Are there rules for total defense? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are there rules for total defense? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Leach
11-08-05, 10:20 AM I've been looking through the SRD, and I can't find any rules for fighting totally on the defensive (that is, devoting all your attention to blocking/parrying/dodging without attempting to actually attack). The closest I found were the "fighting defensively" rules that give you -4 to attacks and +2 to AC, but that's not what I'm thinking of.

To illustrate, say the party attacked a red dragon and started getting their clocks cleaned by it. They beat a hasty retreat, and the party fighter decides to cover everyone so they can escape. He plants himself between the dragon and the party, but doesn't try to attack. He just stands his ground and blocks its attacks (with weapon, shield, or whatever) and generally occupies the beast until the rest of the party is safely away.

Are there rules for this already? The easiest solution I can think of is making this "total defense" a full-round action that gives you a shield bonus to AC equal to your base attack bonus. At high levels that gets pretty powerful, but I figure it's still okay since you can't do anything else (including run away).

Thoughts?
Arindor
11-08-05, 10:26 AM Total defence gives you +4 AC but you cannot attack. That's all I remember.
DocBeard
11-08-05, 10:30 AM Yeah, the Total Defense rules are in the Combat section under Standard Actions.

It's a standard action that gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC for the round. (Or +6 if you have some number of Tumble ranks, 5 I believe). You can't attack (obviously) or make attacks of opportunity during that round.
OracleYori
11-08-05, 10:34 AM Yeah- 5 ranks in Tumble make Fighting Defensively/Total Def a bit more useful.

As does carrying around two broad blade short swords.
Plothos
11-08-05, 03:51 PM Another option is the tower shield. Even used normally, it's basically like a heavy shield with an automatic 2 points of combat expertise, only without the feat. Plus, if you're really looking to stand there safe, you can hide behind it for total cover. Only problem with this is you won't draw attacks, and the enemy will just move around and hit you from the side. (But it's a great way to block a stairway.)
DarknessEternal
11-08-05, 05:33 PM Only problem with this is you won't draw attacks, and the enemy will just move around and hit you from the side. (But it's a great way to block a stairway.)

There is no facing in D&D. If you take total cover with a tower shield, you have total cover from every direction.
jaelis
11-08-05, 06:01 PM The FAQ advises that you should reintroduce facing for Tower Shields, and has a multipage explanation of how it should work. It is kind of a pain, but I guess I agree that getting total cover period is both overpowered and too unrealistic for my taste.
DarknessEternal
11-09-05, 01:07 AM I'd just rather not deal with facing. It's not like the total cover you're getting makes you invulnerable. At the very least, all those Sunder attempts you can't defend against will make your last stand short.
Plothos
11-09-05, 03:03 AM Forcing the tower shield to pick a side for cover is not quite adding facing to D&D anyway. It just installs a temporary wall on the side of one square. That's no different from a wall of force spell or any number of other effects.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leach 11-08-05, 10:20 AM	I've been looking through the SRD, and I can't find any rules for fighting totally on the defensive (that is, devoting all your attention to blocking/parrying/dodging without attempting to actually attack). The closest I found were the "fighting defensively" rules that give you -4 to attacks and +2 to AC, but that's not what I'm thinking of. To illustrate, say the party attacked a red dragon and started getting their clocks cleaned by it. They beat a hasty retreat, and the party fighter decides to cover everyone so they can escape. He plants himself between the dragon and the party, but doesn't try to attack. He just stands his ground and blocks its attacks (with weapon, shield, or whatever) and generally occupies the beast until the rest of the party is safely away. Are there rules for this already? The easiest solution I can think of is making this "total defense" a full-round action that gives you a shield bonus to AC equal to your base attack bonus. At high levels that gets pretty powerful, but I figure it's still okay since you can't do anything else (including run away). Thoughts?
Arindor 11-08-05, 10:26 AM	Total defence gives you +4 AC but you cannot attack. That's all I remember.
DocBeard 11-08-05, 10:30 AM	Yeah, the Total Defense rules are in the Combat section under Standard Actions. It's a standard action that gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC for the round. (Or +6 if you have some number of Tumble ranks, 5 I believe). You can't attack (obviously) or make attacks of opportunity during that round.
OracleYori 11-08-05, 10:34 AM	Yeah- 5 ranks in Tumble make Fighting Defensively/Total Def a bit more useful. As does carrying around two broad blade short swords.
Plothos 11-08-05, 03:51 PM	Another option is the tower shield. Even used normally, it's basically like a heavy shield with an automatic 2 points of combat expertise, only without the feat. Plus, if you're really looking to stand there safe, you can hide behind it for total cover. Only problem with this is you won't draw attacks, and the enemy will just move around and hit you from the side. (But it's a great way to block a stairway.)
DarknessEternal 11-08-05, 05:33 PM	Only problem with this is you won't draw attacks, and the enemy will just move around and hit you from the side. (But it's a great way to block a stairway.) There is no facing in D&D. If you take total cover with a tower shield, you have total cover from every direction.
jaelis 11-08-05, 06:01 PM	The FAQ advises that you should reintroduce facing for Tower Shields, and has a multipage explanation of how it should work. It is kind of a pain, but I guess I agree that getting total cover period is both overpowered and too unrealistic for my taste.
DarknessEternal 11-09-05, 01:07 AM	I'd just rather not deal with facing. It's not like the total cover you're getting makes you invulnerable. At the very least, all those Sunder attempts you can't defend against will make your last stand short.
Plothos 11-09-05, 03:03 AM	Forcing the tower shield to pick a side for cover is not quite adding facing to D&D anyway. It just installs a temporary wall on the side of one square. That's no different from a wall of force spell or any number of other effects.