I would make the player's life miserable.
That's a lot of hate for wanting a small AC bonus.
I'd compare the concept with using a combat style (Quixote Style, prerequisite: the player must like cheese.), and you can't be in a combat style before combat.
I'd compare the concept with using a combat style (Quixote Style, prerequisite: the player must like cheese.), and you can't be in a combat style before combat.
Conceptually, I'd say the same. RAW, however, does not agree.
Uncanny Dodge
Which is an extraordinary ability, ie not mundane, as in not everybody can do it, in other words you must train on specific classes to obtain the specific ability to "keep your guard up all the time".
Extraordinary abilities are unusual abilities that do not rely on magic to function. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
You can attack a square against a foe when he may or may not be there, or even a threat.
So, why can't a player defend against that same unknown enemy?
If you announce an attack and there is someone or something to defend against, that's called The Surprise Round;
It's a standard action.
One practical problem that can be inferred from the rules (and has been by someone on the first page) is that you suffer non-lethal damage after an hour of moving while on full defensive and become fatigued for as long as you have that damage.
|
If a player is willing to spend the actions and move more slowly outside of combat in order to get a dodge bonus to AC, I'm going to allow it. They do give up their ability to take AoO's until they act, and NPCs may react in an interesting way to the character looking so extra careful outside of a fight.
That's a lot of hate for wanting a small AC bonus.
I would make the player's life miserable.
It's a lot of rules lawyer for a small AC bonus. I would say no, and if they argued, say sure, but it's gonna suck.
Not that different from a character constantly detecting evil. There are specific and easy to define downsides (you are using your standard action for that, so will not be using it for anything else while you maintain the total defence / detection).
All the out of initiative game play is still based on the same action structure combat is based on, just simplified to make the game more enjoyable.
I would say no, and if they argued, say sure, but it's gonna suck.
Is it: "sure, but it's gonna suck"
or: "sure", but it's gonna suck
The difference is in the player being warned in advance
I would say no, and if they argued, say sure, but it's gonna suck.Is it: "sure, but it's gonna suck"
or: "sure", but it's gonna suck
The difference is in the player being warned in advance
Most likely,
"Sure, but it's gonna suck. I don't think the intent of the book was to let you, as a rogue [or insert class that gives the ability here] have a permanent bonus to AC. It seems a bit silly, and would have most likely been mentioned in the text or errata'd.
You can't take any standard actions, and most NPC interactions are technically moderated by skill checks, which now you can't do. I know that we don't normally make you roll, but this is a very literal and technical argument that you are putting forth, so I'm gonna say the same back."
We had a similar argument about medium serpents back in 3.5 when I was a new DM, when I mentioned that it could fit through a gap the PCs couldn't, due to the different shape. They didn't like it, and wanted to go with the RAW. We did, and I didn't warn them about the consequences. It ended poorly. We as a group now don't try to rules lawyer so much.
If you have an ability like Uncanny Dodge can you use the Total Defense action constantly to get a constant +4-6 to AC while out of combat? Is there any reason not to do this?
You are flat-footed when you are out of combat, and you can't use total defense when you are flat-footed.
I really don't think it's that big of a deal in a dungeon. Rarely have I seen groups actually move at full speed out of combat. They're always moving at half speed so people can either check for traps or hidden doors, constantly have detect magic up, detect evil, guidance, resistance, or some other ability.
Which brings up the inherent balancing factor of someone using his standard action for total defense constantly. And that is that he is not using his standard action for anything else, such as checking for traps, casting detect magic, detect evil, guidance, etc.
|
I really don't think it's that big of a deal in a dungeon. Rarely have I seen groups actually move at full speed out of combat. They're always moving at half speed so people can either check for traps or hidden doors, constantly have detect magic up, detect evil, guidance, resistance, or some other ability.
Which brings up the inherent balancing factor of someone using his standard action for total defense constantly. And that is that he is not using his standard action for anything else, such as checking for traps, casting detect magic, detect evil, guidance, etc.
The half speed would be more a compromise. "Walking" is one move action and no Standard actions per turn. "Hustling" is a 2 move actions each turn (using your standard action to move a second time). So Total Defense while moving means you are Hustling to move at full speed for one action, while spending another action to Total Defense. This isn't the same thing as moving at half speed through difficult terrain or while using stealth, as those require moving half speed with a move action.
Yeah, if a player wants to constantly recast detect evil while moving, it would also be Hustling. Hustling shouldn't be attempting for longer than 1 hour, but penalties don't really set in until the second hour. GM ruling on if this is the start or end of the second hour, but I lean towards the end of the second hour to be generous to the PCs. I wouln't hard nose about this, but using standard actions while moving or constantly using full round actions should take a toll on the PCs if used excessively (Like if the PC wants to make standard actions while moving for a multiple hour period).
Basically, I'd let the OP do it, but I wouldn't let them do it all day. I'd allow it for an hour or so, then require a break period. Not sleep, but some sort of rest. Or I'd give you the fatigued condition and non-lethal damage (which, as noted, is removable via magical healing and if the the non-lethal is removed, also removes the fatigue).
If a player wants to continously use standard actions while moving, I suggest getting a mount to do the moving for you. I would allow mounted PCs to use total defense for themselves while "walking", if the mount is doing the moving and the PC is not using their move actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually didn't know about the detailed movement rules so thanks for that. After having read them though I don't think they are a problem for what the OP wants to do.
From the d20pfsrd:
There are three movement scales, as follows:
Tactical, for combat, measured in feet (or 5-foot squares) per round.
Local, for exploring an area, measured in feet per minute.
Overland, for getting from place to place, measured in miles per hour or miles per day.
and then farther down:
Hustle
A character can hustle without a problem on the local scale. See Overland Movement, below, for movement measured in miles per hour.
So there is no "out of combat" or "in combat" movement (what I originally thought) there is actually three movement types: tactical (which is combat obviously), local area, and overland.
Overland to me is what you see in Lord of the Rings, where the party is covering large distances going from town to town or geographic area to geographic area. Exploring a local area, like around town or a dungeon, would fall under local movement rules which state that "A character can hustle without a problem on the local scale".
Now having written all that, I'm still going to agree with with Murdock Mudeater that the rules should probably be bent a little for verisimilitude's sake. Have them take a break to catch their breathe after a couple hours or at least stop for lunch or something. At our home table we break for meals or snacks a few times so I didn't think about going for hours on end.
I'll stick with RAI = it's not the intention of the rule so it's not allowed whether it specifically says so or not.
The only time it has come up in our games is in the "Drat I can't go Total Defense out of Combat I'll have to move first" sense.
There is no reason to ban it.
Just remind the player that whenever he takes any standard action, he will have to drop the total defense.
Considering that the rogue has uncanny dodge I say allow it. The poor thing needs as many bones as you can throw it. Plus I can easily imagine a rogue being hyper paranoid about enemies showing up out of f!%#ing nowhere and smacking them in the face, happens to mine all the time.
I see no rules against it, and that includes RAI. I would allow it. I think total defense requires a standard action so it would make him move slower.
I would get paranoid If I had such a weak class like rogue, too.
I see no reason allowing obvious cheese like this instead of just houseruling a rogue buff (full BAB and 10HD would be a good start).
But there's not any RaI like that anywhere.
It's listed under "Actions in Combat", which means that it's intended to be used in combat.
I would get paranoid If I had such a weak class like rogue, too.
I see no reason allowing obvious cheese like this instead of just houseruling a rogue buff (full BAB and 10HD would be a good start).
But there's not any RaI like that anywhere.It's listed under "Actions in Combat", which means that it's intended to be used in combat.
It says actions in combat because that is normally when actions are used. There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly. If that was the case certain things would say "you can do this even when not in combat".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says actions in combat because that is normally when actions are used. There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly. If that was the case certain things would say "you can do this even when not in combat".I would get paranoid If I had such a weak class like rogue, too.
I see no reason allowing obvious cheese like this instead of just houseruling a rogue buff (full BAB and 10HD would be a good start).
But there's not any RaI like that anywhere.It's listed under "Actions in Combat", which means that it's intended to be used in combat.
Yeah, going off of that logic you couldn't even attack someone outside of combat. So no opening a fight with an attack or sniping or other sneaky attacks.
Yeah, going off of that logic you couldn't even attack someone outside of combat. So no opening a fight with an attack or sniping or other sneaky attacks.It says actions in combat because that is normally when actions are used. There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly. If that was the case certain things would say "you can do this even when not in combat".I would get paranoid If I had such a weak class like rogue, too.
I see no reason allowing obvious cheese like this instead of just houseruling a rogue buff (full BAB and 10HD would be a good start).
But there's not any RaI like that anywhere.It's listed under "Actions in Combat", which means that it's intended to be used in combat.Um, you can't.
As soon as one agent in a scenario decides to attack, initiative should be rolled and perception or other relevant checks made. Just because you say your character is going to launch an attack "unexpectedly" doesn't mean that your characters intentions and/or presence weren't noticed by the target prior to your character executing the attack.
This is the kind of thing that I referenced in my post earlier. Players who want to take actions like this are trying to bypass the combat rules and give themselves a free attack action without the target having any ability to respond or prepare.
If a character is going to try to launch a surprise attack from a hidden position, the target should be allowed a Perception check to notice. If a surprise attack is being launched while in a visible position, the target should have a Sense Motive check to notice the hostile intent. If the target noticed the PC's hostile intent, the PC will not get that free attack.
Another example(s) would be many of the actions described on that list that can happen outside of combat such as casting spells, drawing items, using skills such as perception or intimidate, or dismounting a mount. At least half of the things on the "Actions In Combat" list can be done out of combat. Even moving is on the list, but I don't think anyone is going to say you can't move unless you are in combat.
|
|
Yeah, going off of that logic you couldn't even attack someone outside of combat. So no opening a fight with an attack or sniping or other sneaky attacks.It says actions in combat because that is normally when actions are used. There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly. If that was the case certain things would say "you can do this even when not in combat".I would get paranoid If I had such a weak class like rogue, too.
I see no reason allowing obvious cheese like this instead of just houseruling a rogue buff (full BAB and 10HD would be a good start).
But there's not any RaI like that anywhere.It's listed under "Actions in Combat", which means that it's intended to be used in combat.Um, you can't.
As soon as one agent in a scenario decides to attack, initiative should be rolled and perception or other relevant checks made. Just because you say your character is going to launch an attack "unexpectedly" doesn't mean that your characters intentions and/or presence weren't noticed by the target prior to your character executing the attack.
This is the kind of thing that I referenced in my post earlier. Players who want to take actions like this are trying to bypass the combat rules and give themselves a free attack action without the target having any ability to respond or prepare.
If a character is going to try to launch a surprise attack from a hidden position, the target should be allowed a Perception check to notice. If a surprise attack is being launched while in a visible position, the target should have a Sense Motive check to notice the hostile intent. If the target noticed the PC's hostile intent, the PC will not get that free attack.
And you don't have to be in combat to roll a perception check. You can use sniping outside of combat. And perception checks.
As for melee, uh yeah, it's called a surprise round. and it's what STARTS combat. Saying you want to surprise someone with an attack but the GM has everyone roll initiative so that the action that starts combat doesn't actually start the combat is pretty absurd.
The action that you want to start the combat might not be the actual first action of the combat. Sniper wants to take a shot? This happens:
Surprise
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.
Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
The target may spot the sniper, win initiative and kill you before you can take the shot.
There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly.
That's why I said "intended".
Another example(s) would be many of the actions described on that list that can happen outside of combat such as casting spells, drawing items, using skills such as perception or...
And most if not all these things have in rules examples of out-of-combate use. Skills have text where they list their OoC uses. Movement has a seperate part of the rules dedicated all to itself in which non-combat movement gets detailed. A lot of spells explicitly state OoC effect.
Total defense has not a single word about OoC use anywhere in the rules.
But whatever, if you want to make the Defensive Strategist trait even stronger, and have all your characters even though they chose to follow the extremely dangerous profession of adventurer be so scared that they can't even properly talk to people, go ahead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But whatever, if you want to make the Defensive Strategist trait even stronger, and have all your characters even though they chose to follow the extremely dangerous profession of adventurer be so scared that they can't even properly talk to people, go ahead.
Don't be an ass. You use this tactic where appropriate, not all the time.
Except for the people who talk about "constantly" or "[while going] from place to place with their guard up and being paranoid" you mean?
I don't have a problem with doing this when you actually expect danger. I had an agreement with my GM for my first character that my monk could do something like this (enter Crane Stance) in situations where assuming a defensive position makes sense.
There is nothing saying "must be used in combat" directly or indirectly.That's why I said "intended".
Another example(s) would be many of the actions described on that list that can happen outside of combat such as casting spells, drawing items, using skills such as perception or...And most if not all these things have in rules examples of out-of-combate use. Skills have text where they list their OoC uses. Movement has a seperate part of the rules dedicated all to itself in which non-combat movement gets detailed. A lot of spells explicitly state OoC effect.
Total defense has not a single word about OoC use anywhere in the rules.
But whatever, if you want to make the Defensive Strategist trait even stronger, and have all your characters even though they chose to follow the extremely dangerous profession of adventurer be so scared that they can't even properly talk to people, go ahead.
You have yet to prove intent. That is the point I was also trying to make. So far you have your belief, and I am all about RAI, but you should have something to support that belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the intent of the book was to let you, as a rogue [or insert class that gives the ability here] have a permanent bonus to AC.
Without really having an opinion here, I do have to say that calling it a permanent bonus to AC is a bit disingenuous. It's a bonus to AC against attacks made against you before your first turn in any given combat, at the cost of halving your effective out of combat movement speed and denying you access to a large number of actions while you're maintaining that bonus.
You have yet to prove intent. That is the point I was also trying to make. So far you have your belief, and I am all about RAI, but you should have something to support that belief.
There are rules for for doing movement all day long, but no rules for doing Total Defense all day long. For me, that makes it pretty what's intended and what's not. That's the best I can do. if that's not enough for you, re-read the last sentence of my post that you quoted.
|
|
You have yet to prove intent. That is the point I was also trying to make. So far you have your belief, and I am all about RAI, but you should have something to support that belief.There are rules for for doing movement all day long, but no rules for doing Total Defense all day long. For me, that makes it pretty what's intended and what's not. That's the best I can do. if that's not enough for you, re-read the last sentence of my post that you quoted.
Are there rules for fighting in a battle that lasts 100 Rounds? 1,000 Rounds?
Okay seen enough "Actions in Combat" so no you can't Gonna have to fire off some things and ask if you allow them out of combat.
1. Aid another
2. Drink a potion
3. Activate a magic item
4. Light a torch with a tindertwig
5. Stabilizing a dying friend.
6. Open or close a door
7. Pick up a heavy item
8. Mount or dismount a steed.
These are all on that list so do we need to be in combat for that?
I can just see the revolt from the players when they just dispatch their last enemy but have someone in negative hit points and a low constitution and the players not being able to stabilize them because they aren't in combat.
I can just see the revolt from the players when they just dispatch their last enemy but have someone in negative hit points and a low constitution and the players not being able to stabilize them because they aren't in combat.
*Shakes head*
Silly Martial, we can still Stabilize with Magic!
I can just see the revolt from the players when they just dispatch their last enemy but have someone in negative hit points and a low constitution and the players not being able to stabilize them because they aren't in combat.*Shakes head*
Silly Martial, we can still Stabilize with Magic!
9. Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)
I can just see the revolt from the players when they just dispatch their last enemy but have someone in negative hit points and a low constitution and the players not being able to stabilize them because they aren't in combat.
You might want to stabilize them while still in combat. They bleed out each round.
I must admit though, the list does make me reconsider if the only in combat argument makes sense.
actions in combat list != combat actions.
Fighting defensively, total defense, damaging actions, combat styles, etc. These are the "combat actions" that people are meaning when they say no combat actions. These are actions that make sense to do in combat, but not out of combat.
Obviously you can take an "action in combat" outside of combat. The problem here is with the question of how long you can maintain a state of peak alertness. At some point, even if you have Uncanny Dodge, you need to relax for a bit and catch your breath. Maintaining total defense for hours on end brings up similar issues to a witch using the Cackle hex for a similar period of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you define combat actions? When is an action considered combat or not combat. If I am breaking down a door is that combat or non-combat. Since casting a spell is under same heading of "Standard Actions" is it a combat action? Or are only certain spells?
actions in combat list != combat actions.
Fighting defensively, total defense, damaging actions, combat styles, etc. These are the "combat actions" that people are meaning when they say no combat actions. These are actions that make sense to do in combat, but not out of combat.
What makes sense for you is not the same list of things that makes sense for me.
Total defense prior to combat coupled with the class ability that prevents you from being flat footed is, quite frankly, in my list of something that makes sense.
It takes something that prevents a negative and puts it in the net positive category.
I call that a win.