Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Minmaximus 05-28-07, 12:00 PM	According to the players handbook, you can take a -4 to hit to get a +2 to AC. But couldn't a wizard who is never gonna attack do this all the time to get a permanant +2? Full defense is an action, but this does not say you have to take any kind of action.
cwslyclgh 05-28-07, 12:09 PM	here is what the book and SRD say about fighting defensivly. 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 for the same round. so you caqn only fight defensively in a round in which you make an attack (or a full attack).
jaelis 05-28-07, 12:45 PM	I don't think you have to literally attack, but you do need to use a standard action even if you don't. So you can't cast a standard action spell and also fight defensively.
farfairer 05-28-07, 12:51 PM	Um... no. You need to be attacking and the bonus only lasts until the start of your next action. Fighting defensivly is part of an attack action.
Pentar 05-28-07, 12:53 PM	I don't think you have to literally attack, but you do need to use a standard action even if you don't. So you can't cast a standard action spell and also fight defensively. If you're not going to attack and you want to be defensive, why not just go Full Defense? I think cwsqwe12daslkjd2o3i;asdfsadjfasdlf is correct; you need to be attacking to gain the benefit.
risner 05-28-07, 12:55 PM	According to the players handbook, you can take a -4 to hit to get a +2 to AC. But couldn't a wizard who is never gonna attack do this all the time to get a permanant +2? Full defense is an action, but this does not say you have to take any kind of action. Sure, if he threatens someone and makes an attack on them this round, he can gain the AC from fighting defensively.
jaelis 05-28-07, 01:02 PM	If you're not going to attack and you want to be defensive, why not just go Full Defense? So that you can combine it with Combat Expertise, but that is a whole other can of worms. Some people say that you can can't use combat expertise unless you are literally in melee combat... others point out that when fighting an invisible opponent, (a) you could be in melee and not realize it and (b) you might think you were in melee when you weren't. So unless you want CE to serve as a unbeatable "invisibile opponent detector," it makes more sense to rule that you can use CE by taking a standard action to make a melee attack, even if there are no opponents nearby. The same logic applies to Fighting Defensively. So OK, you could say you technically need to make an attack against a nearby empty square. But if you're going to allow that, why bother rolling the dice... just say your using a standard action to get the bonus and be done with it.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 01:14 PM	So OK, you could say you technically need to make an attack against a nearby empty square. But if you're going to allow that, why bother rolling the dice... just say your using a standard action to get the bonus and be done with it. I attack the darkness! :D
Fallenangel359 05-28-07, 01:21 PM	There is nothing in the rules that says you can't attack the air using your eyelids. There, I did an attack action against the air. I can use defensive fighting. You don't need an opponent to fight defensively.
cwslyclgh 05-28-07, 01:37 PM	There is nothing in the rules that says you can't attack the air using your eyelids. There, I did an attack action against the air. I can use defensive fighting. You don't need an opponent to fight defensively. and wasted your standard action for the round attacking the air with your eyelids :rolleyes: (well your eyelid actualy, to get multiple attacks in the round--using both eyelids--you need to take a full attack action).
Ralp 05-28-07, 01:39 PM	There is nothing in the rules that says you can't attack the air using your eyelids. There, I did an attack action against the air. I can use defensive fighting. You don't need an opponent to fight defensively. That's fine, but that's your standard action for your turn.
Knightblde 05-28-07, 02:48 PM	So then it would be reasonable to say: Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensivly (together or seperate) can be used as a standard action, or as part of an attack action. That should fit the feel of the game, and work as far as the rules are understood. Happy Gaming
jaelis 05-28-07, 02:59 PM	and wasted your standard action for the round attacking the air with your eyelids :rolleyes: But you also get a +7 AC bonus, instead of the +4 you would have gotten with total defense. And you can still make attacks of opportunity (though at a -9 penalty). It's a reasonable thing to do if you have CE.
Pentar 05-28-07, 04:49 PM	So that you can combine it with Combat Expertise, but that is a whole other can of worms. Some people say that you can can't use combat expertise unless you are literally in melee combat... others point out that when fighting an invisible opponent, (a) you could be in melee and not realize it and (b) you might think you were in melee when you weren't. So unless you want CE to serve as a unbeatable "invisibile opponent detector," it makes more sense to rule that you can use CE by taking a standard action to make a melee attack, even if there are no opponents nearby. The same logic applies to Fighting Defensively. Uhm, don't you lose your Dodge benefit to AC when fighting Invisible opponents? I thought you lose Dodge any time you would normally lose your DEX bonus... So the entire point is moot? So OK, you could say you technically need to make an attack against a nearby empty square. But if you're going to allow that, why bother rolling the dice... just say your using a standard action to get the bonus and be done with it. I think that's cheesy and I would disallow it. I think I'd classify that you'd have to make an attack against something that can threaten you in return. I.e. Attacking a Chair does not allow you to fight defensively. ... Unless the chair was animated and actually attacking you :)
Metafictional 05-28-07, 04:55 PM	Still a nice option when delivering a touch spell though, since touch AC is usually a joke.
jaelis 05-28-07, 04:58 PM	Uhm, don't you lose your Dodge benefit to AC when fighting Invisible opponents? I thought you lose Dodge any time you would normally lose your DEX bonus... So the entire point is moot? It's really supposed to be more of a thought experiment to see what makes sense. If it bugs you, let's say that I have the blindfight feat :) I think that's cheesy and I would disallow it. I think I'd classify that you'd have to make an attack against something that can threaten you in return. I.e. Attacking a Chair does not allow you to fight defensively. So if you have reach on your opponent, you can't fight defensively against him? I don't know about that. But you're right, given that you anyway lose your dodge bonuses vs opponents that you aren't aware of, it probably rarely makes a difference. Here's a case were it would make a difference: I'm fighting a monster with reach that also has a fire-shield ability, where you take damage every time you attack. I'm hurting and want to get away, but I'll provoke an AoO. By your rule, I would have to attack the creature and risk the fire damage in order to activate my CE+fighting defensively bonus, otherwise I'd be limited to total defense. My own feeling is that it doesn't make much sense that your AC is higher if you actually make an attack than if you don't.
Pentar 05-28-07, 05:08 PM	It's really supposed to be more of a thought experiment to see what makes sense. If it bugs you, let's say that I have the blindfight feat :) Well if you have Blind-Fighting, then I'd say you're not "unaware" of an invisible attacker and if you want to fight Defensively / CE, then go ahead ... so long as you're attempting a melee attack doing so ;) Here's a case were it would make a difference: you're fighting a monster with reach that also has a fire-shield ability, where you take damage every time you attack. I'm hurting and want to get away, but I'll provoke an AoO. By your rule, I would have to attack the creature and risk the fire damage in order to activate my CE+fighting defensively bonus, otherwise I'd be limited to total defense. My own feeling is that it doesn't make much sense that your AC is higher if you actually make an attack than if you don't. I don't disagree with that though; getting out of combat isn't an easy thing - if the player's goal was to escape, then they should take a Full-round Total Defensive action made a free 5' step back. If the monster doesn't follow, then they can Withdraw afterwards. The player isn't limited to just CE/Fighting Defensively. Tumbling, spells, magical items, etc. are all viable options. Just because CE/Defensive Fighting doesn't work, doesn't mean they're screwed ;) I think part of the idea of Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively, is that you're still making an attack that forces your opponent to keep its distance and realize you're still in the fight. Basically, the only reason you gain the bonus to AC is because you're driving your opponent back with a "defensive" attack. Like in fencing - you make an attack to force your opponent away, as opposed to really expecting to score a hit.
jaelis 05-28-07, 05:30 PM	Well if you have Blind-Fighting, then I'd say you're not "unaware" of an invisible attacker and if you want to fight Defensively / CE, then go ahead ... so long as you're attempting a melee attack doing so ;) That's not true. Blind-fight doesn't make you any more aware of an invisible opponent than anyone else. I don't disagree with that though; getting out of combat isn't an easy thing - if the player's goal was to escape, then they should take a Full-round Total Defensive action made a free 5' step back. If the monster doesn't follow, then they can Withdraw afterwards. But again you're penalizing the character for not attacking, since if they used CE they would get a better AC. If you feel that's all part of "the best defense is a good offense" nature of combat, that is fine by me... it's a fair interpretation. The only technically problematic part of your ruling is the blind-fighting character above, who now can automatically determine if an invisible opponent is within reach by checking to see if he can fight defensively or not :)
Pentar 05-28-07, 05:51 PM	That's not true. Blind-fight doesn't make you any more aware of an invisible opponent than anyone else. Actually, it sort of does... Because you're not suffering the same penalties as a defender who is completely unaware of an invisible attacker. So I'd say you are partially aware. Perhaps you cannot pinpoint a square to attack, but you do not suffer the full penalties of being unaware. of course I don't think it would still justify allowing a Blind-fighter to make a CE / Fight Defensive move. Perhaps a good way to rule it is: "only usable when aware of an active threat and likewise able to threaten in return." But again you're penalizing the character for not attacking, since if they used CE they would get a better AC. I'm comfortable with that. :) I feel CE is a combat technique that requires you to make an attack to gain the defensive bonus. Why should a player gain all the benefits of an ability without having to meet the pre-requisites of the activity? If you feel that's all part of "the best defense is a good offense" nature of combat, that is fine by me... it's a fair interpretation. The only technically problematic part of your ruling is the blind-fighting character above, who now can automatically determine if an invisible opponent is within reach by checking to see if he can fight defensively or not :) I think that's a technicality.. you might be able to fool a computer game with that kind of logic, but no DM worth his weight in bird droppings would allow that type of "invisibility sensor". Although this brings up an interesting list of scenarios... Hmmm, let's see: 1) The Defender with Blind-Fighting assumes he engaged in melee against an invisible opponent attempts CE. He misses his attack, but gains the Dodge AC benefit. Since he has Blind-Fighting, he keeps his AC benefit when the Invisible attacker strikes. 2) The Defender without Blind-Fighting assumes he is engaged in melee against an invisible opponent and attempts CE. He misses his attack, but gains the Dodge AC benefit. Since he is without Blind-Fighting, the Dodge AC is negated by the invisible attacker and thus the Defender gains no direct benefit against that particular foe. Against other attackers (from range or from reach) he retains his Dodge benefit. This is basically like attacking the air to get the benefit, regardless of whether an invisible attacker exists or not. 3) The Defender with Blind-Fighting is not allowed to make a CE since he is not actively aware of threatening anyone who is threatening him in return (since you cannot threaten that which you are not aware of; i.e. cannot make AoOs on them). The Defender is attacked by an invisible foe. He retains his normal DEX bonus and Dodge benefit normally, but was not allowed to make a CE action. Analyzing the scenarios, I'd say that I'm completely comfortable with Scenario 3, where the Defender, even with Blind-Fighting and CE, cannot give himself an AC benefit.
jaelis 05-28-07, 06:09 PM	So basically, you would rule that to get either benefit, you need to make an attack against an opponent you are aware of. That's probably the sensible way to do it to get the effect you're after. But there remain issues. What if I try to attack an illusion... would my AC bonus apply against the real opponent? And fighting defensively works with ranged combat too. You would impose the same rule there? So shooting an arrow at a distant opponent gives me an AC bonus against a nearby opponent. Can you give a nice justification for that?
Pentar 05-28-07, 06:17 PM	So basically, you would rule that to get either benefit, you need to make an attack against an opponent you are aware of. That's probably the sensible way to do it to get the effect you're after. I think so :) But there remain issues. What if I try to attack an illusion... would my AC bonus apply against the real opponent? I would say so, yes. The idea is that your fighting stance/combat style is affected by the fact that you're attacking to achieve your defense benefit. If you think the illusion is real and thus, a real threat, then by all means. But if you KNOW it's an illusion, then no. You can't really threaten something you know is not a threat in return; else we're back to the old "attacking the chair" routine. And fighting defensively works with ranged combat too. You would impose the same rule there? So shooting an arrow at a distant opponent gives me an AC bonus against a nearby opponent. Can you give a nice justification for that? Very simple: As per my previous suggested ruling, you can only fight defensively or use combat expertise if you are threatening an opponent. Because you do not threaten any squares while using a ranged weapon, you technically do not meet the criteria to fight defensively or use CE. Ergo, you can't do it. :) As a note, Combat Expertise explicitly states that it only works for melee combat, so Ranged combat need not apply. Although in the SRD, Fighting Defensively does not indicate melee or ranged. But if we extrapolate that you can only use a FEAT in melee, then the standard action cannot be better than a feat itself... so one can draw that you can only fight defensively while attacking in melee, and not at ranged.
jaelis 05-28-07, 10:25 PM	Well, I'd say that restriction leaves the realm of interpretation and enters the realm of house rules, but it is indeed consistent with your take on it. Game on!
Pentar 05-30-07, 11:28 AM	Well, I'd say that restriction leaves the realm of interpretation and enters the realm of house rules, but it is indeed consistent with your take on it. Game on! I decided to do some digging around in the actual PHB to confirm my thoughts on this, since the SRD can be lacking some crucial wording at times. I found some more evidence to backup my stance on this :) - Fighting Defensively is a Standard action: According to the PHB, fighting defensively takes up a Standard action. Back to the OP's point, a Mage could not Fight Defensively and cast a spell at the same time since both would require a standard action (unless the spell being cast is a Swift action, at which point, see below). - Fighting Defensively REQUIRES an attack or full attack declaration: This was found in a rather peculiar place... The Total Defense description. Under Total Defense, it explicitly states that when declaring a Fighting Defensively action, it has to be done in conjunction with an Attack or Full-Attack action. - Total Defense is a Standard action: For some reason, I had thought Total Defense was a Full-Round action. It is a Standard action. In your example where the character is trying to Withdraw from combat against an opponent with reach and a Fire Shield, they could do a Total Defense declaration and then make a Move action to leave combat. They would still take AoOs, but still gain a +4 Dodge AC bonus. In addition, this would stay with Mobility, if they possessed it. Extrapolations: Since you have to declare an attack while fighting defensively and because it is a Standard action, it completely precludes the ability for a Mage to do this while casting a spell. However, it does not explicitly state "melee" attacks, so technically you could fight defensively with a ranged weapon, so long as you are declaring to attack with that ranged weapon... And so yes, a ranged attacker threatened by a melee opponent, could shoot defensively and gain the AC bonus against all attacks. Reconsidering my original stance on this, this does make sense... you're simply ducking and weaving more, but still making an attack while doing so. Of course, this does not negate the AoO you would suffer for making a ranged attack while threatened in melee. A mage who casts a Swift spell and then makes a Melee attack defensive, can gain the full benefit for the AC. Of course, they still need to make an attack declaration which means they need to either make a ranged attack, or threaten someone in melee. I would say that this includes casting a Quickened Scorching Ray and then firing it "Defensively" to gain an AC benefit. However, they could not cast Scorching Ray "defensively" to gain the AC benefit and still make their attack. Only the standard rules of Casting Defensively to avoid the AoO would apply.
jaelis 05-30-07, 11:41 AM	Reconsidering my original stance on this, this does make sense... you're simply ducking and weaving more, but still making an attack while doing so. Of course, this does not negate the AoO you would suffer for making a ranged attack while threatened in melee. My point is that why should making a ranged attack against an opponent you see allow you to duck and weave any better than shooting a tree, a potential invisible opponent, or the air?
Pentar 05-30-07, 12:00 PM	My point is that why should making a ranged attack against an opponent you see allow you to duck and weave any better than shooting a tree, a potential invisible opponent, or the air? Given this, it doesn't. But since you have to make an attack declaration to fight defensively, I suppose you could attack the air, a tree or a chair and still get the benefit of fighting defensively. The question is, why would you? Why waste a standard action, or even a full-attack action to attack "air" to gain a +2 AC dodge bonus when you could spend the same standard action and go Total Defense and get a +4 AC bonus. You're not attacking anything anyways, so why sacrifice the extra +2 dodge? Back to the invisible opponent, this negates the issue of using Combat Expertise as a Invisibility detector, because now you can attack the air to get an AC bonus. So it doesn't trigger any conditions that says, "Ah ha, I am being threatened by something since I can suddenly fight Defensively..."
Knightblde 05-30-07, 02:44 PM	You almost had me. I just keep getting stuck on one thing. There is no reason you should have to attack for Combat Expertise to work. None. If you only gained the AC against foes that you attacked, kinda like you choose for the Dodge feat, I would agree with you. I can only assume (and I have nothing to back this up) that the rules state as an attack action because they want to make sure you take the penalties AND to make sure that you do not do anything else that round, like cast a spell. I mean, you can use Combat Expertise and Trip or Grapple for crying out loud! I would have to rule for my games that you can use Combat Expertise or Fighting Defensivly as a standard action, or as part of an attack action. It is the only thing that makes any sense to me. Happy Gaming!
Pentar 05-30-07, 04:29 PM	You almost had me. I just keep getting stuck on one thing. There is no reason you should have to attack for Combat Expertise to work. None. If you only gained the AC against foes that you attacked, kinda like you choose for the Dodge feat, I would agree with you. Well... according to the SRD for Combat Expertise: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as –5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Emphasis mine. It explicitly spells out that you need to make an attack or full-attack action to benefit from Combat Expertise. So if you are arguing thematically that you should not have to, then I can't say anything. But by RAW, it can't be any clearer than what is quoted above. I will also note, in the text of Combat Expertise... Normal: A character without the Combat Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class. It even spells out how Fighting Defensively works - and it states explicitly there that you have to use an attack or full-attack action. As a side note; I know I read in the PhB that the bonuses for Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise do in fact stack. So you can do both in the same action. However, you still cannot use Combat Expertise to cast a spell :)
Matthew77 05-30-07, 04:41 PM	It explicitly spells out that you need to make an attack or full-attack action to benefit from Combat Expertise. Sure, but remember that you can attack into a square, as per the rules for concealment. "you can attack into a square that you think he occupies." So if you really wanted to burn a standard action to get an AC bonus from CE or fighting defensively, you could just make an attack into an adjacent empty square.
Pentar 05-30-07, 04:52 PM	Sure, but remember that you can attack into a square, as per the rules for concealment. "you can attack into a square that you think he occupies." So if you really wanted to burn a standard action to get an AC bonus from CE or fighting defensively, you could just make an attack into an adjacent empty square. Yes, this has already been covered. So long as you are attacking, you can gain the benefit. So Fighting Defensive + Combat Expertise is > Total Defense. But the OP's question was whether or not you can use Combat Expertise as a "free" action and cast a spell with the Standard action to gain the AC benefit. Clearly, you cannot.
jaelis 05-30-07, 06:28 PM	The question is, why would you? I can think of at least two reasons: To trigger the CE bonus, or so that you can still take an AoO that turn. Only the first is terribly likely to come up, but if you have CE, that could be pretty often.