted to clarify that I do not think Total Defense is useless. I have used it to great effect before. I was merely stating various opinions I have seen on these boards in relation to full defense.
Here is why I don't like total defense, at least not beyond level 6 (as a PC of otherwise). Even if the opponent doesn't believe that I am unable to attack him, most enemies could still be going through this acceptable line of reasoning*
- He didn't attack me? Is he in total defense or just waiting for something?
- If he's in total defense, he can't attack me. If he isn't be can probably only take one AOO
- 1 attack < 2 attacks. I'll ignore him now and focus on the less armored thing shooting fireballs.
- If I attack them, he'll have to respond, so the people behind me are still safe.
*assumes intelligent enemy. Dumb animals don't attack the strong guy in armor
These, for the most part, seem like something that would be going through the player's head rather than the character.
I will make an observation, based on my real life experience for whatever that is worth.
While not a master by any means, I have had some martial arts training. I would say above level 1 monk rough equivalent (maybe even above level 2 depending upon how you judge such things). I have been in a few non-dojo fights (but not all that many).
I can not usually tell just by initial glance at someone if they are looking to knock me out as soon as they get a chance (standard type actions), mostly just blocking while looking for a good opening (fighting defensively), or just trying to keep me from hurting them (total defense). After a few seconds yes, then I can tell. But not immediately.
Total defense is not cowering in the corner behind a shield. That would actually make you very easy to hurt. Defense means concentrating on blocking attacks, dodging attacks, etc... Part of that is making feints back at the other person, changing your stance to look like you are getting ready to throw a powerful hook, pulling up like you are going to launch a kick, etc... If you don't keep the other person on their defensive toes, your defense doesn't work very well. If they would know they don't have to guard against counter blows at all and can concentrate exclusively on offense, it becomes easier to hit you. So a good 'total defense' will not immediately look significantly different from fighting while trying not to get hit.Even then, when I have decided that someone is not seriously trying to hit me. There is no way they are so oblivious that I could just ignore them and walk past without them being able to change their mind and me getting walloped when I try it.
This is only possible due to the turn based approximation of this combat simulation's rules. Anyone taking advantage of an opponent's total defense to know they can waltz by someone without risk, is definitely metagaming.
Agreed - I have experience in Hapkido and I sparred for years and have been in a few fights. It's not completely obvious why the other person is not attacking. People who aren't experienced fighters tend to go to one extreme or the other. They either attack OR defend - they don't do both and it is usually their downfall. You are right - defense is about feinting and instilling in the other person the fear that you are going to attack.
I also agree that you could not just walk past and ignore somebody but I think the mechanic to blame isn't turn based combat in general but that full defense does not let you take AoOs.
Most intelligent creatures I play would, after a couple of full attacks where the other party is not attacking back, assume the other party is too injured to fight. There's still other people, capable of fighting, that need to be disabled... they can always come back to the injured one. So, they'll leave. Thus, why total defense is a bad idea.
Now, there are exceptions... if you're blocking a doorway with your body and using total defense? They have to fight you, no matter what.
...
On ignoring someone who's in full defence: Depends on the situation. There is a big difference between assuming that he's no threat and deciding that he's probably less of a threat than the guy wearing the dress and making strange gestures.
Agreed, I often decide to absorb the AoO damage to get past/around the front line to stop the caster or archers in back. That is good tactics.
But most of these people are not really talking about that. It is the GM or players deciding "Oh, you're on total defense, so no longer a threat, and can't make AoO. So I will just walk by and kill the others." So it only became the tactics once they realized the character was on total defense.
Exactly
|
|
Playing a bard healer/cc build, I will be performing to boost my buddies and sitting on my spells until we take enough damage to matter. Extra piddly damage I could possibly do would never validate opening myself up to being splattered in one turn. I will be using TD regularly, if the GM ignores me then the party will probably be happy to not have to waste time protecting the healer.
As a DM I have done the opposite having monsters focus a payer using total defence as he was clearly on his last legs and the enemy would want to take him out, the guy next to him got the added benafit of not getting attaced that round and that extra ac saved the players life. Now if a player at full or near full hp used total def for more then a couple rounds the damage from other players would "aggro" the enemys and then he/she would get ignored because for me the monsters dont know what ac is but they can identify the biggest threat on the battle field and work to take it out
Now, there are exceptions... if you're blocking a doorway with your body and using total defense? They have to fight you, no matter what.
That's what overrun is for. Can't kill it and have to get through? Just charge and see what happens.