| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi,
I've been using my google fu to no avail trying to understand how this extremely poorly worded Deed is supposed to work.
As it stands, the wording is absolute nonsense. It is clear that the author mixed up their understanding of the rules.
The Deed is worded thusly:
Dizzying Defense (Ex): 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.
There are many different opinions on the internet on how this was supposed to work:
1.) The Swift action allows you to fight defensively including the attack. Effectively giving you an extra attack at the cost of a panache point and a swift action
2.)The Swift action is meant to be taken at the end of the round after attacks have been made so as to give you the AC bonus but not take the attack penalties (unless you are making an AOO).
3.) The wording of "Fighting Defensively" was mistaken with the "Total Defense" action and the ability is intended to allow you to take the total defense action and still attack.
All of these seem to me to be a stretch
Let's try to get an official ruling
Thanks!
There is a Fourth option (I'm rather partial to this one)
4.) While fighting defensively, The swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to increase the Dodge bonus to AC by 2 and decrease the attack penalty by 2
It seems under powered for a 15th level ability, but it does seem to me to be the closest to what the author intended.
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 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Normally you can fight defensively as part of a standard attack which modifies that attack, or fight defensively as part of a full-attack action. The penalties and bonuses are the same in either case.
Really, remove the part about activating as a swift action. You spend panache to reduce the penalties and increase the bonuses gained from fighting defensively.
A strict reading might use 4) above, spending the swift action and panache point to change the adnjstments for fighting defensively, if you then declare FD as your standard or full round action.
I read it as "you may spend a swift action in order to increase your dodge bonus/reduce your attack penalty". The swift action is a cost, because swashbucklers have a lot of things to do with those.
I read it as "you may spend a swift action in order to increase your dodge bonus/reduce your attack penalty". The swift action is a cost, because swashbucklers have a lot of things to do with those.
That could be. Using up the swift action to do this would actually make sense.
I agree with Java Man and Possible Cabbage. That seems like the most reasonable interpretation.
However, I don't think you should have to make an attack on your turn.
For example:
You could use your swift and panache point to use dizzying defense, then, spend the Full round setting up a Combat Patrol and then be able to fight defensively on your AOOs.
|
3.) The wording of "Fighting Defensively" was mistaken with the "Total Defense" action and the ability is intended to allow you to take the total defense action and still attack.
The reason this gets bandied about as a theory is because in the playtest the deed did exactly that. It got changed to the current wording between the second playtest document and the final release.
As for getting a ruling, people have been trying for the last three years without success. Search "dizzying" on this forum; you'll come up with numerous threads. I hope it works this time, but history says it won't.