Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ferghis" data-source="post: 5143778" data-attributes="member: 40483">Well, thanks to this thread I think I can concisely state the three issues I can see with not allowing players to have their characters enter total defense before combat.1. It's incongruous that a character can use total defense in combat to be harder to hit than when s/he is not in combat.2. It's incongruous that a character cannot initiate combat whenever s/he wants if there are actions that are restricted to "combat only."3. Although I recognize the unpleasantness of allowing reasonable use of total defense or ready an action out of combat, I don't see any real consequences detrimental to game play.I couldn't tell you. My turn to apologize for misunderstanding what you said.This is what I took to mean that you were minimizing the benefit of taking total defense out of combat. Since you are not saying that, I'm left a bit confused, because it really sounds like you are saying that the situation is not so significant. I'm trying not to be snarky here. Pre-emptive apologies if I come across that way.Here I disagree: if this were allowed, I think it would much more often be monsters to use the action. But I could easily be wrong. It's already happened today. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Those PC actions seem reasonable to me. Otherwise, I'm not sure I could explain to myself (1) why we are not in combat if there is a hostile creature nearby (even if it's out of reach) and (2) why the characters wouldn't be in total defense if they were forced to wait for those attacks. Well, I would hope some of them would ready some attacks too, but that falls under the same parameter.I have to disagree, and not only because I've been subjected to considerable bruising by so-called-friends who engage in the quite combative activity encompassed by the game of punch buggy. Seriously: the character enters total defense because the player suspects a genuine hostile presence. I expect players to play reasonably, otherwise the game ends rather quickly.This is not reasonable, and would be prevented by the rule above.Define "actually aware" in a way that no-one could reasonably disagree with. Must you have sensed the invisible creature with a (penalized) perception check? What if something is moving about the air and there is no likely source of telekinesis? What if the DM says "you think you saw something strange play with the light over there, but you can't see anything out of the ordinary when you focus on that area?"Well, despite all my respect for the designers at WotC and their hard work, I would probably pin this on neglect rather than intentional design, but I don't know. As to the houserule that nerfs Total Defense, that's certainly reasonable. However, I have to admit that it would also be reasonable to simply allow the action in non-combat situations as well. Plus, it is arguably a less intrusive interpretation of the rules, since it does not contradict any of the RAW.I can't say that I buy that. I see no reason an alert, ready character cannot do the same "fluff" activity than one in combat. I don't think anyone disputes that. I certainly do not. Any player who pretended their character could do otherwise should be laughed out of the game.</blockquote>

Verification