| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
At 15th level, while wielding a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon in one hand, the swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to take the fighting defensively action as a swift action instead of a standard action. When fighting defensively in this manner, the dodge bonus to AC gained from that action increases to +4, and the penalty to attack rolls is reduced to –2.
and
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 until the start of your next turn.
Based on this, here's my understanding:
Vanilla fighting defensively- As a standard action, one can attack once, at -4 to hit and +2 to AC
- Since this is a standard action, one can't use this as part of a Full Attack action (so you only get one swing)
Dizzying defense + fighting defensively
- As a swift action (plus 1 panache), one can attack once, at -2 to hit and +4 to AC
- Since this is a swift action, one still gets to use a Standard or Full Attack action.
Some examples:
- A 15th level swashbuckler making a full attack (not fighting defensively or using dizzying defense) gets 3 attacks
- A 15th level swashbuckler fighting defensively as a standard action gets 1 attack
- A 15th level swashbuckler fighting defensively as a swift action via dizzying defense can also make a full attack, getting a total of 4 attacks (all at -2 to hit, +4 to AC)
Am I reading this correctly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying Fighting Defensively is its own Standard Action falls into the same loophole as Monkey Lunge, since it doesn't actually grant an attack by RAW, meaning you're spending a Standard Action to grant Fighting Defensively modifiers, but are then left with no Standard or Full Round Action to actually make attacks.
I prefer to think of Fighting Defensively as applicable as Power Attack, in that you can choose to apply regular modifiers, or implement the modifiers granted by the subject matter. Additionally, I find the same modifiers and penalties for Fighting Defensively can be equally applicable to actions like Aid Another or utilizing Combat Maneuvers, something which by RAW would not prohibit doing, though there are effects which pertain to them that Fighting Defensively and Power Attack would allow.
To be honest, the ability in question has a lot of unneeded and contradicting language, since it seems to imply you can't do a Full Attack when you can already Full Attack while Fighting Defensively anyway. I can also sit here and munchkin this, meaning I can actually Fight Defensively twice, allowing me +6 to AC and -6 to hit, which I hardly doubt is the intent. It also leads to a lot of complication when you try to use feats like Crane Style in conjunction, and how it interacts with the 3 Rank Acrobatics bonus, since it would appear that it actually supersedes those modifiers when you actually fulfill that all along.
It should be simplified to apply thusly:
At 15th level, while wielding a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon in one hand, the swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to increase the dodge bonus to AC and reduce the penalty to attack rolls while fighting defensively by 2 (minimum 0). Activating this ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
This clears up many factors. Like how the AC bonus to Fighting Defensively adds up in comparison to other subjects that enhance it, like Crane Style and 3 Rank Acrobatics bonus, makes those bonuses not wasted, and further denotes that it can actually work in conjunction with other forms of Fighting Defensively, which it should have all along. It also makes it a much more attractive option for when the Swashbuckler needs bursts of offense (0 penalty with Crane Style benefits active) and/or defense (an extra 2 to AC helps when dealing with the major hitters).
There are two actions:
1) Fighting defensively as a standard action is an attack action and you apply fighting defensively modifiers until the beginning of your next turn.
2) Fighting defensively with a full-attack gives you a full attack and you apply the modifiers.
This ability seems to take 1) and make it a swift action. So by my reading the OP is correct. For 1 panache, you get to apply the fighting defensively modifier and make an attack as a swift action. You can then make a full-attack in addition to this. You could fight defensively with this full-attack, too, but doing so would have no result, since modifiers from the same source do not stack.
While I agree that this is an odd and seemingly unprecedented ability (except for caster, who've always have was to turn swift actions into standard actions...), but that is how it's written.
There are two actions:
1) Fighting defensively as a standard action is an attack action and you apply fighting defensively modifiers until the beginning of your next turn.
2) Fighting defensively with a full-attack gives you a full attack and you apply the modifiers.This ability seems to take 1) and make it a swift action. So by my reading the OP is correct. For 1 panache, you get to apply the fighting defensively modifier and make an attack as a swift action. You can then make a full-attack in addition to this. You could fight defensively with this full-attack, too, but doing so would have no result, since modifiers from the same source do not stack.
While I agree that this is an odd and seemingly unprecedented ability (except for caster, who've always have was to turn swift actions into standard actions...), but that is how it's written.
Fighting Defensively does not actually grant you attacks, according to RAW. Taking Fighting Defensively to require a Standard Action to activate, as I said above, falls into the same loophole as the Monkey Lunge feat. You either take the action with the generic modifiers, or you take the altered modifiers with no action left to actually take the activity.
They aren't defined as being their own action type in the table, and having them become their own action type in the description still leads to the same problem as above, since it doesn't actually say you get to make attacks when doing those actions.
Also, review the stacking sentence closely:
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
The bolded part is the subject that the italicized part applies to, and when switch around, you get this.
Unless they are from the same source, bonuses without a type always stack.
So, the Same Source clause only applies if the bonus granted is untyped. Since Fighting Defensively gives a typed bonus (Dodge), by RAW it's not subjected to the clause.
Additionally, this clause for Penalties applies here:
Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So, since most penalties stack together, you could by RAW, in fact, double dip for the +6/-6, or I could extrapolate the clause for Bonuses to be equally applicable to penalties, leaving the Swashbuckler actually able to grant a +6/-2 instead of a +4/-2.
However, that whole stacking issue is a bunch of hooey anyway, and no sane GM would allow that kind of combination.
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 until the start of your next turn.
It seems very clear to me that this say nothing more than that fighting defensively is a version of the attack action, one which activates to mentioned modifiers.
The entry for fighting defensively as a full-attack is even a sub-heading of the full-attack section.
The attack action and the full-attack action thus come in two flavours each, one simpliciter and one "defensively".
As for the modifiers.
While "most penalties stack", there is the clear precedent that penalties from several instances of the same spell (e.g. "ray of enfeeblement") do not stack with each other. In fact, I cannot think of a single case where a penalty from the same source stacks with itself.
The one remaining problem is that the bonuses provided by fighting defensively are dodge bonuses and those explicitly stack with one another. But it seems to me that we can extend the general implied principle that modifiers from the same source do not stack here too.
Which points to a similar problem: If I am subject to several haste spells, do the dodge bonuses they grant stack? Here the two rulings (dodge bonuses stack & modifiers from the same spell do not stack) are in conflict.
It seems reasonable to me, to assume that even dodge bonuses from the same source do not stack. This not borne out in the letter of the rules anywhere, but seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation, given the difficulties here under scrutiny.
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 until the start of your next turn.
It seems very clear to me that this say nothing more than that fighting defensively is a version of the attack action, one which activates to mentioned modifiers.
The entry for fighting defensively as a full-attack is even a sub-heading of the full-attack section.
The attack action and the full-attack action thus come in two flavours each, one simpliciter and one "defensively".
As for the modifiers.
While "most penalties stack", there is the clear precedent that penalties from several instances of the same spell (e.g. "ray of enfeeblement") do not stack with each other. In fact, I cannot think of a single case where a penalty from the same source stacks with itself.The one remaining problem is that the bonuses provided by fighting defensively are dodge bonuses and those explicitly stack with one another. But it seems to me that we can extend the general implied principle that modifiers from the same source do not stack here too.
Which points to a similar problem: If I am subject to several haste spells, do the dodge bonuses they grant stack? Here the two rulings (dodge bonuses stack & modifiers from the same spell do not stack) are in conflict.
It seems reasonable to me, to assume that even dodge bonuses from the same source do not stack. This not borne out in the letter of the rules anywhere, but seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation, given the difficulties here under scrutiny.
Yes, and you activate mentioned modifiers as a standard action, which we can restrict even further to be only applicable when you are making an attack. So RAW, you need two standard actions (or in the case of full attack, a standard and a full round action).
When you have a base rule that needs its own action to carry out, and you have an extra rule which requires usage of the very same action, it doesn't end well when it comes to being able to actually use both of them, because by the rules, you actually can't.
This token can also be applicable to all Combat Maneuvers, which we all know they should, but by RAW do not since they aren't attacks, and several of which don't follow the Standard Action rule, and even if they did, still fall into the same loophole as above.
Quite frankly, you might as well throw the RAW for Fighting Defensively out the window, since it just convolutes the rules and a player's options when it obviously shouldn't, given the intent behind those rules.
In regards to the Haste spell, the "Modifiers from the Same Spell Don't Stack" clause supersedes the "Dodge Bonuses Stack" clause, since the Dodge Bonuses in question were granted by the Haste spell, meaning their stacking ability is cut off due to originating from a spell.
However, Fighting Defensively is not a spell, so that restriction clause is irrelevant to the Swashbuckler being able to apply the effects of Fighting Defensively twice at the cost of one Panache.
Additionally, the Full Attack Fighting Defensively is technically a separate entity in comparison to the Standard Action Fighting Defensively that the Swashbuckler ability emulates, meaning those wouldn't fall under the "same bonuses" and whatnot, leading them to actually, in fact, stack.
My modified version of the Swashbuckler ability clears up that sort of confusion, cleans up the clutter, and fixes the stacking issues. It's also a lot less likely to lead to differing interpretations, like what we're having currently.
Have there been any recent comments from developers on how Dizzying Defence should work?
|
I have seen a few posts on this matter that seem to suggest this ability grants another attack. I do not see how this ability was in any way intended to do that.
Trying to decipher it, I think it -mostly- means the Swashbuckler gains an improved version of Fighting Defensively numerically (+4/-2), but as a swift action it can have an addition application:
Since a swift action can happen at any point during your turn, you could conceivably take a standard or full attack action as normal, without penalty, and afterwards activate this ability to boost your armor class until your next turn. This would mean that the negative to attack rolls would only apply to attacks of opportunity. On this line of thought, it could be used with versatility to increase your defense based on the out-come of your actions as they occur: say you provoke from an enemy by failing and acrobatics check, or an enemy unleashed a readied action at you. At this point, you could freely attack offensively while having the ability to activate a +4 AC bonus at any point during your onslaught should fate turn sour for you.
This is my thoughts on how it's intended, and I think makes the ability as a whole more thoughtful and effective for an ability of its level. Thoughts?